UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The committeemen of Norfolk and Bedfordshire, 1642-1660 Martin, William Stanley 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1976_A8 M37.pdf [ 14.28MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0093802.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093802-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093802-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093802-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093802-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093802-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093802-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE COMMITTEEMEN OF NORFOLK AND BEDFORDSHIRE 1642-1660 by TOLL IAM STANLEY MARTIN B.A., University of Cambridge, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in ... The Department of HISTORY We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April 1976 (c) William Stanley Martin, 1976 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree l y ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th i s thes i s f o r f i nanc i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wr i t ten permission. Department of History The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date 29 April 1976 - i i -ABSTRACT This study of Norfolk and Bedfordshire in the c i v i l war and Interregnum was based on an analysis of the membership of the various committees appointed for the counties between December 1642 and March 1 6 6 0 . The members of the committees were divided into groups for analysis according to the dates of their first and last appointments. The gentry of Norfolk and Bedfordshire, which were both Parliamentarian counties, f i l l e d the committees of the 1 6 4 0 s , as they had the commissions of the peace in the 1 6 3 0 s . After the execution of the King in January'' 1 6 4 9 , the membership of the Bedfordshire committees was drastically changed by the loss of almost a l l the gentry members, while the Norfolk committees remained largely unchanged until I65I-I652. The difference between the counties was traced to the displacement of the secluded MPs- from the committees; the probably voluntary withdrawal of the Bedfordshire gentry; the weaker and more fluid gentry community and the greater penetration of radical political and religious ideas in Bedfordshire. Throughout the 1 6 5 0 s , Bedfordshire was administered by people new to county office, of lower social rank and more radical opinions than their gentry predecessors• Similar new people became important in Norfolk after I65I, but they did not replace the gentry, who retained their role and influence. In late 1659 and early 1 6 6 0 , the gentry in both counties returned to sole control of local government, dis-placing the new officials of the 1 6 5 0 s . A similar pattern in the type of committeemen was observed in both counties: the committeemen appointed before 1649 and in 1 6 6 0 were of the same social rank as those holding county office before 1 6 4 0 , but the committeemen appointed for the first time I649-I656 were of markedly lower social origins. It was noted that in Bedfordshire, and to - i i i -a much lesser extent in Norfolk, these new officials of the 1650s proved a viable alternative administration to the traditional gentry elite. - iv -CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT . . i i LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ',' ; .' v ABBREVIATIONS v i CHAPTER = 1. THE COMMITTEES AND THEIR MEMBERSHIP 1 2. THE ORIGINAL COMMITTEEMEN, 1642-1648 20 :. 3. THE CHANGE IN MEMBERSHIP, l649"l652 72 4. THE FAILURE OF THE RADICAL EXPERIMENTS, I653-I658 I l l 5. THE RESTORATION OF TRADITIONAL RULE, I659-I66O 136 CONCLUSION 148 BIBLIOGRAPHY 154 APPENDTX 1. Committee Lists • • . • • 1 164 2. The Service of Committeemen 1642-1660 166 3. Committeemen: Entries and Exits 178 4. Groups I - IX: Biographical Data 182 - v -LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Page TABLES Chapter 1: I Groups I - EE 13 Chapter 2: II Status of pre-1649 committeemen 39 III Wealth of pre-1649 committeemen • • 39 Chapter 3 : TV The progression from sheriff to mayor in Norwich . . . . . 92 V Status of committeemen appointed 1649-1656 . . . . . . . . 97 VI Wealth of committeemen appointed l649_l656 . • 98 Appendix 2: VII The service of Norfolk committeemen, 1642-1660 , , , , , 166 VIII The service of Norwich committeemen, 1642-1660 172 EC The service of Bedfordshire committeemen, 1642-1660 . , 174 Appendix 3 s X Norfolk committeemen: entries and exits . . . . . . . . 179 XI Norwich committeemen: entries and exits 180 XII Bedfordshire committeemen: entries and exits 181 Appendix 4: XIII Groups I-EE, Norfolk: "biographical data 187 XIV Groups I-EE, Norwich: biographical data 188 XV Groups I-EE, Bedfordshire: biographical data 189 FIGURE I The size of assessment committees, 1642-1660 36 NOTE Spelling and punctuation have been modernized, and abbreviations extended, in quotations from contemporary sources. Dates are given in the Old Style, except that the year is taken as beginning 1 January not 25 March. - y i -ABBREVIATIONS API P'.H. Firth and R. S. Rait, eds., Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum BHRS Bedfordshire Historical Records Society Blomefield F. Blomefield, An Essay Towards a Topographical History of "Norfolk BNQ Bedfordshire Notes and Queries CJ Journals of the House of Commons CSPD Calendar of State Papers. Domestic DNB Dictionary of National Biography EcHR Economic History Review EHR English Historical Review HMC Historical Manuscripts Commission LJ Journals of the House of Lords Luke H. G. Tibbutt, ed., The Letter Books of Sir Samuel Luke, NA Norfolk Archaeology NRS Norfolk Record Society TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Society TSP T. Birch, ed., Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe Venn J. Venn and J. A. Venn, eds., Alumni Cantabrigienses VCH Victoria County History - 1 -CHAPTER ONE THE COMMITTEES AND THEIR MEMBERSHIP No English government in the seventeenth century could have afforded to pay, or would have "been able to supervise effectively, an army of local bureaucrats to administer the laws and execute London's directives in the counties and towns. Such a system would have been in any case at odds with the hierarchical nature of spciety, in which deference was given to the natural superiors in each locality. The seventeenth century's solution was to induce the aristocracy and the gentry to administer their districts them-selves, as an obligation of their rank, repaying them with prestige and power. The structure of offices, described many times, need only be summarized here."'" The county was the basic unit of local administration. Each county had a lord lieutenant, though often two or more counties shared one appointee, who would generally be one of the great peers of the realm, and a member of the Privy Council. He was responsible for the military defence of the county and also, in the last resort, for preserving its internal peace. He was in theory a major link between local and central government, but he was commonly absent from his county for so much of the time that this did not happen in practice, and most of his duties devolved on the deputy lieutenants, who were 3 generally prominent local gentlemen. They organized the county into its muster divisions, and supervised the raising of the trained bands and the much less reliable pressed levies. The justices of the peace, the workhorses of the whole system, carried out the bulk of the general c i v i l and legal duties, and were the Council's most useful agents in the counties. The commission of the peace as a whole met four times a year at the Quarter Sessions, but these - 2 -were not meant to last longer than three days, and normally only met for two, so most of the work had to be done by one or two justices together at monthly divisional meetings. The sheriff, the third of the major county officials, had lost much of his earlier importance, but could s t i l l be very influential at election time. The shrievalty underwent an unwelcome resurgence of power in the 1630s when the sheriff, as the collector of the Crown's traditional revenues, was made responsible for assessing and collecting ship money.^  The yeomen f i l l e d some of the lesser county offices. Each hundred had its high constable, and each village its petty constable, who bore many of the day-to-day 7 responsibilities for administering the laws. The major offices, deputy lieutenant, sheriff and justice of the peace -the level of county government with which this study is concerned - were the preserve of the county gentry, or, more precisely, of a magisterial class within the gentry class itself. The membership of the commission of the peace was customarily restricted to those gentlemen who could write 'esquire' after their names, so that the minor or parish gentry, those who could only style themselves 'gentleman', were normally excluded from the commission. Social rank and local office were thus directly related. The justice of most senior rank would normally be named the custos rotulorum, and would chair the sessions, i f he attended. The most prominent among the gentry could expect to be deputy lieutenants and justices of the quorum. The members of the commissions of the peace were listed in order of seniority. One's position in local government was therefore an expression of one's place in the county hierarchy, and the local gentlemen brought what pressure they could on London to be made deputy lieutenants and justices. Appointment to office meant both confirmation and enhancement of one's position, while loss of office often meant a real loss of prestige and power. The gentry of each - 3 -county were intensely interested in a l l appointments, wanting to ensure that no one unsuitable should become a justice, and resenting the exclusion of anyone who was qualified."'""'" Any attempt by the central government to change the personnel of local government would have been seen as a challenge to the county hierarchy, an attempt to subvert i t . The one exception here was the expensive and burdensome office of sheriff, which most gentlemen tried to avoid i f possible, while the government, for its part, was satisfied so long 12 as some member of the magisterial class took i t on. The appointments to county office were made by the government in London. The sheriffs were chosen annually by the King himself, who made his selection from a l i s t giving three names for each county, prepared by the Privy Council 13 and the judges of the central courts. The appointment of justices of the peace was in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who added new names on the recommendation of the assize judges, the Privy Council, the lord lieutenant, or the sitting justices. The initiative would be most likely to come from the great gentlemen of a county, and new justices could normally only expect 14 to be appointed i f they were sponsored by one of the local magnates. Most of the choices were automatic, but local factions sometimes influenced the lists."'""' Before the Civil ¥ar, national policy was only rarely the basis for dismissals from the commission, and such exclusions as did take place were only temporary.Most justices, once appointed, served for l i f e . A new commission was issued each time there was a change in membership, but the poor communications with London, and the vagaries of the c i v i l service, often resulted in garbled or inaccurate l i s t s . On one occasion, the Norfolk justices had to inform the Council that out of the six JPs to whom letters for two of the county divisions had been addressed, two were dead and three had been 17 out of the commission for some years. Much of the effective administration took place i n the hundreds or other d i v i s i o n s of the county. The larger counties, Norfolk among them, held Quarter Sessions for two or more di v i s i o n s of the county. For m i l i t a r y purposes, a muster commission of JPs, not necessarily including any deputy 18 lieutenants, met for each of the muster di v i s i o n s . Much of the routine l e g a l and administrative work was delegated to the petty sessions, which would meet f o r s e m i - o f f i c i a l groupings of two to f i v e hundreds. These d i v i s i o n a l meetings, while originating i n the sixteenth century, were given a new emphasis i n the Book of Orders of l6jl, which required JPs to meet i n groups monthly and to make quarterly reports. The addition of new j u s t i c e s was often determined "by the need to have two active JPs i n each d i v i s i o n . O f f i c i a l s were expected to have a special influence i n , and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y -19 for, t h e i r own neighbourhoods. The town administrations i n the seventeenth century varied greatly i n the number of o f f i c i a l s and the manner of t h e i r choosing, but most towns were governed by a mayor and aldermen, together with a common council. The most senior aldermen would commonly also be just i c e s . Unlike the counties, the towns chose t h e i r own o f f i c i a l s , and these would be l o c a l businessmen, rather than county gentlemen. The many inadequacies of t h i s system of l o c a l government became increasingly apparent i n the 1630s, as Charles I's active home and foreign p o l i c i e s put greater burdens on the county o f f i c i a l s . The system could not work i f the d i f f e r e n t o f f i c e r s would not cooperate, and the unpopularity of ship money brought many s h e r i f f s the open h o s t i l i t y of the justice s , 20 constables and even t h e i r own under-sheriffs. The fundamental problem was that Charles expected an unprecendented l e v e l of intense, prolonged a c t i v i t y from his l o c a l o f f i c i a l s , a demand which proved to be i n the end u n r e a l i s t i c . - 5 -Unremitting central pressure brought local resistance, and after 1635 many gentlemen were reluctant to serve as justices, and in 1637 the government, for almost the first time, began to purge the commissions of some of its political opponents. The failure finally came in l639~l640, when the demands of the Scottish war brought disorder and then standstill to local government, and Charles found that the local officials would neither collect ship money 21 nor raise an effective army. The experiences of the Scottish war must have been vivid in the minds of the members of the Long Parliament as they prepared to fight a c i v i l war against Charles. It was very soon apparent that the old system was not capable of raising sufficient money and troops, or of controlling the counties efficiently enough. Other administrative possibilities had already been suggested by the use of county commissioners by Charles I in the 1630s and 22 by the Long Parliament in 1640-1642. Parliament therefore developed rather hesitantly in 1642-1643 a system of committees, superimposed on the old offices of local government, which were to carry out the special war 23 functions in each county. The core of this extemporized system was what contemporaries and historians have referred to as the 'county committee', though this was more a series of committees with identical memberships but 24 different functions, rather than formally one committee. Jurisdiction between the different bodies was no more precisely delineated than i t had 25 ever been in local government. In some counties, there was only one committee, which simply absorbed the functions of the other committees as they were named, while in other counties the different committees maintained 26 a separate existence. In the early years of the c i v i l war, a person added to one committee was automatically added to the other committees of similar 1 1 27 membership, and was known as a 'committeeman for Norfolk', for example. The 'county committee' soon came to have a defined identity of its own, and took over the deputy lieutenants' military role, as well as many miscellaneous 28 functions. Sequestration committees were named to manage the estates of 29 Royalists. Revenue was also raised by county committees. After some 30 in i t i a l experimentation, this was done through weekly or monthly assessments. In addition to these committees, which were- effectively just the various incarnations of the county committee, a number of separate bodies were named. 31 The Committees for Scandalous Ministers dealt with unsatisfactory incumbents. In 1645, accounts commissioners, who were not members of any other county committees, were appointed to audit the revenue and expenditures of the other 32 committees. Many counties also had representatives on the intercounty 33 committees, such as that for the Eastern Association. ^ The committees were found useful even after the end of the fighting, and though the system was greatly altered after 1649» extensive use was s t i l l made of specialized 34 committees. The committees were normally named directly by the central government, by Parliament or the Council, except in the few cases where such agents as 35 the Earl of Manchester were empowered to nominate certain commissioners. Committeemen were normally recommended by the MPs from their county, and a l i s t of their names was often printed with the Act establishing the committee.^ The old offices of local government continued their existence alongside the committees, though they lost some of their functions and, for a time, much of their importance to the committees, which became the most common 37 recipients of central directives. The county committee in particular acquired in l643_l645 great authority and status. Their prestige and power are given a kind of backhanded testimony in the ridicule showered on them by o o such Royalist propagandists as Samuel Butler, the author of Hudibrast John Cleveland, a Royalist poet who was himself later victimized by a Norfolk committee, also testified to the committee members' importance in attacking them. He called the committeeman a "parti-coloured officer", and condemned "the plurality of crowns to one head"; "he is the universal tribunal; for 39 since these times a l l causes f a l l to his cognisance." The personnel of local government was, in the seventeenth century, a sensitive indicator not just of what was happening politically, but of what was going on in county society. The many committee li s t s that have survived from 1642-1660 are a most valuable guide to county history, and to the problems that London experienced in its dealings with local government. In some ways they provide an even better guide than the commissions of the peace. Though the membership of the two groups was always quite similar, fewer people appeared on the commissions than on the committees, which normally 41 included a l l the JP's plus some extra names. Moreover, the process of appointment of justices had not changed much since the 1630s, though the commissions were now the responsibility of the Commissioners of the Great Seal rather than of the Lord Chancellor. Appointments could s t i l l occur without specific reference to the Council or to Parliament. Unlike the committees, a new commission was issued whenever a change was made. The commissions were therefore less firmly under the control of the central government, which 42 had trouble at times knowing who the justices were. The committee member-ships were clearly defined in the Acts, and readily changed when an Act was renewed, so that they responded more quickly and accurately to each change 43 of policy in London. Most of the committee li s t s which have survived are those printed in 44 the Acts of Parliament. The lists are of two types. Many of the committees -- 8 -indeed, a l l the county committees in the 1640s - had large, comprehensive memberships, intended to be representative of the ruling class of the county in the way that the commissions of the peace were. They differed from the commissions in that normally a l l the names were of county residents, and central officials were rarely included. A l l those named could be expected to serve. As on the commissions, the names were given in order of precedence: peers, baronets and knights, esquires and gentlemen, with each group arranged in order of seniority. In the li s t s for this period, one can often watch a committeeman start near the bottom of the l i s t and slowly climb towards the top as those formerly above him ceased to serve. The second type of l i s t was for the specialized committees. Their members were selected for their suitability for a specific task, not as a recognition of their place in the county hierarchy, and these much shorter lists were not necessarily 45 printed in order of seniority. The membership of the select committees is a direct guide to whom the government saw as its reliable supporters, and probably a l l their members 46 were expected to be active. Neither of these assumptions can be made about the general committees, with their memberships of sometimes a hundred or more, and i t has been suggested that the lists of their members are not very meaningful guides. Certainly, the early lists, of 1642-1643, especially 47 in disputed counties, could sometimes be unrealistic. Despite this, however, i t was decided that the entire committee lists could be usefully analysed. The successive governments in London clearly thought the entire member-ships important, revising the lists frequently and taking trouble to get 48 recommendations from the counties or from central agents. If nothing else, then, the lists are a guide as to whom the government expected or wished to - 9 cooperate. However, the degree of attention paid to the lists strongly suggests that they indicate more than this. The problem is that often less than half the committeemen are known to have been active. The committees, though very large, had very small quorums, and low attendance at their meetings."^ Some of those appointed to committees are known to have refused to serve."^ But i t would seem that just as attendance at a Quarter Sessions does not indicate the number of JPs, so the attendance at central committee meetings does not indicate the number of active committeemen. Some counties, Norfolk and Suffolk among them, operated a rota for attendance at committee 52 meetings, thus making sure that as many members as possible shared the work. Moreover, much of the work of the committees, as of the JPs, was done in the divisions of the county. Committeemen commonly had responsibility for a particular district, and in Norfolk, for example, the central committee wrote to the committeemen in each hundred asking them to take action on a central 53 decision. It was important to have active committeemen, as well as active / JPs, in each division, and some of the recruitments to the committees appear intended to redress a geographical imbalance."^- The committee business in the divisions, indeed, must have involved a l l the willing committeemen, and certainly a far higher proportion of the membership than the attendance at 55 central meetings would suggest. This study, therefore, assumes that i t is valid to analyse the complete committee memberships. There are considerable benefits in so doing. One need not attempt to distinguish between the active and non-active members. As there would be no sound way /of doing this, the attempt would mean in practice limiting the study to the more prominent committeemen, while ignoring the more obscure members, whose presence on the committees is in some ways more interesting and revealing. It is only the study of the entire - 10 -l i s t s that reveals the relationship between the appointments to local office and the size of the pool of possible recruits in each county. The justifica-tion of the approach is, in the end, that the analysis of the lists, and especially of first and last appointments, produced patterns which are explicable and meaningful in terms of national and local politics. Even a cursory reading of the successive committee lists makes i t apparent that the rate of change in their membership was far greater than that of local government in more normal times, reflecting the greater political and social tensions of these years. The county studies already published, and a comparison of lists for other counties, show that the counties had very individual histories, with great-variations in the timing and scale of changes in officeholding. A study of the committee lists for one county could, therefore, be expected to provide considerable insight into the events there, but the extension of the study to at least one more county would permit the separation of the effects of national events and of local particularities, demonstrating more exactly the relationship between the two levels of government. One major variation between counties was that some experienced a major turnover in committee membership in 16491 while others stayed relatively 56 stable. How the counties responded to the King's execution proved, indeed, to determine their course for the next decade. It was therefore decided to study Bedfordshire, as an example of a county with a dramatic change in 1649, and Norfolk, as an example of a county where the membership was stable. The contrast in the patterns of committee membership was extreme, but the similarities between the counties seemed sufficient to make a comparison possible. Both were solidly Parliamentarian and markedly Puritan, without effective Royalist parties, and outside the military action of the c i v i l war. - 11 -There was sufficient information available for each county to correlate the 57 changes in committee membership with the political history of the county. One of the advantages of extending the study to a second county was that often a question raised in connection with one county could be answered by evidence available from the other. On occasion, towns within these counties had separate committees appointed for them, usually consisting of townspeople. Bedford, Great Yarmouth, King's Lynn and Thetford a l l had such committees, but they were not appointed regularly, and so their membership has been included with the county figures. The only consistent series was for Norwich, whose membership lists are therefore considered separately. The quite different administrative structures and hierarchies of the town provide a useful contrast with the counties. The study, then, consists of an analysis of the changes in the membership of the committees appointed for Norfolk, Norwich and Bedfordshire between December 1642 and March 1660, and an attempt to account for the selection of committeemen. Such an attempt naturally involves a study of the factors at both the national and the local level which affected appointments. A l l the available membership l i s t s of committees appointed for these areas by Parliament or the Council between 1642 and 1660 were collected. The names of the members of twenty-six Norfolk, twenty Norwich, and twenty-four CD Bedfordshire committees were found. The committee series was most uneven, with much variation in the type and size of committees, and with an abundance of l i s t s for 1643 and relatively few in the middle 1650s. The main continuity came from the assessment committees - twelve of the twenty-six Norfolk committees were for the assessment - and some of the other committees were directly comparable in size and membership: the levy committees, the - 12 -sequestration committee, the militia committees, and the New Model Ordinance committee. Some of the lists were, as has been mentioned, for the small, specialized committees, especially common in the 1650s. A further variation was that l i s t s were not necessarily available for the same committees in each area. However, enough were available that i t can be assumed that we have the names of virtually everyone who served on a committee in these years, and we also have enough li s t s to be reasonably sure of when committeemen's f i r s t . and last appointments came. A total of 290 names were identified for Norfolk, 90 for Norwich, and 157 for Bedfordshire, though the substantial overlap between Norfolk and Norwich meant that only 490 different individuals were 59 involved. Since the concern was with the selection of the committee memberships, i t was decided to approach the problem of analysing a group of five hundred people by taking as a primary characteristic their length of service on the committees, defined by the dates of their first and last appointments. To do this, grids were prepared for both counties and for Norwich, showing how many committeemen made their first and last appearance on each committee. As can be seen, each committeeman appears once on the grid. It is apparent from these tables that the first and last appointments were concentrated at particular points, clearly separable from the constant wastage and renewal which were a normal feature of the committees. Sometimes these points are the same in a l l three areas, sometimes one area breaks the pattern. However, taking the three grids together, important recruitments can be isolated at the beginning of 1649» in 1652, in l657i and in l659_l660. There were also two times when a large number of people disappeared from the committees: the end of 1648, and by I656. These divisions, when superimposed on the grids, produce nine blocks or groups of committeemen, defined in the same - 13 -6 l way for each area. These nine groups are used as the "basis for an analysis of the committeemen. The method of selecting the groups has certain major advantages. The divisions are not chosen on the basis of any social, political or other characteristics of the committeemen; the only assumption behind them is that the large changes are likely to be significant. Every committeeman is Included in the study by this method, so that even the obscure or hard-to-classify are not overlooked. The method also permits direct comparisons between the counties, and between different periods. The choice of groupings is, of course, finally justified when i t is found that the changes in membership as defined by them, are significant, not random. TABLE I GROUPS I-LX I Entry before 1649; exit before 1649 II Entry before 1649; exit 1649-1656 III Entry before 1649; exit 1657-1660 IV Entry 1649-1651 exit 1649-1656 V Entry 1649-1651 exit 1657-1660 VI Entry I652-I656 exit 1652-1656 VII Entry I652-I656 exit 1657-1660 VIII Entry 1657-1658 exit 1657-1660 IX Entry 1659-1660 exit 1659-1660 ('Entry' equals 'first appointment', 'exit' equals 'last appointment'.) Source: app. J. The groups are shown in red on the grids. - 14-There is, of course, a restriction to this method, in that i t would he possible to subdivide the groups according to the minor recruitments and disappearances, such as those apparent in 1645 and 1659* Such extra divisions, however, are not adopted. Even the addition of the two suggested would produce seventeen rather than nine groups. It was decided that the confusion this would introduce outweighed the risk of missing a significant change in membership. In practice, the risk can be reduced by checking whether an additional grouping would have made a major change in the conclusions of the study. The minor differences they show up are, in fact, described in the text in the relevant sections below• Once the groups have been defined, the character of their membership can be analysed, as far as the available evidence permits, to build up a general picture of the social status, wealth, education, and so on, of the 62 committeemen appointed in each period. This serves the dual function of defining exactly what was happening, and providing some of the evidence for its explanation. Some of the answers are to be found in the policies of Parliament or the Council; others in the counties themselves, in their political and social structures, in their economic lives, in the committee system itself. The answers, of course, vary within the period, and so the question of selection has been considered in relation to four stages: the period of the i n i t i a l recruitment, from 1642 to 1648; the first great change in membership, in 1649 to 1652; the continuing instability and experiments of 1653 to 1658; and the reversion to the traditional patterns, in 1659 to March 1660. - 15 -Notes to Chapter 1 1 A recent summary, with special reference to the 1630s, is L. M. H i l l , "County Government in Caroline England 1625-1640", in C. Russell, ed., The Origins of the English Civil War (London, 1973), PP. 66-90. Also useful: Iff, Notestein, The English People  on the Eve of Colonization 1603-1630 (New York, 1954); and two studies of particular areas, T. G. Barnes, Somerset 1625-1640 (Cambridge, Mass., 196l), and J. Hurstfield, "County Government: Wiltshire c.l530 -c.l660", reprinted in his Freedom, Corruption  and Government in Elizabethan England (London, 1973)> PP« 236-93« 2 Barnes, pp. 99-102; Hurstfield, pp. 237~50; H i l l , pp. 70-72. 3 Hurstfield (p. 285) and Barnes (pp. 101-102) give opposing views on the lord lieutenant's role as a link between London and the counties. 4 Barnes, pp. 102-23; Hurstfield, pp. 239-41. 5 J. H. Gleason, The Justices of the Peace in England, 1558 to 1640 (Oxford, 1969); Barnes, pp. 40-97; Hurstfield, pp. 250-81; Notestein, pp..211-27; H i l l , pp. 67-70. 6 C. H. Karraker, The Seventeenth-Century Sheriff (Chapel H i l l , 1930), pp. 3-62; Barries, pp. 124-42; Notestein, pp. 202-10; H i l l , pp. 72-74. 7 Hurstfield, pp. 281-83; Notestein, pp. 228-39. 8 Gleason, pp.46, 66-67. 9 Hurstfield, p. 254. 10 Barnes, p. 104. 11 Gleason, pp. 66-67• 12 Karraker, pp. 8-9; Barnes, pp. 131-32-13 Karraker, p. 7» 14 Gleason, pp. 47-48, 57~67; Barnes, pp. 42-46; H i l l , pp. 67-68. 15 Gleason, pp. 58-60; Barnes, pp. 44-45. Barnes (p. 39) says of the Somerset justices under Charles I: "His Majesty's commission could have been given to few others in the shire. By reason of their back-ground and the landed wealth i t .afforded them they alone possessed the social distinction which made them the natural rulers of their society." Gleason similarly comments that "in practice the Chancellor did not have much discretion, at least where major members of the gentry were involved"; "there was no alternative administration" (pp. 66-67). - 16 -Notes to Chapter 1 16 Gleason, pp. 81-82. 17 CSPD. 1636-1637. p. 486. 18 Barnes, p. 122; Hurstfield, pp. 241, 246. 19 Gleason, pp. 21-22; Barnes, pp. 44-45, 80, 198-201; Hurstfieia, pp. 250-52, 261-62, 271-74; H i l l , pp. 70, 80-81. Hurstfield (p. 25l) comments that "for many purposes the division was more significant than the shire." 20 The Wiltshire JPs refused in 1635 to help the sheriff collect ship money (Hurstfield, p. 278). The sheriff of Lincoln complained to the Council in December 1637 that he could not operate "without the assistance of the county ministers and my own officers, especially the under-sheriff" (CSPD, 1637-1638. p. 28). 21 Barnes, pp. 106, 143-280, 299~310; Hurstfield, pp. 249~50; H i l l , pp. 76-90. Compare the comment of Robert Ashton: "the ends of government economic policy were too ambitious in relation to the administrative means which were at the disposal of Tudor and early Stuart governments." (The Crown and"'the Money Market, 1603-1640 (Oxford, I960), p. xv). 22 Charles I appointed commissioners for the forced loan of 1626-1627, for sewers, and for charitable uses, who were usually also JPs (Barnes, pp. 144-70). The Long Parliament appointed assessment commissioners in 1640-1641 (Statutes of the Realm v. 58-75, 79-101, 145-67)• The deputy lieutenants and JPs of Suffolk had been meeting together to discuss county business since at least the 1590s Everitt, Suffolk, p. 22). 23 J. H. Hexter, The Reign of King Pym (Cambridge, Mass., 1941), pp. 18 - 21. No full-length general study of the committees has yet been published, but much work has been done on the committees of individual counties. The classic study i s A. M. Everitt, The Community  of Kent and the Great Rebellion, 1640-1660 (Leicester, 196671 Also useful: A. M. Everitt, ed., Suffolk and the Great Rebellion. Suffolk Records Society, Vol. I l l , (Ipswich, 196l); D. H. Pennington and I. A. Roots, eds., The Committee at Stafford. 1643-1645 (Manchester, 1957); A. H. Dodd, "Nerth y Committee", in his Studies in Stuart Wales (Cardiff, 1952); J. S. Morrill. Cheshire 1630-1660 (Oxford. 1974); C. Holmes, The Eastern Association in the English c i v i l war (Cambridge, 1974); D. Underdown, Somerset in the C i v i l War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973)• Underdown related national p o l i t i c s to local developments, including the committees, in Pride's Purge (Oxford, 197l) , esp. pp. 24-44, 297-335. - 17 -Notes to Chapter 1 24 The 'county committees' "became operative in the counties without being ex p l i c i t l y authorized by London, but the government, appreciating their u t i l i t y , soon began to add to their functions, and their position was clearly defined by the end of the f i r s t C i v i l War. The term i s some-times used, rather confusingly, of other committees. Everitt, for example, uses "county committee" or "the Kentish committee" to refer to the M i l i t i a Committee (in l 6 5 l ) and the decimation commissioners (Kent, pp. 276-77, 282, 293). 25 The Somerset JPs, for example, took over the work of the commissioners for charitable uses. (Barnes, p. 150). 26 The Staffordshire county committee absorbed the other committees, and the Suffolk sequestration committee was identical with the general committee. However, the Kent sequestration committee was a separate institution, and the county and assessment committees in Somerset had markedly different memberships in 1647, reflecting the local factions. In the special case of Cheshire, the assessment committee was quite distinct from the 'deputy lieutenants', not a l l appointed as such, who formed a county committee. (Pennington and Roots, Stafford, pp. xvi-xvii; Everitt, Suffolk, p. 23; Everitt, Kent, p. 131; Underdown, Somerset, p. 142; Morrill, pp. 85-87). 27 CJ i i i . 49 (April 1643). 28 The deputy lieutenants were i n i t i a l l y the main agents for military business, and such matters were referred specifically to them as late as 1644 (CJ i i i , 61-62 (April 1643), 76-77 (May), 155 (July), 216 (August); HMC, Eighth Report, App. I, p. 5 (October 1644). But business increasingly went to the county committees (CJ i i i . 276 (October 1643)5 HMC, Eighth Report. App. I, pp. 8, 10 (1645-1646))'. 29 API i . 106-17; Pennington and Roots, Stafford, pp. xxxv-xl. 3° API i . 85-100, 531-53 (assessments); LJ v. 245 (money raised upon the Propositions); API i . 145-155 (Fifths and Twentieths). 31 Clive Holmes, ed., The Suffolk Committees for Scandalous Ministers, 1644-1646, Suffolk Records Society, Vol. XIII, (Ipswich, 1970). 32 D. H. Pennington, "The Accounts of the Kingdom, 1642-49", in F. J. Fisher, ed., Essays in the Economic and Social History of Tudor  and Stuart England (Cambridge, 196l), pp. 182-203. 33 AOI i . 49-51. 242-45, 291-98. For the relations between the county committees and the Eastern Association, see Holmes, Eastern Association, esP« PP« 6 9 - H 6 . 34 See chaps. 3 and 4. - 18 -Notes to Chapter 1 35 CJ i i i . 260; Everitt, Suffolk, pp. 51-52; Holmes, Scandalous Ministers, p. 14. 36 CJ i i i . 264-65. 37 See n. 28. Everitt (Suffolk, p. 2 2 ) says: "The offices of 'committeeman' and 'deputy lieutenant' were in fact two aspects of one authority." See also Everitt (Kent, pp. 133-42) on the county committee's extension of its jurisdiction, and G. E. Aylmer on "Rule by Committee" (The State's  Servants (London, 1 9 7 3 ) , pp. 9"17)• 38 Samuel Butler, Hudibras, ed. J. Wilders (Oxford, I967). 39 John Cleveland, "The Character of a County Gommittee-Man, with the Earmark of a Sequestrator", in H. Morley, ed., Character Writings of the  Seventeenth Century (London, I 8 9 1 ) , pp. 2 9 8 - 3 0 3 . 40 Few commissions of the peace were available to this writer. 41 Cross-appointments were common, and attempts were made to ensure that a l l JPs were committeemen, but the memberships never overlapped completely, and the committees were always the larger. The Somerset commission of the peace in 1646 had a more conservative membership than the committees. (Luke, p. 49; Whitelbck, Memorials, i i i . 10; Joan Wake, ed., Quarter Sessions Records of the County of Northampton, 1630, 1657. 1657-8,Northamptonshire Records Society, Vol. I, (1924); Underdown, Somerset. p. 140. 42 CJ i i i . 344; CJ v i i . 3 1 5 ; HMC, Le Strange, p. 100; CSPD, 1649-1650, p. 262; CSPD. 1653-1654. p. 344. 43 See chap. 3> 4 4 See app. 1 . 45 E.g. the Ejectors of 1 6 5 4 ( A 0 I i i . 9 6 8 - 9 0 ) . 46 The decimation commissioners were certainly a l l expected to turn out (see chap. 4) . 47 Pennington and Roots, Stafford, pp. xvi-xvii, xxi-xxiii. See also the Norfolk additions of June 1 6 4 3 ( A 0 I i . 1 6 8 - 7 1 , and chap. 2). 48 Whitelock, Memorials, iv. 1 5 0 - 5 1 , 156-57; CJ v i i . 128, 372, 500, 694-95, 860. 49 Only 2 2 of the 54 Stafford committeemen named l643~45 are known to have been active (Pennington and Roots, Stafford, pp. xxi-xxii, 349-56). - 19 -Notes to Chapter 1 50 The Bedford assessment committee had problems in the 1640s in collecting a quorum (see chap. 2 ) . Underdown, Somerset, p. I69. 51 See chap. 3« 52 HMC, Le Strange, p. 101; Everitt, Suffolk, pp. 26-27; Underdown, Somerset. p. 126. 53 HMC, Le Strange, p. 101. In February 1643» each Norfolk hundred was allowed to choose how i t would raise forces (Holmes, Eastern  Association, p. 66). Kent had ten lathal subcommittees, Suffolk had subcommittees in each of i t s four divisions, mainly handling assessment business, Essex had subcommittees, and Cheshire had a system of hundredal committees for the sequestration (Everitt, Kent, pp. 129-131; Everitt, Suffolk, p. 23; Pennington and Roots, Stafford, p. x i i ; Morrill, pp. 86-87). 54 E.g. the July 1657 recruits in Norfolk (see chap. 4 ) . 55 S i r Samuel Luke expressed the demand and need for large committee memberships when he wrote to the Commons that "many acts of charity and justice are omitted whereby the poor people might receive satisfaction for want of a f u l l committee" (Luke, pp. 147-48; see also pp. 56-57). S i r William Boteler found himself unable to act effectively in Bedfordshire in 1644 because of the size of the committee: "We have at this time so small a committee in the county that I have no hopes of any assistance" (Luke, p. 403). 56 In Suffolk, 52 of the 6 l members of the June 1647 committee were s t i l l on the committee in I65O (Everitt, Suffolk, p, 16). 57 See bibliography. Both counties have active Records Societies. 58 See app. 1. 59 See app. 2. 60 See app. 3« 61 See Table I. 62 See app. 4. - 20 -CHAPTER TffO THE ORIGINAL COMMITTEEMEN, 1642-1648 Norfolk, the northernmost county in East Anglia, is set apart physically from its neighbours by the sea and the Fens, and developed a distinct county identity."'" Suffolk was the one county society with which Norfolk had close links. Many families owned land in both counties, intermarriage was common, and Suffolk men frequently held office in 2 Norfolk. Norfolk was self-contained but not isolated, for i t was well connected with its national and international markets, especially through its two major seaports, Yarmouth and King's Lynn, Its agriculture had become relatively specialized in response to these markets. A mixed sheep-corn husbandry utilized the light soils, the loams and sands, which extend round the northern rim of the county. The manorial lords, who usually held the fold-course rights, dominated this farming system, and were often marked out by wealth and privilege. The heavier clays of south-eastern Norfolk, a wood-pasture region, were used for beef and dairy cattle. The Fens in the west were an area of pastoral husbandry, especially summer grazing. Norfolk's prime industry, textiles, was similarly specialized. The manufacture of 'Norwich stuffs', while centred in the city, was also a domestic industry in the countryside to the north and east. The dressing and combing of wool and the weaving of flax were carried on in the wood-pasture region. Even the fishermen of the north-east coast knitted stockings 4 as a by-employment. Norfolk was s t i l l in the seventeenth century a most prosperous and densely populated area, with a population of around 200,000 in I65O. The six hundred and fi f t y towns and villages of Norfolk were seen by contemporaries as exceptional, both for their number and their size.-^ - 21 -Yarmouth and Lynn were the major towns, apart from Norwich. Thetford and Castle Rising were in decline, though they s t i l l returned burgesses to Parliament. The trade of the two ports was flourishing, and Lynn's business especially had been expanding in the early seventeenth century. Yarmouth's corporation, which elected two bailiffs rather than a mayor, was notably independent of outside influence, whether from the court, the aristocracy, or the county gentry. The king's intervention in an internal dispute between 1626 and I63O was only reluctantly accepted as the final word, and in 1640 the corporation managed to sidestep the attempts by two lords to nominate court candidates as the town's burgesses for the Short Parliament without actually returning a blunt negative.^ The county gentry, and especially the Le Strange family, had more influence in Lynn, but this 7 town, too, habitually returned its own citizens as burgesses. A county of Norfolk's size had to be subdivided for administrative purposes. The Quarter Sessions met separately for the East, West and North divisions of the county, and the justices of the peace further divided the Q county into twelve areas for their monthly meetings. A group of fifteen to twenty-five outstandingly powerful gentry families dominated county affairs and always had a place on the bench, but other gentlemen were also involved on the commission of the peace, often with a special responsibility 9 for their own area of the county. Contemporaries often assumed that the commission and the gentry class were coterminous, but this was not quite correct, even before the disruptions of the c i v i l wars. There were about 125 to 150 baronets, knights and esquires, and a further three hundred mere 'gentlemen', who were often only parochial gentry, minor figures who were frequently not even manorial lords. 1 0 The early seventeenth-century Norfolk - 22 -commissions contained about fifty-five to sixty names, and comparative figures suggest this might mean that about a hundred different people would sit on the bench in the course of a couple of decades.''""'" A l l the leading gentry, and most of the 'esquires', could expect to sit on the bench at some time, f i 12 but few 'gentlemen' ever did so. However, i t was normal for some of the commission to be drawn from quite outside the ranks of the county gentry. The Norfolk commissions had expanded in Elizabethan times in a way which paralleled the expansion of the committees in the Civil War. A third of the new justices required by the expansion were not Norfolk gentry. They included lawyers, often newly resident in the county, people with ecclesiastical 13 connections, and a number of shadowy figures. The presence of similar types on the Civil War committees was not the innovation that Royalist propaganda claimed. The membership of the I636 commission of the peace was typical for 14 Norfolk. The composition of the commission was very stable in this period, for only two of the surviving resident JPs from the I626 commission did not appear, and only ten of the JPs added since that commission were not related to other justices. Of the fifty-two working justices, thirty-three (63%) were gentry, a normal figure for England generally, and sixteen (31$) were lawyers, one of the highest proportions in the country, illustrating the proverbially strong legal traditions among the Norfolk gentry. Two were 15 Church officials, and two were in commerce. They had the educational back-ground and political involvement expected of members of the magisterial class. Thirty-five had been to university, twenty-four of them going on to one of the Inns of Court, and a further eight had attended only an Inn."^ Over half 17 of them were at some time members of Parliament. - 23 -No peers were resident in the county, though the Howards s t i l l had some 18 influence here. Norfolk's affairs were managed by the gentry, and especially 19 by about twenty prominent families. Their control over the county had been efficient, and there had been l i t t l e c i v i l disobedience in the 1630s. Norfolk's inhabitants had protested against the apportionment of the early ship money levies, but had not questioned their legitimacy. Yarmouth, claiming i t was unfairly burdened, had part of its share transferred to the upriver 20 ports, which were also to benefit from the tax. The acquiescence of the county was due in part to the fact that the protection of Norfolk shipping against piracy was one of the early justifications for the levy, but the late development of any serious resistance suggests that Norfolk was on the whole amenable to established authority. It was one of the few counties where 21 virtually the whole amount was collected each year until 1640. John Buxton, the sheriff, was able to report in 1639 that the chief constables of only one hundred had been uncooperative, and a mere 78 pounds could not be 22 collected. Real political opposition only surfaced in 1640, when Thomas Windham, the sheriff that year, had to report to the council his "extreme difficulty" in getting the county to make an assessment and pay in their share. Only 1100 pounds had been collected by May, "with inexpressible 23 difficulty and levied by distresses of which there were few buyers." The Norfolk deputy lieutenants were encountering at the same time "great aversion to pay towards coat and conduct-money" for the soldiers being raised 24 ' , for the Scottish wars. The antagonism in Norfolk to Charles unconstitu-tional ways was undoubtedly strong, but slow to express itself in open rejection of authority. Norfolk had proved less tractable in Church matters, Matthew Wren, Bishop of Norwich l 6 3 5 - l 6 3 8 , and his successor, Bishop Montagu, had achieved - 24 -intense unpopularity "by rigorously enforcing Laudian policies. They singled out Puritan ministers for especial harassment, to the anger of the powerful Puritan gentry connection, which included the Hoharts, Potts,Hollands and Heveninghams among other major families. Many ministers went into voluntary exile in the Low Countries or New England to escape this persecution. Norfolk's shipping trade ensured good communications with the advanced churches in these areas, and many exiles returned after 1642 with new ideas 25 about church structures. Puritanism was stronger in the towns than in the countryside. The corporation of Yarmouth carried on a heated battle with the diocese from 1624 to 1635 over the choice of ministers and lecturers for the town. The curate nominated by the town, John Brinsley, was later a 26 Presbyterian. There were many in the county awaiting the opportunity for church reformation. Norwich was at once the county town of Norfolk, a city with a Lord Mayor, and a county in its own right, a series of distinctions merited by its status 27 as the greatest town in England after London. "The whole city looks like what i t is, a rich thriving industrious place", Celia Fiennes observed later 28 in the century. It was populous, with about 20,000 inhabitants in I65O, wealthy and growing, for i t expanded greatly in the seventeenth century. The greatest expansion occurred in I6OO-I63O and 1670-1700, with a plateau period in between, when the city's trade was affected by outbreaks of plague 29 , and disrupted markets. Norwich s prosperity came from textiles, from the manufacture of 'Norwich stuffs', a trade brought to the city by Netherlands' 30 weavers between the 1560s and 1580s. The city was the natural centre of commerce for the county, encouraging powerful service and distributive 31 trades, and the relations with county society were close and friendly. - 25 -There was a continual interchange between the gentlemen of the county and the merchants of the town, as younger sons turned to trade or successful 32 tradesmen bought estates. However, the city fiercely maintained its administrative independence from the county, returning its own citizens as burgesses to Parliament, and refusing to yield to the county gentlemen 33 on points of privilege. The city's administration was in the hands of a mayor, two sheriffs, twenty-four aldermen (half of whom would also be justices) and sixty common 34 councilmen.-^ The rigid system of elections and promotions in the early seventeenth century ensured continued oligarchic control. Common councilmen 35 were to be men of substance. The sheriffs, whose office was an expensive honour, were chosen from the twelve or fifteen wealthiest councilmen. The aldermen were chosen from the sheriffs, and the mayor, between 1621 37 and 1641, was the senior alderman who had not yet served. Norwich was noted for the large number of extremely wealthy tradesmen in the town. Thomas Wilson said of Norwich in 1600, "I have known in my time twenty-four aldermen which were esteemed to be worth 20,000 pounds apiece, some much more, and the better sort of citizens, the half." These wealthy men had a monopoly of city government. In Elizabethan times the top six percent of the population, the 'anticipation class' who paid their subsidy in advance, 39 provided a l l the aldermen and the richest third of the common council. It was, however, an open oligarchy, which outsiders could penetrate provided they met the unwritten requirements of social position, influence and 40 wealth. The rule of the wealthy was also limited by the electoral provileges of the thousand or more freemen, who sometimes chose to exert 41 their power. The city, unlike the county, had control over the appointment of i t s own officials. - 26 -Before the c i v i l war the dominant group in the town, the wealthy-tradesmen who were aldermen, were drawn almost exclusively from the distribu-tive and service trades. Among the twenty-nine aldermen between I63O and 1635 were eight merchants, seven grocers and three drapers, but no worsted 42 weavers. The twenty-four mayors between 1615 and 1640 included five 43 merchants, five grocers and two drapers. No weaver had ever been mayor. The levying of ship money did not arouse much opposition in the city. The contentious issues in the city in the 1630s were a l l religious.^ The strong Puritan presence in the town brought fierce conflicts with successive bishops of Norwich. The. Norwich feoffees were established in I63O to provide 45 for a Puritan ministry. The bishop and the ministers were often at odds, and eight ministers were suspended in I636 for not conforming to the , 46 diocesan s commands. A majority of the aldermen were, however, unsympa-thetic. They fended off popular agitation in I 6 3 I for lectures and readings, and in 1635 were most anxious to make their ecclesiastical peace with Laud's 47 vicar-general. When, in I636, the mayor and some other Puritan aldermen sent a petition to the King against Wren, ten aldermen wrote to Laud 48 disavowing i t . The council in 1640 took the most unpuritan action of having the crosses in the market and in the council chamber repainted and 49 gilt, and the stump cross was rebuilt. The situation in 1640 was therefore that the Puritans controlled two-thirds of the common council, but there were -.only eight Puritan aldermen, opposed by twelve hostile aldermen, with four others having moderate or unknown v i e w s . T h e Royalist and Parliamen-ts tarian party divisions were precisely foreshadowed by the division in 1636. However, the elections for alderman and sheriff had not yet been affected by the factional split, and the question of religion played a minimal role compared with the weight given to the traditional qualifications of residence, prestige and wealth. - 27 -Bedfordshire, one of the Home Counties, lies in the East Midlands, and its economic and social l i f e is overshadowed fay the proximity of London, Its topography makes i t a rather nondescript county, for i t has no distinctive geographical character and its "boundaries are not naturally defined by any physical features. A. mixed husbandry of corn and stock existed in the clay soils of the plain, and the uplands were used for sheep and corn. The produce of this commercialized agriculture went primarily to the London market, and the many business relationships between Bedford and the capital increased 53 further the metropolitan influence in the county. Lacemaking and the 54 strawplait industry also catered to the demand from London. Bedfordshire was a small county, less than a quarter the size of Norfolk, and was densely populated, with more than 40,000 inhabitants in the mid-seventeenth century. Luton and Leighton Buzzard, with a thousand inhabitants each, were the largest of the hundred and thirty towns and villages after the county town of Bedford, which had a population of around two thousand. The county was an administrative, rather than a geographic or social unit.~^ The lives of its inhabitants in many ways ignored the county boundaries, and the ties with Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire were especially close. The fluid gentry class included many recent residents, frequently from London, and 57 many families had interests in other areas of the county. The county was divided into North and South for many administrative 58 purposes, the divisions "being considered approximately equal. As in Norfolk, gentlemen often had an almost patriarchal relationship with their areas, perhaps overseeing a particular hundred. A.t a meeting in 1626, the justices divided up and apparently each interviewed the subsidy men and constables for 59 one hundred. Hundreds and villages which had grievances over the assessments for ship money channeled their complaints through the most prominent local - 28 -gentlemen, or in one case through the Earl of Cleveland.^ Far fewer gentlemen than in Norfolk were involved in county government. The Elizabethan commissions included less than a dozen local names, and there would not seem to have been any marked increase in the early seventeenth 6l century. The gentry class was naturally much smaller than Norfolk's, with six to twelve leading families, forty to f i f t y 'esquire* families, and a 62 total gentry population of around 125 to 150. The county gentry had considerable influence in the town l i f e of Bedford. Celia Fiennes noted that "there is a pretty many gentry about the country near neighbours, and many live in the town". The town was governed by a mayor, twelve aldermen, about forty active burgesses, and thirteen representatives of the freemen. Twenty or more county gentlemen were honorary burgesses, the recorder and his deputy were from the county, and the gentry, especially the St. John family, had considerable say in town affairs. Bedford normally returned county gentlemen as i t s representatives to Parliament. It is harder In Bedfordshire than in Norfolk to identify with precision a group of leading gentlemen. Apart from three or four families of long-standing importance, there were many gentlemen of wealth or prominence in national politics whose status qualified them for a major county position. However, they were often new residents or had their main interests in London or elsewhere outside the county, so that i t is difficult to establish how 65 much they were involved in local affairs. The Bedfordshire gentlemen had been less successful than those in Norfolk in maintaining respect for their authority, for popular opposition to Charles' style of government had been early and widespread. The six northern hundreds, when called together to contribute to the forced loan in 1626, had a l l declared, through their high constables, that they would not "give to his majesty in this way, but in a Parliamentary way." The only man the justices could find willing to - 29 -66 contribute'came from Essex. The county was exceptionally uncooperative over ship money. About one-twelfth was uncollected in 1637, which was the average for England, but in 1638-9 only 389 pounds out of 1,100 pounds was returned, which was the lowest proportion in the country, with the exception of the four northern counties.^''7 Richard Ghilds, sheriff in 1639-1640, tried to assess the county himself when the high constables could not agree, but found i t impossible without their cooperation. When he summoned the petty constables, "those that did appear generally answered they could not get the rest of the inhabitants to meet about i t , and for themselves they were not able to do i t without their assistance, but the greatest number never appeared." He had twenty-four distresses in his custody, but no-one would buy them.^ Bedfordshire was a county with a high level of political consciousness, and a tradition of political action taken to express their views. Dissent was a part of Bedfordshire religious l i f e long before Laud. The parishioners of Dunstable, which had a dissenting tradition going back to Lollardy, had given their decorously Anglican minister rough treatment 69 in l6l6. Laudian policy in the 1630s had come into collision with local Puritanism, strong among both ministers and laity. Sir Oliver St, John's brother-in-law, for example, was Peter Bulkeley, who was the most noted 70 Puritan preacher in the county until he left for New England in 1635 • Laud said in 1634 that "my visitors there found Bedfordshire most tainted 71 of any part of the diocese" of Lincoln. They had reported that the habit of leaving one's own parish to run after "affected preachers" was especially prevalent there, and that they had been openly defied in Bedford: "The new Recorder of Bedford questioned at a sessions one of my apparitors for troubling, as he said, these godly men and there delivered publicly that i f - 30 -men were thus troubled for going to hear a sermon when their minister at II 72 home did not preach i t would breed a scab in the kingdom." Disputes 73 continued in Bedford from 1636 to 1640 over the manner of serving communion. Many Bedfordshire people appear, from Laud's comments in l637» to be going to Hertfordshire to hear Puritan preachers. Sir John Burgoyne presented the Bedfordshire petition to Parliament in 1641, attended through the streets of London, i t was said, by two thousand men from the county. The petitioners, typically, thanked Parliament for "your pious care in the reformation of religion from those scandalous and superstitious innovations which were introduced into the Church", and called for "a faithful magistracy as well M75 as a painful ministry." With feelings in both countries so strongly in favour of the Parliamen-tarian programme of reform, there was no real question about the counties' choice at the start of the Civil War. Out of the original twelve members of the Long Parliament from Norfolk, only Richard Catelyn, a burgess for Norwich, and Sir Robert Hatton, a stranger to the county returned as member for the controlled borough of Castle Rising, were to side with the 76 King. Thomas, Lord Wentworth, was the sole Royalist among the original four members from Bedfordshire, and he was replaced, on his promotion to 77 the Upper House in 1640, by Sir Oliver Luke, a staunch Parliamentarian. The petitions from the counties would seem to have been for once a genuine reflection of local opinion. The Norfolk petition of March 1642 called for the deposition of the bishops and popish lords, and detailed the "multiplicity of grievances which have disturbed our county", while the petition in August from Norwich called for reform and military preparations. Norfolk was, no however, behind the other counties in sending up the petitions. A. thousand men from Lynn offered to go to the aid of Boston against the - 31 -79 Cavaliers in August 1642. The actual commitment of the counties to Parliament, and the securing of county administration by Parliamentarian supporters, was a gradual process, but was never seriously challenged, 80 even by the belated expressions of Royalist sentiments. Norwich effectively committed i t s e l f when the city arrested a Captain Treswell for trying to 81 raise forces for the King, and a Norwich man was reported to the Commons for merely speaking "very foul and scandalous words against the Parlia-• ii 82 ment . Parliament's control was so secure, i t s support so overwhelming, that there was no formation of parties in these counties between 1640 and 1642. The great majority went along with the leadership of the counties, and the few who cared to swim against this tide were never an organized Q O presence. Those with Royalist sympathies had to choose between declaring their position or keeping their opinions to themselves. Few were willing to declare their loyalty openly, for this usually entailed leaving one's home, the seizure of one's estate and the loss of one's offices. Despite these deterrents, about ten percent of the gentry class in Norfolk and R4 fifteen percent i n Bedfordshire were prepared to take this course. Parliament's choice of o f f i c i a l s was not as much restricted by the dis-placement of these people from office as i t was to be by the later series of exclusions, but the removal of the Royalists had a greater effect than might at f i r s t appear. A quite disproportionately high number of Royalists came from old or wealthy families. The Norfolk Royalists included representatives of such major families as Le Strange, Knyvett, Richardson and Spelman, and for a time Paston, Doyly and de Grey f l i r t e d dangerously with a commitment to the king. The Bedfordshire Royalists included Conquest, Dyve, Mapier, Osborne, Taylor and Rotherham from among the leading families. Those owners of the thirty-eight largest houses in the - 32 -county whose decision could he identified had divided equally between the R ^  king and Parliament. Parliament was therefore deprived of the support of a relatively high proportion of those who would otherwise have been automatic choices for county office. Most of those who would, one suspects, have been Royalists had they lived in a county controlled by the king took the easier course of keeping quiet about their convictions. They either worked with the Parliamentarians, or attempted to remain neutral, or followed covert Royalist policies while remaining in office. Neutrality was possible in the confusion of the first few months of the war, but Parliament or the local committees thereafter 8 6 usually forced a decision one way or the other. Norfolk gentlemen had to make a longer and more hazardous journey to join the King, with less likelihood of return to their homes, than those in Bedfordshire, and more Norfolk gentlemen therefore avoided an open declaration for their King in such unpropitious circumstances. Norfolk gentlemen sometimes had permission from the King to remain at home, or else wait to the Netherlands to avoid involvement. Most remained at their homes, and, i f neutrality was not possible, either retired from public affairs into private l i f e or 8 8 served on the committees, despite their own convictions. In the early years, Parliament and the local leadership were more than ready to accept any statements of support at their face value. The Norfolk committee and MPs" were especially anxious that no local gentleman should be unnecessarily ostracized, and they were often willing to welcome back those who had made rash but not final Royalist moves, and several early Royalists were later 8 9 named to Norfolk committees. Only seven of the working JPs were ever 9 0 fined for anti-Parliamentary action. The Bedfordshire committeemen, too, demonstrated their concern for fellow gentlemen who had repented of earlier - 33 -Royalist actions, though none of these was actually recruited to the 91 committees. Parliament in the 1640s could therefore follow an inclusive policy in local appointments, making the committees a comprehensive representation of the gentry community, as the commissions of the peace were. Such a policy, attractive because i t was customary as well as expedient, brought problems later. Many crypto-Royalists remained on the Norwich council even after the purges of 1643, and were able to manipulate 92 elections in 1648. The Royalist sympathizers on the Bedfordshire committees were, apparently, openly obstructive, and a source of intense 93 frustration during the c i v i l war to the activists l i k e S i r Samuel Luke. After i t s i n i t i a l hesitation, Parliament settled on the various 94 county committees as the prime administrative agencies in the l o c a l i t i e s . The way their membership was chosen reflected the close connections between the counties and London at this time. Parliament i t s e l f appointed almost a l l the committeemen, and in practice this meant the county MPs supplied the names and kept track of committee membership, for they were the natural 95 source of recommendations for their areas. The MPs for Norfolk and Bedfordshire were themselves local gentlemen, of moderate Parliamentarian views, and mostly did not have radical p o l i t i c a l or religious opinions. They accordingly chose their own type as committeemen, endeavouring to make the committees as representative as-possible of the county gentry. Sir Samuel Luke was holding to the traditional c r i t e r i a for office-holding when he said that a proposed member of the Newport Pagnell committee would be "a great satisfaction to the gentry hereabouts, he being a l l i e d to most 96 of them, and a man of good estate and able parts." The Norfolk MPs had shown the importance they attached to the inclusion of leading gentlemen in the committees by their eagerness to help in the rehabilitation of Paston - 34 -9 7 i and Doyly. The county gentlemen s concern for each other outweighed any desire for exclusively Parliamentarian rule. However, county pressures on appointments could be especially effective at a time when communications between central and local government were so good. The local aristocracy were sometimes s t i l l used as intermediaries, as when the Earls of Bolingbroke and Elgin presented a Bedfordshire Remonstrance to the Committee 9 8 of Both Kingdoms. Such matters, however, were usually seen to by the MPs, committeemen themselves, who were expected to communicate with the committees, to stimulate them into activity, and were often required to 9 9 spend time in their home counties. Conversely, local committeemen were often present in London and could meet with the government.100 The local inhabitants frequently sent petitions to Parliament, sometimes suggesting possible committeemen, and the county's MPs might help to present these to the House or might be expected to take action on them, and on occasions individuals.wrote to a member asking him to take up a problem in the House. 1 0 1 MPs were also sent suggestions for appointments.10^ As before the c i v i l war, the question was which among the suitable people should be named, and local interests could easily decide this. Sir Samuel Luke asked his father to "use your best endeavours to get Col. Tyrell added to the Committee" of Newport Pagnell; "Aylesbury men will much oppose him because of his ability and therefore will need the more pains in procuring him to be added". The garrison at Aylesbury was competing with Newport Pagnell for supplies, and would not want their rivals to acquire an active and 103 influential committeeman. Although a number of committees with diverse functions coexisted in each county, basically the same people were named to a l l the committees, and on occasion two different committees might have exactly identical - 35 -104 memberships. The MPs had in practice to find the members for only one committee, for a person named to one was normally added to a l l committees, and would usually be referred to as a "committeeman for Bedfordshire", rather than as an "assessment commissioner" or "sequestration i 105 commissioner". The committees were not rivals for power, and there was no such open conflict in these counties as developed in Kent between the county committee and the one committee with a separate membership, the accounts committee. In Norfolk, the county committee had itself 106 suggested the names for the accounts commissioners. No rivalry may have been present, but neither did the Norfolk and Bedfordshire county committees absorb the other committees as they were named, as happened in Staffordshire. The assessment and sequestration committees in these 107 counties had their own existence. The distinctions were blurred, however, as normally the same people were the active members of a l l the committees. No clear distinction can be drawn, either, between the committees and the traditional offices of local government. The committees had gradually taken over many of the functions of the deputy lieutenants, the sheriff and the JPs, although the complicated system of cross-appointments ensured that in practice the same people held the old and 108 the new positions. One coherent and definable group of people controlled local government in these counties until 1649• Parliament, as has been said above, originally intended the member-ship of the committees and the commission of the peace to be comparable, a broad representation of the 'esquire' class of the county. The committees named by Parliament in 1640 to 1642, and the i n i t i a l C i v i l ffar committees, were only slightly larger, If at a l l , than the pre-war commissions of the peace. The early committees for Norfolk had between forty and sixty-five - 36 -members, which included some townsmen who would not have appeared on the county commissions, and the Bedfordshire committees had between twenty 100 and thirty members. After the first years, however, the committees began an irregular increase in size.1"'"0 Why this happened is not clear, but the effect was that the MPs had to search ever more widely for recruits, for they had not merely to replace those who left the committees but also to find additional new members. The growth of the Civil War committees therefore required the recruitment of people from outside the ranks of the 'esquire' class, just as the expansion of the Elizabethan commissions had done. 1 1 1 Such appointments were of only minor significance before 1649, however. The Norwich committees, in contrast, kept to around twenty-five members for most of the 1640s and 1650s, a size which excluded many of the aldermen, so that the committees were smaller than the town's administrative elite. As the committees did not expand, only replacements for displaced members had to be found, so that there was not the same kind of pressure 112 on appointments as in the counties. Figure I The Size of Assessment Committees, 1642-1660 f l f O i 100 id go N , 60. hi r-o o NORFOLK, NORWICH BEDFORDSHIRE 1600* ii' H T K L. rJ 0 P R. VW Y U3 1 uk 1 ws 1 4.6 1 w\ 1 w% 1 V\ 1.50 I 51 [ 5 2 [ 5 3 I 5 ^ I 5 5 | 5 6 I 51 I 5 8 I 51 1 faO Source: app. 1. 1 - 37 -Bedfordshire committees were larger than Norfolk's relative to the size of the county. The gentry class of Bedfordshire was about one-quarter to one-third the size of Norfolk's, but Bedfordshire committees were typically around one-half the size of Norfolk's. The Bedford committees had about thirty members in the l630s, compared to sixty to seventy members for Norfolk, and even the largest of a l l committees for Norfolk, the Assessment Committee of 26 June 1657 with 144 members, was only just over three times the size 113 of Bedford's. The effect of this was that throughout the two decades more of the Bedford committeemen were at best very minor gentry. This was not in itself a reflection of anything inherent in the political or social structure of the county, but is just an illustration of the general rule that any attempt to recruit more people than usual for county office would mean recruiting a number of them from outside the group which normally provided officials. Because relatively more recruits were needed in Bedfordshire, a higher proportion of them were from outside the 'esquire' 114 class of the county. There was essential continuity of membership between pre-war local government and the first committees of the c i v i l war. County commissioners had been named by the Long Parliament to administer three Acts, passed between 1640 and 1642 and approved by Charles I, for raising money for the Scottish war. The l i s t s contained impartially future Parliamentarians and Royalists, thus providing a guide to who normally held local office, and contained approximately as many names as the typical committees of the c i v i l war, so that the memberships are directly comparable."'""'"^  The sixty-two different people named for Norfolk in the three Acts included forty-two future committeemen, nineteen of whom are known to have been active for Parliament either locally or centrally, eleven future Royalists, - 38 -while the action of twelve is not known.11^ Of the twenty-seven names for Bedfordshire, eighteen were to serve on committees, thirteen being active for Parliament, six were Royalists, while the decision of five is not 117 known. In both counties, the traditional elite continued in office. There was more of a change in Norwich. The seventeen commissioners named for the town included eight future committeemen, six of them active 118 for Parliament, four Royalists, and six whose commitment is not known. Farther, the majority of the active Parliamentary leadership in each county was drawn from people who had appeared on the earlier committees. Only nine of the people in Norfolk, and six in Bedfordshire, who were active for Parliament during the first Civil War had not been, commissioners for the pre-war Acts. Norwich was again an exception, in that eight of the most active people had not been commissioners earlier, but i t is clear that the counties were under the control of essentially the same group, with the exclusion of the declared Royalists, as had run county affairs in the 1630s. 1 1 9 Virtually no members left the committees before 1649, and the coherent and stable membership that resulted makes it possible for us to describe the typical committeeman of the 1640s, whose characteristics were very 120 similar in Norfolk and Bedfordshire. The same type of people as before 1642 were involved in local government, and in most cases the committeemen had previous experience as JPs, sheriffs or deputy lieutenants, and some-121 times as members of Parliament. The committeemen, like the pre-war JPs, were normally gentlemen of the rank of esquire or above. Eighty-six - 39 -TABLE II STATUS OF PRE-1649 COMMITTEEMEN Norfolk Norwich Bedfordshire PEER 2 0 2 BARONET 14 0 4 KNIGHT 12 0 7 ESQUIRE 46 10 15 . GENTLEMEN 10 2 7 TOTAL IDENTIFIED 84 12 35 TOTAL IN GROUPS I, II, AND III 129 39 52 TABLE III WEALTH OF PRE-1649 COMMITTEEMEN Norfolk Norwich Bedfordshire A 18 4 8 B 43 16 25 C 5 1 4 TOTAL IDENTIFIED 66 21 37 TOTAL IN GROUPS I, II, AND III 129 39 52 Sources for Tables II and III: app. 4, Tables XIII-XV. percent of the committeemen in Norfolk whose status could be identified were baronets, knights or esquires, and seventy-four percent in Bedford-122 shire. Only eight simple 'gentlemen' in Norfolk, and seven in Bedfordshire, were named to committees, not a radical increase on the pre-1640 situation. The committeemen had the marks of personal prestige and influence one would expect. Forty-four of those from Norfolk had been -kO-to a university, half of them with the status of Fellow Commoners, and thirty had also attended one of the Inns of Court for some legal training. An even greater proportion of the Bedfordshire committeemen had this kind of educational background. Twenty-five had been to university, forty 123 percent of them as Fellow Commoners, and twenty had also attended an Inn. Nearly a l l the committeemen for whom information was available were well 124 off, and many had considerable wealth, while very few had small incomes. Virtually a l l the Norwich committeemen were wealthy, and even here, where the marks of gentry status were not as expected or relevant, ten could style themselves 'esquire'. These committeemen were clearly from the cream of town society. 1^ The committeemen were chosen for their hierarchical position and leadership in their county, as well as for their personal qualities. They carried names with some standing, for the families of forty-nine of the Norfolk men and thirty-one of the Bedford men had been recognized at one 126 of the- seventeenth century Visitations. Their families were established and settled in their county. The families of half the Norfolk men appeared on the li s t s of gentry for the 15?0s and 1580s, and many families had been 127 resident for centuries. The Bedfordshire committeemen came from families as well-established as any others in that county, but fewer families in its more fluid society had been residents for an extended time. The family names of only three committeemen appear on a fifteenth-century l i s t of Bedfordshire gentlemen, and thirteen of the committeemen had purchased 128 their estates since 1610. The relative newness of their families affected the style of the committeemen's control over their districts, with important consequences later. Men were normally only appointed when they were in their early forties and the head of their family, when they had - 41 -129 achieved a certain stage of maturity and leadership. The committeemen would also normally he residents of their districts, able to exercise a local influence. Unlike the commissions of the peace, the first dozen or so names on which were of government or legal officials, the committees for these counties rarely included people from outside the county, only six percent of the members appointed between 1642 and 1660 being outsiders. Seven of the twenty-three outsiders on the Norfolk committees were government or army men, seven were Suffolk men, three were lawyers practising in Norfolk, one was an MP with relatives in Lynn, three more had family or property connections with Norfolk, and the remaining two were peers named to the abortive Militia Committee of December 1648. Most of these outsiders 130 in fact had some interest in the county. The vast majority of the committeemen could reasonably be expected to serve, and the membership of the committees ensured local control over local affairs. One cannot identify with any precision the political views and loyalties of many of the committeemen, or establish firmly the membership of local parties and factions, so the committeemen have not been placed in the kind of categories that have been used for analyzing the membership of Parliament, Even i f the evidence was sufficient to allow this, i t would be a misleading exercise. Involvement in local government had no necessary relation with national politics, and loyalties and factions at the county level shifted 131 bewilderingly. What evidence there is suggests that social position was s t i l l the prime determinant in the choice of committeemen, although political activity and enthusiasm affected the choice from among the possible recruits. The picture of the typical committeeman provides a useful standard of comparison with the period after 1649, but does not do justice to a l l the evidence, and some reservations should be made. The picture would probably - 42 -"be modified i f more was known. Only partial information was available for many committeemen, and nothing at a l l could he found out about eleven Norfolk and five Bedfordshire pre-1649 committeemen, who were presumably more obscure 132 people. ^ The general effect of more data would probably be to show that slightly more of the people came from lower in the social scale than has been indicated above. On two occasions such atypical groups were appointed that one could almost call them aberrations. A group of eighteen additional committeemen, recruited to the Norfolk committee in June 1643, did not appear on any 133 future committees. No information could be found for ten of these, an amazing figure as there was only one other pre-1649 appointee of whom this was true. Five of the remainder were simple 'gentlemen', half of a l l 134 those appointed before 1649• This group is a startling contrast to the other committeemen. The appointments were made at a time when the committee system was s t i l l getting off the ground, when Parliament was s t i l l experi-menting with memberships, and when the Norfolk MPs were trying to put some vigour into the committee's activities. These appointments appear an experiment which failed, either because these people were unwilling to serve or because they were not accepted by the rest. None Is recorded as having been active on the committees. The appointment of such people, whatever the reason, was not acceptable at the time. The House of Lords, in July of the same year, refused to confirm an addition to the Huntingdon committee, "who, though he be a very honest man, he is not of that quality to be ranked with the rest." The other unusual event was the appointment of fourteen county gentlemen, a l l members of Norfolk committees, to the Levy Committee for 137 Norwich of 3 August 1643• Their social position eminently qualified - 43 -them for such office, hut on no other occasion was a group of county people named to a city committee. The town usually avoided such interference in it s affairs, hut Parliament was concerned about the strength of Royalists in the city, and may have been trying to strengthen the town's committee' by importing reliable supporters from the county. County men were also being appointed as deputy lieutenants for the city at around the same time. But i f this was another experiment, i t was another failure, for none of 139 these people was named to a city committee again. Perhaps the Norwich MP had protested against such interference. Whatever the precise explanation, the transience of these two groups of atypical appointees indicates how strong were the pressures which kept appointments from deviating too far from the norm. The committeemen for the 1640s were the traditional county leaders, operating within a hierarchical society, and, not surprisingly, they managed county affairs in their customary style. A l l the intricacies of county society, the familiar relationships and dependencies, were under-stood and expected by the committeemen. Framlingham Gawdy of Norfolk, for example, bore in the l63 us (and after) innumerable charges and responsibilities on behalf of his poorer and less responsible relatives and neighbours, who would appeal to him whenever they encountered problems of debt, marriage, 140 education or lawsuits. The gentry wished to preserve, i f at a l l possible, ^ " 'As these kind's kind's of hierarchies, which gave them a natural and expected role in their districts. When, in Norfolk in 1619, a group of speculators had begun buying estates, subdividing them into small parcels and then reselling, there had been shrill protests from those who saw this as striking at the roots of society. It was "tending to the destruction of Gentry, Gentlemens seats and their hospitality, manors and lordships . . . making a parity between - 44 -Gentlemen and Yeomen and those which were before labouring men . . . the begetting of pride and stubbornness in them and by this means to become 141 more refractory to the government of the county. The county gentlemen were just as anxious in the 1640s to maintain a stable society and were, i f anything, even more keenly aware of their position as something that had to be preserved and defended. The introduction of new bodies in local government did not affect this. The Bedfordshire sequestration committee, for instance, was at pains not to damage the web of mortgages, debts, settlements, l i f e interests and tenancies that surrounded landholding, 142 and strove to preserve a l l rights other than those of the delinquent. The committeemen continued their traditional patriarchal role as the members of the one political class, expecting the same kind of subservienc as before from their localities. Just as the Bedfordshire gentlemen had acted as spokesmen for particular areas over ship money, so they appealed 143 the apportioning of the assessment on behalf of their districts. Similarly, in Norfolk, when a petition was drawn up by some members of the county committee, i t was then sent to the committeemen in the various hundreds, so that they could see to getting the signatures of a l l the 144 men of substance among their neighbours. John Coke, sheriff of Norfolk in 1643, carried on his office in that disrupted time in a traditional way selecting his bailiffs on non-factional lines; they were simply to be "abl and honest", " f i t and likewise willing" to execute their duties. 1^ The Civil War caused dislocations, but i t did not, in the 1640s, disrupt the social patterns of the counties, and the committeemen were able to operate in a patriarchal fashion, with their customary hierarchical influence. Parliament did not find i t difficult at this time to select who was to be on the committees, but showed a greater concern over how effective - 45 -the committee members were, and. what kind of support they gave the government. Once the i n i t i a l reluctance of the Norfolk gentry had -been overcome, the committee in that county proved itself most efficient and diligent. The Norfolk representatives were prominent in the Eastern Association, and the committees produced money and troops as required, being frequently commended for their efforts. The Committee of Both Kingdoms thanked Norfolk and Essex for their "forwardness" in supplying troops, and held them up as examples to the more backward counties.''"^ Sir Samuel Luke said in November 1644 that Norfolk had led the way in paying in its share for the support of 147 Newport Pagnell. The Norfolk committee, virtuously aware of its good record, complained at one stage to Manchester that i t was carrying the 148 financial burden for the other counties. It was critically important for Parliament to have its supporters in firm control because of the external and internal threats to Norfolk. The Royalist forces were often expected to move that way, and the King at one time thought of moving his headquarters 149 there from Oxford. Internal conspiracies were also a source of worry, although the few overt Royalist moves, such as the attempt by some Norfolk and Suffolk gentlemen to seize Lowestoft in March 1643, were pathetically T 150 weak. The local gentry were able and willing to rule Norfolk with the necessary firm hand, provided that they were allowed to do i t on their own terms. They remained most active in local affairs: the Norfolk officers 151 of 1643, for example, were drawn from good families. There was a consensus in favour of a programme of moderate reform, which would stop short of any radical restructuring of either central government or local society. They wanted to preserve county society, to minimize cleavages and the effects of war. Thomas Windham wrote to Sir John Potts, a fellow - 46 -committeeman, in December 1643; "Our joint affections (leaning on the same pillars of constancy to Religion and the Commonwealth) (i doubt not) shall always preserve our neighbourhood unto the mutual comforts of our 152 families." The conflict between this approach and that of the more radical Parliamentarians produced an urgent letter from Cromwell to the Association. Sir John Palgrave had tried to withhold his regiment from service outside the Association in June 1643, and Cromwell asked for his deputy to bring the regiment, i f necessary: "Palgrave hath a mind to-this company and the other company to please himself in composing his regiment. 153 This is not a time to pick and choose for pleasure. Service must be done." The Norfolk MPs and the committeemen fought a long defensive action against what they saw as the excessive demands of Parliament. In 1642, Potts and Holland tried to neutralize the county by not acting on the Militia Ordinance, and getting an agreement from the local Royalists not to act on the King's Commission of Array. Such neutrality could not be preserved for long, and when the establishment of the Association forced a division, most Royalist 154 sympathizers temporized and then cooperated. Holland, Potts and Gawdy refused to implement the sequestration, but this only meant that by 1644 the sequestration committee had been taken over by a group of lesser gentry 155 and Norwich citizens. The county committee tried unsuccessfully to retain control over the collection of the Fifths and Twentieths, to direct their own troops, and, later, to prevent the supersession of the Eastern Association. A l l these battles were lost, but the gentry maintained their control of county affairs, even i f a few newcomers had joined them, and they 156 continued to press for a moderate settlement. A petition was sent to Fairfax from Norfolk, Suffolk and Norwich in 1647, calling for a settlement, 157 to prevent the government from carrying its reforms too far. For many, - 47 -the rebellion had already gone too far; the "Good Old Cause" they had been "I genuinely committed to had been betrayed. The Parliamentary position in the Norfolk towns was by no means as well assured. Relatively large and active Royalist groups had to be displaced before the Parliamentarians could wield effective power. The corporation of Lynn was divided from the start, and, though some people remained enthusiastically loyal to Parliament, the town briefly defied Manchester's forces in August and September 1643• However, this was as much a matter of local loyalties as Royalist feeling, for the town only made up its mind to defiance when told to surrender, among others sheltering there, some members of the Le Strange family, who traditionally had a patriarchal relationship 159 with the town. The siege was soon over, but Royalist feeling lingered on, and there was an unsuccessful attempt to return a Royalist sympathizer, 160 Edmund Hudson, as burgess for the town. To ensure its control, Parliament l 6 l had to place a military governor over the town. Royalists were also present in Yarmouth, for many in the town refused to subscribe the covenant and the corporation's membership had to be revised, but the Parliamentary 162 control here was more secure. The main problem was the division among -1 the Parliamentarians between the Congregationalists and the Presbyterians. By the late 1640s there was a general trend apparent in the towns for the more radical Parliamentarian supporters to have increasing influence and 164 power. Parliament had friends in Norwich on whom it could rely for whole-hearted support. The important appointments in the town were not the ones to the committees, which London controlled, but to the town's own administration, which the electorate controlled. Between 1640 and 1642 the Parliamentarians achieved the effective control of the corporation that they had not had in - 48 -the 1630s. By "breaking with the seniority system for the choice of mayor, they ensured a majority of one for themselves in the Mayor's Court by 1641. The future Royalists s t i l l outnumbered the Puritans ten to nine among the 165 aldermen, but the Puritan vote in the Common Council counterbalanced this. In March 1643, after open war had broken out, the Puritans, with the help of the Commons, completed their reconstruction of the administration. The mayor was arrested and removed from office, five aldermen were displaced, another Royalist alderman died in April, and one more alderman was expelled in l644. The Puritan aldermen outnumbered the Royalists fifteen to four by August 1643."'"^  By controlling the elections for sheriff, the Parliamen-tarians made sure that the only available eligible candidates for aldermen 1642-1648 were Parliamentarians, who were therefore elected. In the city, i f not in the counties, politics had become the basis for appointment to office, and town society had divided on the lines of the national parties."'"^ The membership of the committees for the town reflected this. The committee-men were the actively committed Parliamentarians among the aldermen, together with a number of important supporters from outside the aldermanry. This group was able to govern the city effectively for the duration of the c i v i l war, raising troop and revenue, and even embarking on such Puritan measures 168 as the defacement of the cathedral. The simple division between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists did not extend beyond the end of the first Civil War. Divisions had already been apparent among the Puritans, and these exploded in 1646 into a vicious conflict between the Presbyterians and the Independents, expressed in a l69 heated exchange of pamphlets. The Royalist sympathizers s t i l l within the corporation began to exploit this, possibly allying with some of the Presbyterians to do so. John Utting, who was opposed to the Parliamentarians, - 49 -was elected mayor in 1647, and a Royalist was chosen alderman in 1648• The Independents, whose petition for "a more speedy and thorough reformation" had been ignored by the mayor, appealed directly to Parliament, who promptly displaced Utting, occasioning a brief r i o t with Royalist overtones in his 170 support. The result was a triumph for the Independents, and a corporation 1 171 more observant of London's ordinances. It proved as d i f f i c u l t in Bedfordshire as in Norfolk to instigate the f i r s t operations of the county committees, and the Commons had to order the members from the county to take some action over the committee's 172 inactivity. Unlike Norfolk, however, the situation did not improve, and the Bedfordshire committees soon became notorious for their slackness and slothfulness, and they were unfavourably compared with the neighbouring 173 counties. S i r Samuel Luke, while Governor of Newport Pagnell, found his own county more trouble than a l l the others who provided support for the garrison, and i t took innumerable- letters to extract any money from the county. Bedfordshire's arrears of taxation between March 1645 and 174 December I65I exceeded 13,000 pounds. The inactivity, non-cooperation and obstructionism did not prove as harmful to the Parliamentary cause as they might have done in Norfolk, for there was no organized internal Royalist activity, and, aside from the occasional hit-and-run raid, no 175 external military threat. The committee of an apparently Parliamentarian county could be so inefficient largely because the enthusiastic members were rarely present in the county. Many, as members of Parliament, were kept busy in London, while others, l i k e Sir Samuel Luke, had military duties. Apparently others also spent time in London for one reason or another. Few enthusiasts were l e f t in the county to get things moving. S i r William Boteler of Biddenham - 50 -regretted in 1645 that he could not help the Newport Pagnell garrison "because "we have at this time so small a committee in the county that I have no hope of any assistance" •"'"'^  The committee would only seem to have functioned at a l l because of the work of a few people like Sir Thomas Alston and, most especially, Boteler, neither of whom seem to have had strong ideological 177 commitments hut who enjoyed administration. The kind of support they had from the county as a whole varied. Gabriel Barbor, in a report to the Commons in October 1643, said: "Who can t e l l the pains of Sir John Norwich, who twice sending out his warrants for horse and foot in Bedfordshire, had not above 18 men come in, both out of town and country, wherein the honourable House may perceive how prepared they are to welcome the enemy." On the other hand, there is some evidence to support Luke's view that i t was 179 the committee rather than the county that was being obstructive. Some 180 local gentlemen offered to raise a regiment in Bedfordshire in 1644• The real trouble seems to have been within the committee. At one time its inefficiency was put down to the members' fear for their own safety, and its 181 efficiency was impaired by the quarrelsome spirit present. The dispute between Beverley and Briers, commissioners for the 1640 Act, had come to 182 the attention of the House, and there were other signs of dissensions. Even more destructive than this, however, were the attempts by many committee-men to sabotage the administration. In March 1645, the committee was "protracting the meeting" about the monthly tax, on the grounds that they could not assemble a quorum of seven, and this could well have been a repeat of the problem experienced in 1643 and 1644, when so many committeemen were living in London that none was left to run the committee. Luke wrote that i t was being said that "some of the committee went up deliberately" 184 so that the tax would not be collected. The Commons repeatedly ordered - 51 -•I Q C the Bedfordshire committeemen Track to their homes from London. Much of this procrastination can he traced to a dislike of the vigorous nature of the new administration, and to a parochialism and localism which desired to preserve the selfish interests of each small area. Luke found this localism a general problem, as "the committees in a l l places oppose them-selves to the Governors", and he said of the Bedfordshire committeemen: "Mr. Beverley and others' aim of sparing and saving the county will be 186 the utter undoing of the county". The illusion of safety encouraged 18? such obstructionism: "I fear our security will be our destruction". Some committeemen had made a nominal commitment to Parliament but kept in touch with Oxford as well. Luke wrote bitterly to his father that " i f such men as, instead of lending their 20th part of their estates, have not lent the 100th part and have protection from the King or Prince Rupert and send their sons or friends to the King's army, have the government of the county and can when they please hinder the raising of taxes, i t will be no 188 living in the county." He warned also that the Royalists "build much on many friends" they had in the area, and asked that more care be taken 189 by Parliament in future over the choice of committeemen. The already unstable situation in the county was made far more precarious by the progressive alienation of the more moderate Parliamentarians from London in 1647. Sir Samuel Luke was actually arrested by the army at his house in the county on 1 August l6k7>^® London's only firm support in the county would thereafter come from the more radical of the committeemen. What was true in Bedfordshire was, in fact, true everywhere. As some recent historians have stressed, the committeemen were county gentlemen who often put loyalty to their district and their fellow-gentlemen above other 191 considerations. This localist feeling, apparent in both counties and - 52 -especially strong in the towns, lay behind the counties' desire to preserve a l l the political independence they could'; the attempts to retain county troops for local defence, and to keep revenues raised locally for expenditure 192 within the county; and the resistance to the insertion of outside officials. Even the Parliamentary supporters in Yarmouth, for example, were repelled by the proposal to put a garrison in the town, and even more by the appointment of a military governor, and London had to compromise on this, appointing 193 a number of townsmen as joint governors. The political sensitivity of a threat to a town's independence was shown in Norwich in 1648, where the rioting mob was inflamed not merely by Parliament's intervention in the town's administration, but by the rumour that Norwich, like Lynn, would 194 be submitted to the humiliation of a military governor. Lynn had indeed 195 found the presence of a governor and garrison a great strain. Localism was a fact of l i f e in the seventeenth century, and infected Royalists and Parliamentarians impartially, but i t was not an overriding factor in the history of these areas. In times of crisis, decisions were usually made in accordance with one's position on the national political and religious controversies. In Norwich, local politics had been organized on parallel lines to national politics since the 1630s. The members of the powerful and cohesive gentry community in Norfolk wished to preserve the accustomed pattern of their society, and put up much articulate opposition to the pressure from London. However, when decisions were forced on them, the Parliamentarian gentry acted in accordance with their ideological position. They surrendered much of their independent authority to make the Eastern Association work, and they acquiesced to the super-session of the Association largely because they accepted that Parliament 196 had'the right to act. Curiously, localism was a more potent factor in - 53 -the much weaker community of Bedfordshire. Here i t was less an articulate assertion of local independence than an unformulated, instinctive reaction to government interference, and therefore not so easily overcome "by an appeal to the gentry's belief in Parliamentary sovereignty. But i t would seem that the gentry of this county too expressed their views on national 197 politics when they withdraw their cooperation from London in 1649• The system of committee rule had been an improvised response to the unparalleled demands of a c i v i l war, and had worked remarkably well by the standards of seventeenth century administration, more or less keeping pace with the military demands during the peak years of 1643 to 1645. After that time, the committees began to decline in importance, though their form was left largely untouched. The establishment of the New Model Army took the control of local troops out of the hands of local committees, whose military function was reduced to that of recruiting agencies for the 198 central army. The business of the committees diminished with the end of the fighting, and unsuccessful attempts were made by the Lords to disband the committee system e n t i r e l y . B y the late 1640s, the county committees, though s t i l l unmodified, were only ticking over, the special conditions which had created them having largely disappeared. In many counties in England, a number of new committeemen were added during 1645, and some historians have suggested that these new members changed the social composition of the committees, being of lower social rank and more radical opinions, and that a new leadership was emerging.^<"> The committee-men recruited in these areas, however, do' not f i t into such a pattern. Only five new people were added to the committees for Bedford in 1645: three of 201 these were townsmen, and two were members of prominent gentry families. - 54 -The twenty-four people added to the Norfolk committees were also of good families. Four of them were people of previously dubious loyalty who had now committed themselves sufficiently to Parliament. The others included representatives of five major county families and of ten middle gentry families. Four were townsmen, one was the solider Philip Skippon, but none came from unusually low social backgrounds. Only two of these people were particularly active on the committees, though nineteen continued to be named to committees until at least 1650. They did not, as a group, have any special political or religious affiliations. Their appointment seems to have been a housekeeping operation, to tidy up the l i s t s and repair 202 omissions. In Norwich, however, the recruits changed the committee significantly. Five of the eleven new people were only transient members, who had ceased to serve by I65O, but the other six were a l l aldermen, four of them also serving as mayor, one of them a burgess for Norwich, and five of them were strong Parliamentarians and very active in town affairs in the late 1640s and 1650s. A l l six served t i l l 1659 or 1660. Their appointment was a recognition of their place in the corporation as reorganized in 1643-1644. These new committeemen were brought in as colleagues, not rivals, to support the Parliamentarians already on the c ommittees. There were signs, nonetheless, of new processes at work. A small number of simple 'gentlemen' and others who would not have served in county government before 1640 were appointed to the committees, to the annoyance of the more rigid gentlemen. Sir Hamon Le Strange had to defend himself against a charge of assisting Royalist escapees brought against him by Tobias Peddar of Hunstanton, "whom I made not chief constable to repay me with malice and ingratitude for the many favours which he and his predecessors _ 5 5 _ have received from me and mine." The war and his political loyalties had given Peddar the opportunity for the kind of activities which were to 204 raise him from constable to committeeman and JP. Even by 1643, a number of more radical figures had begun to appear on the committees, and when the county gentlemen were unwilling to act, as in the case of the Norfolk sequestrations, they took over from them. In Norfolk, townsmen had begun to take an active part in county affairs, a reversal of the 205 usual trend. In both Norfolk and Bedfordshire, however, county affairs were s t i l l in the hands of the county gentry in 1648. A further sign of the changes to come was the gradual assumption of powers by London, and the increasing use of central agents or army officers to carry out such traditionally local duties as the collection of taxes. The new system was in tension with the old county pattern in yet more fundamental ways. Parliament had of necessity revised the membership of local government in 1643 and 1644, and, though this had not meant major disruptions in either county, a new principle had been introduced, for selections were now being made on the basis of faction, thus polarizing 207 county society. This principle was to be extended further and further, as exclusion followed exclusion. Neither Parliament nor the county gentry liked the idea of faction, and tried to minimize the effects, but nonetheless the concept of the county gentry class as the source of officials had been eroded and the traditional hierarchies challenged. The rejection of royal authority created a crisis of allegiance for many, leaving them dubious 208 about the legitimacy of the county government. The tensions, instabilities and alienation thus introduced were of only minor importance before 1649, but were to dominate the 1650s and thwart the government's search for settlement. - 56 -Notes to Chapter 2 1 A.. Hassell Smith^_andR. ¥. Ketton-Cremer give general description^ of the county (Court and County (Oxford, 1974), chap. 1; Norfolk in  the Civil Far (London, I969), chap, l ) . Contemporaries saw Norfolk men as having identifiable county traits: their litigiousness. for example, was proverbial (Hassell Smith, Court and County, p. 3)• Seventy percent of Norfolk gentry in 1640 had married within their county, the highest figure for any county in East Anglia (Holmes, Eastern Association, p. 229). 2 Twenty percent of Norfolk's knights and baronets in 1640, and ten percent of the gentry, had married into Suffolk families. The most prominent families on the Suffolk committees were Bacon, Bedingfield, Brewster, Gurdon, Heveningham, Hofaart, North and Soames. AH but the last two families were also prominent on the Norfolk committees. (Holmes, Eastern Association, p. 229; Everitt, Suffolk, p. 36). 3 J. Thirsk, ed., The Agrarian History of England and Wales: Vol. IV (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 38-49; K. J. Allison, "The Sheep-Corn Husbandry of Norfolk in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries", Agricultural History Review V (1957), 12-30; J. Spratt, "Agrarian Conditions in Norfolk and Suffolk, I6OO-I65O" (unpublished M. A. thesis, University of London, 1935); H. C. Darby, ed., A New Historical  Geography of England (Cambridge, 1973), P« 269. 4 Thirsk, Agrarian History, pp. 45-49; K. J. Allison, "The Norfolk Worsted Industry in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries", Yorkshire Bulletin of Economic and Social Research XII (i960), pp. 73-83; P. Corfield, "A Provincial Capital in the late Seventeenth Century: the Case of Norwich", in P. Clark and P. Slack, eds., Crisis  and Order in English Towns 1500-1700 (London, 1972), pp. 263-3IO; Darby, p. 280; C. Morris, ed., The Journeys of Celia Fiennes (London, 1947), PP. 146, 150. 5 Daniel Defoe, A Tour Through the Whole Island of Great Britain. Intro. G. D. H. Cole, (London, 1927), i . 61-62. 6 Blomefield xi. 302ff. The Earls of Dorset and Northumberland suggested Sir John Suckling and Sir Henry Martin. The town council promised to work for their election, "leaving the success to divine providence", and then wrote after the election to say that the General Assembly had unfortunately ignored the council's support of these two candidates and elected two local men (HMC, Ninth Report, app. I, p. 311-12L.C.J. Palmer, ed., The History of Great Yarmouth  by Henry Manship, Town Clerk (Great Yarmouth, 1854-56), i . 378). 7 HMC, Le Strange, p. 98. Lynn refused Arundel's request to nominate a member in 1640 (H. J. Hillen, History of'the Borough of"King's Lynn (Norwich, 1907), i . 343). '. - 57 -Notes to Chapter 2 8 The East, the leading division, contained twenty hundreds, the West six, and the North seven. There were eight lieutenancy divisions (D. E. Howell James, ed., Norfolk Quarter Sessions Order. Book, I65O- 1657, NRS XXVI (1955), pp. 6-10). ~ 9 A Hassell Smith, in "The Elizabethan Gentry of Norfolk: Office-Holding and Faction" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1959), PP> 2-3, names fourteen leading families under Elizabeth, while Spratt l i s t s twenty-five major landholders in I65O. 10 Hassell Smith ("Elizabethan Gentry", pp. 333-64) names 130 knights and esquires, and a total of 434 gentry, for the 1580s. Two informal contemporary l i s t s for the 1570s have 507 and 115 names (R. Hart, "Analysis of the Harleian Manuscript, Cod 4756", NA III (1852), pp. 40-51, and NA IV (1855), PP. 292-95). The Visitation of Norfolk anno domini 1664 (NRS IV and V (1935)) recognized 371 gentlemen. At least twenty families whose names did not appear at t h i s vis i t a t i o n also had coats of arms. The Visitations of Norfolk,  1563, 1589, and 1613 (W. Rye, ed., Harleian Society Publications Vol. XXXII (1891)) recognized a collated total of 381 families. Holmes l i s t s 34 knights and baronets and 282 gentry for Norfolk in 1640 (Eastern Association, p. 229). Spratt's total of 266 manorial lords in I65O would exclude about two hundred gentlemen from such a position (pp. 9 4 f f . ) . 11 The 1608 and I626 commissions had 52 and 51 local names; the 1614 and 1616 commissions had 59 and 56 (Gleason, pp. 15 - 54; H. W. Saunders, ed., The O f f i c i a l Papers of S i r Nathaniel Bacon of  Stiffkey, Norfolk, as Justice of the Peace, 1580-1620, Camden Society 3rd Ser. XXVI (1915), pp. 33~36). The Elizabethan commissions also contained about "sixty names, and 114 families provided Justices 1587-1603 (Hassell Smith, Court and County, p. 58). The Somerset commissions contained between 37 and 57 names, and one hundred people were justices, sheriffs or deputy lieutenants between 1625 and 1640 (Barnes, Somerset, pp. 41-2). 12 84 of the 103 eligible 'esquire' families in Norfolk provided justices 1578-1603, (23 families were excluded for recusancy.) Only two 'gentlemen' were justices i n these years (Hassell Smith, Court and County, pp. 54-8; cf. Barnes, p. 12). 13 Hassell Smith, Court and County, pp. 52-8. 14 Gleason, pp. 156-58. He also gives sample commissions from 1562 to 1626 (pp. 145-56). 15 Gleason, p. 49. The total membership,.was 62. 'Gentry' and 'lawyers' are not mutually exclusive categories'. - 58 -Notes to Chapter 2 16 Gleason, p.. 88. 17 Gleason, p. 158. 18 One of the members for Castle Rising, the borough controlled by the Howards, was the only Norfolk MP in the Long Parliament who was not a Norfolk man and did not live in or_near_his constituency M. F. Keeler, The Long Parliament. 1640-41 (Philadelphia, 1954), pp. 56-7). 19 The leading gentlemen in the years before the Civil War were: Bacon, Barney, Bedingfield, Calthorpe, Coke, de Grey, Gawdy, Guibon, Hare, Heveningham, Hobart, Holland, Knyvett, Le Gros, Le Strange, Paston, Richardson, Spelman, Townshend, Windham and Wodehouse. Other names could be added, as there was no sharp dividing line, but these families were outstanding for their wealth, influence or political activity. The names were selected from lis t s or references in Spratt, p. 94ff.; Statutes of the Realm, v. 58-75, 79-101, 145-167; HMC, Ninth Report, app. I, p. 311; Saunders. Stiffkey Papers, pp. 33"6; HMC, Le Strange, p. 99; VCH Norfolk; Ketton-Cremer, Norfolk in the Civil War. 20 Blomefield, xi. 36O. 21 M. D. Gordon, "The Collection of Ship-Money in the Reign of Charles I", TRHS. 3rd Ser. IV (1910), 155-162. 22 HMC, Buxton, pp. 252-55' 23 CSPD, 1640, pp. 1, 230. A Norfolk rector asked an astonished constable " i f the Devil had sent him to him for the said ship-money" (CSPD. 1640. p. 220). 24 GSPD. 1640. pp. 161, 485. 25 Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 8-9; C. B. Jewson, ed., Transcript  of Three Registers of Passengers from Great Yarmouth to Holland and  New England, l637~l639» Many went from Norwich and Yarmouth to Rotterdam, joined the English church there, and returned to found the congregational churches in their home towns (C. B. Jewson, "The English Church at Rotterdam and its Norfolk connections", NA XXX (1952), pp. 324-37)• ' Robert Peck, rector of Hingham, was persecuted by Wren, went to New England with some of his parishioners in I 6 3 6 , and returned in 1646 (Blomefield i i . 424-25). 26 He was presented to a nearby rectory in I 6 3 2 , staying there until 1644, attracting a large congregation from Yarmouth. (Blomefield xi. 368; S. W. Carruthers, "Norfolk Presbyterianism in the Seventeenth Century", NA XXX (1952), pp. 90-91; Holmes, Eastern Association, "pp. 17-18). - 59 -Notes to Chapter 2 27 Thomas Baskerville, in 1681, Celia Fiennes and Daniel Defoe give general descriptions (HMC, Portland, i i . 268-70; Morris, Fiennes, pp. 146-50; Defoe, Tour, i . 6>64). 28 Morris, Fiennes, p. 148. 29 Corfield, "Norwich", pp. 263-66. 30 Allison, "Norfolk Worsted Industry", pp. 73~83; D. C. Coleman, "An Innovation and its Diffusion: the 'New Draperies'", EcHR 2nd Ser. XXII (1969), 417-29; J. F. Pound, "The Social and Trade Structure of Norwich, 1525-1575", Past and Present XXXIV (1966), pp. 46-69; Corfield, p. 278. 31 Pound, p. 60. 32 J. T, Evans, "The Decline of Oligarchy in Seventeenth-Century Norwich", Journal of British Studies XIV (1974), 52-9. 33 The city had a dispute with the sheriff of Norfolk in 161? over questions of precedence at the assizes in the town (Blomefield i i i . 367). 34 The system is described in the introduction to W. Hudson and J. C. Tingey, eds., The Records of the City of Norwich (Norwich, 1906-1910;, and in J. T. Evans, "The Political Elite of Norwich, I62O-I69O: Patterns of Recruitment and the Impact of National Affairs" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 1971) (here-after 'Evans'), pp. 9~46, 57~59, 67. The sheriff served both the King's writs and the Mayor's warrants (Hudson and Tingey, i . c v i i i ) . The city also had its own deputy lieutenants (NA I, 108-110). 35 Hudson and Tingey, i . Ixvii. 36 The sheriffs were to be men "sufficient in estate and f i t for government" (Blomefield i i i . 368). It became common in the 1660s and 1670s for men to compound to avoid the office (w. L. Sachse, ed., Minutes, .of the  Norwich Court of Mayoralty.'1630-1631. NRS XV (1942), p. 19; NA I, 156-60),The other offices were also expensive: in 1649, eight aldermen and eight common councilmen bore the expense of a feast (NA III, 354-55). Evans, "Decline of Oligarchy", pp. 63-65. 37 Evans, pp. 57~59. 38 F. J. Fisher, ed., The State of England Anno Pom. l600 by Thomas Wilson. Camden Miscellany XVI (1936),, p. 20. 39 Pound, pp. 53-54. 40 Evans, "Decline of Oligarchy", pp. 46-59. - 60 -Notes to Chapter 2 41 Evans, pp. 12-23-42 Allison, "Norfolk Worsted Industry", p. ?8. 43 Sachse, p. 20. 44 Evans, pp. 98-99. 4 5 Evans, pp. 85 - 8 6 . 46 Sachse, p. 49; HMC, Gawdy, p. 158 . 47 Sachse, p. 3° . 48 HMC, Gawdy, p. l 6 l ; Evans, pp. 90-94. 49 Blomefield i i i . 3 8 1 . 50 Evans, pp. 105, 119. 51 Ibid., p. 104. 52 Ibid., pp. 108-118. 53 Thirsk, Agrarian History, p. 49- A recent survey is J. Godber, History of Bedfordshire 1066-1888 (Bedford, I969J. 54 Morris, Fiennes, p. 332; Lydia M. Marshall, The Rural Population of  Bedfordshire. 1671 to 1921. BHRS XVI ( 1 9 3 4 ) , pp. 14-23. Joan Thirsk suggests reasons why a county like Bedfordshire, with its type of cornfarming and cooperative agriculture, did not encourage domestic industries in the way that Norfolk did ("Industries in the Countryside", in F. J. Fisher, ed., Essays in the Economic and Social History of  Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, I 9 6 I ) , pp. 86-88). 55 Godber, pp. 257 - 72 ; Marshall, "Rural Population , p. 13. Bedfordshire's area is 4 7 5 square miles, Norfolk's 2020. 56 The county shared a sheriff with Buckinghamshire until 1 5 7 5 (List  of Sheriffs for England and Wales, from the earliest time to 1831, PRO Lists and Indexes, No. IX ( I 8 9 8 ) , p. 3). 57 See chap. 3« 58 The six northern hundreds were Willey, Stodden, Barford, Wixamtree, Clifton and Biggleswade. The three in the south were Manshead, F l i t t and Redbornstoke. The divisions were used for calculating the assessment of taxes (G. H. Fowler, ed., "The Civil War Papers of Sir Will. Boteler, 1642-1655", BHRS XVIII ( 1 9 3 6 ) , pp. 9, 39 - 40 ) . However, only one Quarter Sessions was held for the whole county (W. J. Hardy and W. Page, eds., Notes and Extracts from the County - 61 -Notes to Chapter 2 Records, Vol. TT (Bedford, (1909), passim). 59 G. D. Gilmour, ed., "The Papers of Richard Taylor of Clapham (C.1579~ 1641)", BHRS XXV (1947), p. 107. These were the JPs "for the six hundreds of this side of the county." 60 Robert Chernock spoke for Holcott and Salford; Sir Oliver Luke for Wixamtree and the villages of Potton and Everton; The Earl of Cleveland for Manshead (F. G. Emmison and M. Emmison, "The Ship Money Papers of Hen. Chester and Sir F i l l . Boteler, I 6 3 7 - I 6 3 9 " , BHRS XVIII (1936), pp. 56-60). 61 Two commissions of c.1587 contain 11 and 9 local names (BNQ i i i . 92-93-) • The 1626 meeting raised 6 JPs from 6 hundreds (Gilmour, "Taylor Papers", p. 107). The English commissions were, i f anything, reduced in size after 1621, and even the (presumably) expanded I 6 5 O commission had only 24 names (Gleason, p. 51, The Names of the Justices of Peace, in  England and Wales, printed T. Walker (London, I 6 5 O ) , pp. 3~4). 62 From: a 1433 l i s t of 132 gentry (BNQ, i . l69~72); The Visitation of  Bedfordshire 1634, Harleian Society Publications, Vol. XIX (1884); an informal 1668 l i s t of 65 current and 103 ex-residents, and the 1669 Visitation, recognizing 44 families (ibid., pp. 206-8, 209-12). 63 Morris, Fiennes, p. 341. 64 C. G. Parsloe, "The Corporation of Bedford, 1647-1664", TRHS 4th Ser. XXIX (1947), pp. 151-54; Godfaer, pp. 260-64. 65 The St. John family was outstandingly powerful, though the Lukes and Burgoynes also had great influence. Other leading families were Conquest, Dyve, Napier, Osborne, Taylor, Rotherham, Beverley and Boteler. (Sources: Statutes of the Realm v. 58-75, 79-101, 145-67; Emmison, "Ship Money Papers"; VCH, Bedfordshire; Godber, pp. 241-48.) 66 Gilmour, "Taylor Papers", pp. IO7-IO8. 67 Gordon, "Ship Money", pp. 143-44, 156; Emmison, "Ship Money Papers", pp. 44-47. Bedfordshire was one of the five counties which paid in. overall, the lowest proportion of their assessments (Gordon, p. 142). 68 CSPD, 1640. p. 579. 69 S. Peyton, "Ecclesiastical Troubles in Dunstable, c . l 6 l 6 " , BHRS XI (1927), PP. 109-28. 70 J."Brown, John" Bunyan"(1628-16881 (London, revised ed. 1928), PP. 8-9. 71 Ibid. - 62 -Notes to Chapter 2 72 BNQ i . 153. 73 Brown, Bun-van, pp. 12-13. 74 W. Urwlck, Nonconformity in Hertfordshire (London, 1884), pp. 211-12. Kensworth, Herts., was a Baptist centre after 1660, attracting members from south Beds. 75 Brown, Bunyan, pp. 14-15? Godher, pp. 229-30. 76 M. F. Keeler, The Long Parliament. 1640-41 (Philadelphia, 1954), pp. 56-5?! D. Brunton and D. H. Pennington, Members of the Long  Parliament (London, 1954), pp. 75~86, 100-8. 77 Keeler, Long Parliament, p. 385• 78 A Kingston, East Anglia and the Great Civil. War (London, 1897), p. 43; A True and Exact Relation of the present estate of the  City of Norwich (London, 1642). 79 Hillen, King's Lynn, pp. 348-49. 80 Churches in Norfolk and Norwich had thrown off episcopal authority In 1641, and Capt. Slaney was training the Lynn militia in July 1642, but i t was s t i l l possible for Sir John Spelman to attend a meeting of the county gentry in December 1642 and speak warmly in favour of the King, and Sir Robert de Grey was left in his command in the Norfolk militia until he occasioned a mutiny in June 1643 by publishing a disaffected letter at the head of his company (Kingston, East Anglia, pp. 27-8, 51! R> W. Ketton-Cremer, Forty Norfolk Essays (Norwich, 1961), p. 19; CJ, i i i . 158). Also see Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 55-62. 81 Blomefield, i i i . 381-82. 82 HMC.Portland, i . 53. 83 The possible Royalist leaders, like Sir Lewis Dyve, fled their counties. The attempt to seize Lowestoft in March 1643, in which some Norfolk gentlemen were implicated, showed up the real weakness of the Royalist presence (W. C. Abbott, ed., The Writings and Speeches  of Oliver Cromwell (Cambridge, Mass., 1937-47), i . 219). 84 Lists of the Royalists in each county were compiled from Calendar . of the Committee for Compounding and the Calendar of the Committee  for the Advance of Money. 85 The houses were identified from the hearth tax returns of 1671, printed in Marshall, Rural Population , pp. 65-159. - 63 -Notes to Chapter 2 86 Parliament ordered in July 1643 that deputy lieutenants who did not f u l f i l l their duties were to he sent up to Parliament and their estates sequestered (CJ i i i . 155)- In an attempt to vet the Norfolk commission, a l l justices, old and new, were ordered to appear at the sessions in July 1644 and take the oath (HMC, Le Strange, p. 100). 87 The King ordered Sir John Spelman to stay in Norfolk in January 1643, "his personal services and residence there being especially needed." Five Norfolk gentlemen, including Paston and Doyly, were ordered by Parliament to return from Rotterdam. Knyvett claimed to be on h i s way to the Netherlands when arrested after t h e o r i s i n g in Lowestoft. (Ketton-Cremer, Forty Norfolk Essays, p. 19. CJ i i i . 93, 129; M. Riviere, "A Note on the D'Oylys of Shotesham", NA XX3TII ( l96 l ) , 47-49. B. Schofield, ed., The Knyvett Letters (1620-1644) (London, 1949), PP. 33-34.) 88 Sir William Paston went first to London and then to Rotterdam in his attempts to avoid a decision. John Webb, also of Norfolk, tried to satisfy both his conscience and Parliament when he signed the Covenant in March 1645: "I subscribe to so much of this covenant as I already know, or shall hereafter know, to be agreeable to the Word of God, laws of the kingdom, and my oaths formerly taken." Sir Thomas Rant gave up his law practice at the beginning of the c i v i l war and retired to his native Norfolk, "spending his time in composing differences and preventing suits among his neighbours." (R. W. Ketton-Cremer, Norfolk  Assembly (London, 1957), PP. 28-32. A. Jessopp, "Notes on the History of Breccles Hall, Norfolk", NA VIII (1879), 312-13- B. Cozens-Hardy, "Norfolk Lawyers", NA XXXIIl"Tl962), 290.) 89 Paston was rehabilitated after appealing to the Norfolk MPs and committee, and the committee certified to Parliament that Doyly had given satisfactory reasons for not returning from Holland earlier. Paston and Sir Robert de Grey appeared on the committee in October 1644; Doyly, Buxton and Webb in 1645 (Ketton-Cremer, Norfolk Assembly, PP. 35-5? HMC, Portland, i . 149; app. 2). 90 Gleason, p. 158. 91 Sir William BOteler obtained a pass for his delinquent brother, and Luke was asked by Vaux for a pardon for his son (Fowler, "Boteler Papers", p. 5; Luke, p. 96; cf. Luke, pp. 111-12). 92 See below. 93 Luke, pp. 70-72, 96. 94 See chap. 1. 95 See chap. 1. - 64 -ITotes to Chapter 2 96 Luke, p. 47. 97 See above. 98 CSPD, 1644-1645, p. 463. 99 CJ i i i . 16, 49 (Beds.); CJ i i i . 59, 140-42, 180, 238-39 (Norfolk). A typical order was one for the Norfolk MPs to send the county committee a l i s t of estates to be seized (CJ i i i . 28). 100 CJ ii i . \ 2 7 6 . 101 CJ i i i . 138, 165; HMC, Eighth Report. App. I, p. 11; CSPD. 1644-1645, p. 463; CJ i i i . 188. A petition from Derbyshire suggested some appointments as deputy lieutenants (CJ i i i . 5)• Boteler wrote to Luke asking him to get the Commons to take action over a problem (HMC, Eighth Report, App. I, p. 9 ) . 102 Luke, pp. 49, 56-57, 75-76. 103 Luke, p. 47. 104 For Norfolk, the committees of February and March 1643 only had one name different, as did the two committees of February 1645. 105 See chap. 1. 106 Everitt, Kent, pp. 172-85; Pennington, Accounts of the Kingdom, p. 193. 107 Fowler, "Boteler Papers", pp. 16-17; P. Bell, ed., "Minutes of the Bedfordshire Committee for Sequestrations, 1646-7", BHRS XLTJC (1970), pp. 81-121; HMC, Buxton, p. 266; Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 191-92. 108 See chap. 1. 109 See app. 1. 110 See fig. I. There was even a proposal in January 1644 to reduce committee size (Everitt, Suffolk, pp. 58-59). 111 Hassell Smith, Court and County, pp. 52-61. Cf. the growth of the commissions 1640-1660 (Hurstfield, "Wiltshire", pp. 253~54). There was not the same competition among the gentry to become committeemen as to become JPs, and such pressure does not seem to have been a factor. Possibly the nature of committee work - especially the assessments - required more personnel than before. Norfolk had always had one of the lowest numbers of JPs per head of population in England (Gleason, pp. 52~53)« The commissions of the peace had apparently - 65 -Notes to Chapter 2 had a 'natural size' before 1640, corresponding to the number of qualified people available (Gleason, pp. 66-67;• 112 See app. 1 and fig. I. 113 See app. 1. 114 See below. 115 Statutes of the Realm, v. 58-75, 79-101, 145-67. Most of the available resident members of the I636 Norfolk commission appeared on these committees. Twenty-two appeared; seventeen had died; two were Suffolk people, and two Church officials; leaving only seven who could have been named and were not (Gleason, pp. 156-57). 116 Some of these l i s t s are most defective, so the names for the three committees have been collated. The Norfolk and Bedfordshire totals exclude townsmen. Three of the Norfolk committeemen were Royalists. 117 Two Bedfordshire Royalists were later committeemen. 118 One Norwich Royalist was a committeeman. 119 A l i s t was compiled for each area of those committeemen known to have been active during 1642-1645: on the committees (from signatures to committee orders), in Parliament, or in the Army. There were twenty-eight names for Norfolk, nineteen for Bedfordshire, and fourteen for Norwich. 120 Unless otherwise stated, the committeemen described in this section are the members of Groups I, II and III, that is, a l l committeemen appointed December 1642 to December 1648 (app. 3 ) . The figures for biographical information are in app. 4. 121 No commission of the peace for the 1630s was available for Bedfordshire, but the example of the relation between the Norfolk I636 commission and the 1640-1642 committees suggests that is likely that most Bedford-shire JPs were also involved in the early committees. 122 See table II. 123 See app. 4. The eight Norfolk 'gentlemen' were from the county; two more were on town committees. Five Norwich committeemen had also been to university. 124 See table III. 125 See tables II and III. 126 See app. 4. - 66 -Notes to Chapter 2 127 See app. 4. 128 BN& i . 169-72; see chap. 3-129 App. 4 gives the average age at first appointment. 130 See app. 4. Norfolk; The army officers and government officials included four who owned land in Norfolk (Walton, Fleetwood, Whalley and Skippon). Five of the Suffolk men also owned land in Norfolk (William Cooke, John Coke, Sir Thomas Bedingfield, Reade and Playters). Three out-siders (Thorowgood, Pennington and Gabriel Barber) had land there, and three were lawyers who had moved to Norfolk to practise there (Berners, Cock and Waller). Bedfordshire: Four of the ten outsiders were from Herts, or Bucks., and two of them owned land in Beds. (Dacres, Joseph Barber, Litton and Whitelock). Henry Massingburgh probably had family connections with Beds. Taylor, a London lawyer, was MP for Beds, in 1653« Two (Okey and Crook) of the four army officers had bought Crown lands in Beds. Norwich: Two of the four outsiders were lawyers and a l l four also appeared on the Norfolk committees. Sources: DNB; Venn; Madge, Domesday of Crown Lands; Keeler, Long  Parliament; TSP: Blomefield; NA I, XXII, XXXII, XXXIII; Luke. 131 Parties were no more cohesive at the national level. Worden describes the factions of the Rump as "flexible, often ephemeral, and rarely mutually exclusive" (Rump Parliament, p. 27. See also pp. 27 - 32, and Underdown, Pride's Purge, pp. 45" 58). 132 See app. 4. 133 See app. 2, table VII. These recruits appear at 'D'. 134 See app. 4, table XIII. 135 CJ i i i . 59 (April 1643), 140, 149 (June), 180 (July), 238-39 (September). 136 CJ i i i . 159. 137 See app. 2, table VIII. These recruits appear at 'E'. 138 In December 1642, Sir John Hobart, Sir Thomas Richardson, Sir Thomas Woodhouse, Sir John Holland, Sir John Potts, Sir John Palgrave and Samuel Smith were appointed deputy lieutenants for Norwich (CJ i i . 884). 139 These fourteen names have been omitted from Group I for Norwich since they distorted the figures so greatly (see app. 4 ) . - 67 -Notes to Chapter 2 140 HMC, Gawdy, Part II, passim. 141 W. Rye, "The 'Landbuyers' Society*", NA XV (1904), pp. 1-3, also printed in HMC, Gurney, p. 134. 142 HMC, Eighth Report, App. I, pp. 3~7 (1644 sequestration orders); Be l l , "Bedfordshire Sequestration Minutes", pp. 81-121. 143 Fowler, "Boteler Papers", pp. 9, 14-15, 25. 144 HMC, Le Strange, p. 101. 145 HMC, Lothian, p. 86. 146 HMC, Seventh Report. App. I, p. 559; CSPD. 1644. p. 383. 147 Luke, pp. 63-64. 148 Everitt, Suffolk, pp."81-82. 149 CSPD. 1644, pp. 119, 120, 144; Abbott, Cromwell, i . 211-13. \k. threat to the Fens was reported as late as 1648 (HMC, Portland, i . 464-65). 150 Luke reported that "his Majesty has strong invitations out of Norfolk to march that way" (Luke, pp. 60-61, November 1644). 151 The colonels were Palgrave, S i r Miles Hobart, Sir Isaac Astley and Robert Wilton, and the majors were James Calthorpe and S i r Thomas Hoogan. A l l these were county gentry (Holmes, Eastern Association. P. 175). 152 R. W. Ketton-Cremer, "A Note on Thomas Windham", NA XXXII ( l 9 6 l ) , 50-52. 153 Abbott, Cromwell, i . 235"36. 154 Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 57-68. S i r John Spelman, a Royalist, shared the desire with Potts and Houghton, committeemen, that Norfolk might reap the advantages of i t s geographical situation i n "immunity from the common calamity" (Ketton-Cremer, Forty Norfolk Essays, pp. 19-21). 155 Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. I9I-92. 156 Ibid., pp. 187-90, 212-19. In 1644, the committee inspired a petition calling for moderate terms (HMC, Le Strange, p. 101), - 68 -Notes to Chapter 2 157 The petitioners were alarmed by the appearance of a design "to ruin the native li b e r t i e s and privileges of the subjects", at the risk of further factions and bloodshed. They asked Fairfax/to mediate for "the speedy establishment of those our native li b e r t i e s " , so that "a firm peace and union might be yet again enjoyed in our distracted kingdom" (LJ ix. 263;• Knyvett wrote to Hopart about a possible compromise settlement (H. Cary, Memorials of the Great C i v i l  War in England from 1646 to 1652 (London, 1842), i . 376). 158 S i r Thomas Woodhouse, for instance, was alienated by those who "ran to extremes" (R. W. Ketton-Cremer, "The Rhyming Wodehouses", NA. XXXIII (1962), p. 37). 159 Hillen, Lynn, i . 350-52; HMC, Le Strange, p. 98. 160 Ketton-Cremer, Norfolk in the C i v i l War, pp. 289-90. 161 Valentine Walton was appointed; he named a deputy (Hillen, Lynn, i . 36O). 162 Blomefield x i 3 6 l f f . 163 Palmer, Manship, i i . 168-69. 164 See chap. 3« 165 Evans, pp. 135-40. 166 Evans, pp. 143~51; Blomefield i i i . 381-85. 167 Evans, pp. 151-56. 168 Blomefield i i i . 385~90. 169 The dispute can be traced in "Truth Vindicated from the unjust  accusations of the Independent Society in the City of Norwich (August 10 1646). a Presbyterian defence, and Vox Populi: or the People's Cry against the Clergy (August 25 1646), the Independent's side. Further Presbyterian replies came in '''Vox  Norwici: or the Cry of Norwich, vindicating their Ministers" and '•'A Hue and Cry after the Vox Populi'', both 1646. See also Blomefield i i i . 392; Jewson, English Church at Rotterdam", p. 334? B. Cozens-Hardy, "Observations on the origins of the Old Meeting House, Norwich and Great Yarmouth Independent Church", NRS XXII ( l 9 5 l ) , pp. 1-5; Carruthers, "Norfolk Presbyterianism", pp. 93~96; Evans, pp. 162-70. 170 Cary, Memorials, i . 399-403; Blomefield i i i . 393"94; CJ v i . 294, 295, 304; Ketton-Cremer, Norfolk Assembly, chap, on "The Great Blowe"; Evans, pp. 171-88. - 69 -Notes to Chapter 2 171 Evans, pp. I 8 9 - 9 O ; Blomefield i i i . 393-94. 172 CJ i i i . 16 (March 1 6 4 3 ) , 26 (April), 4 9 (April). 173 CJ i i i . 2 6 0 , 3 5 1 ; Fowler, "Boteler Papers", p. 18. 174 Fowler, "Boteler Papers", pp. 7-8; HMC, Eighth Report. App. I, pp. 3, 7; Luke, pp. 7 2 - 7 4 , 82, 84, 9 4 . 175 CJ i i i . 2 6 6 , 281, 286; Holmes, Eastern Association, p. I O 3 . 176 Luke, p. 4 0 3 . 177 Fowler, "Boteler Papers", pp. 2 , 3 9 - 4 0 . The calculation of taxes seems to have been a specialty of Boteler's. 178 HMC, Portland, i . 139-40. 179 Luke, pp. 7 2 - 7 4 . 180 CSPD, 1 6 4 4 , p. 131. 181 In December 1 6 4 3 , the House ordered the Bedfordshire committeemen to return to their county, and at the same time asked Essex to "take some course, that they may s i t securely in the execution of the ordinances and service of Parliament" (CJ i i i . 3 3 4 ) . 182 Beverley had accused Briers of p a r t i a l i t y (CJ i i . 2 4 3 ; i . 147). 183 Fowler, "Boteler Papers", pp. 1 6 - 1 7 . 184 Luke, pp. 96-97; see also Luke, p. 62. 185 CJ i i i . 1 3 8 , 3 1 0 , 3 3 4 . 186 Luke, pp. 31, 54. 187 Luke, pp. 8 8 - 8 9 . 188 Luke, p. .96. 189 Luke, pp. 70-72. 190 Cary, Memorials, i . 3 2 5 ~ 2 6 . 191 See for example, Everitt (Kent, pp. 13~35; The Local Community and the  Great Rebellion (London, I969), passim) and Underdown (Pride's Purge, pp. 2 2 - 4 4 , 297-335). - 70 -Notes to Chapter 2 192 The counties of East Anglia only regarded the Parliamentary associating order as valid when they had formed a voluntary association (Everitt, Suffolk, pp. 39-40), Norfolk and Norwich attempted to retain their troops for local defence (Blomefield i i i . 390; HMC, Le Strange, p. 101) . Norfolk and Bedfordshire tried to spend local revenue locally (HMC, Portland, i . 128, 131; Luke, pp. 2? , 56-57)• See also Holmes, Eastern  Association, pp. 84-85. Underdown argues that the primary loyalty of many Somerset gentlemen was to their county, and this loyalty could_lead them to switch from Parliament to the King and back again (Somerset, pp. 47-123). 193 Palmer, ManshiP. i . 386-87; Blomefield xi. 3 6 l f f.; CSPD, 1644, p. 144; Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 188-89. 194 Blomefield i i i . 394. 195 Cary, Memorials, i . 288-89; R. Bell, Memorials of the Civil War (London, 1849), i . 325. 196 Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 218-19. 197 See chap. 3« 198 Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 212-19. 199 Underdown, Pride's Purge, pp. 38-39. In June 1646, the Parliamentary Committee for the Eastern Association told the Bedfordshire committee: "There is now no such need of their daily meetings and sittings as formerly" (HMC, Eighth Report, App. I, p. l l ) . The Lords passed an ordinance for putting down county committees in August 1646 (LJ v i i i . 4 7 4 ) . 200 "By the end of the war the old leadership is being pushed aside by energetic new men from lower down the social scale, lesser gentry and townsmen, often of radical Puritan inclinations, aiming at power as well as reformation" (Underdown, Pride's Purge, p. 3 4 ) . 201 See app. 2, table DC. 202 See app. 2, table VII. 203 See app. 2, table VIII. 204 October 1648. NA V, 128-29; also printed, HMC, Le" Strange, p. IO3. 205 The Norfolk representatives to the Eastern Association in January 1645 include three not named in 1643: Sotherton, Frere and Jermy, a l l radicals. Sotherton and Jermy presented the 'instructions' for Norfolk (Everitt, Suffolk, pp. 5I-52, 8 3 - 8 9 ) . See Howell James, Norfolk Quarter  Sessions, pp. 4-5• In Bedfordshire, much the same people as before were active in 1646-1647 (Bell, "Bedfordshire Sequestration Minutes", pp. 81-82). - 71 -Notes to Chapter 2 206 _CJ i i i . 314, 435; Luke, pp. 150-51; Holmes, Eastern Association, pp. 131-33, 187-88. The Colchester committee, feeling that the activities of army officers in this field had gone too far, said: "We only want Captain Hatcher to "bring in the harvest" (ibid., p. 139)• 207 The requirements to subscribe the covenant was one part of the screening process. 208 The Dissolution of the Rump caused a similar crisis of authority (Whitelock, Memorials, iv. 6-7.) - 72 -CHAPTER THREE THE CHANGE IN MEMBERSHIP, l649~l652 The execution of the king in January 1649 was an even more traumatic experience for the country than the outbreak of war in 1642 had been. A few people applauded, but the general response was of shock, disbelief, outrage and disorientation, for the traditional framework of loyalties and allegiances had been unsettled. Many were finally alienated from a regime they had increasingly lost sympathy with. So many county gentlemen either withdrew or were excluded from office that the personnel of local government had to be thoroughly reorganized, with one-third to two-thirds of the committee membership for these counties being altered. The 1650s committee membership was more changed from that of the 1640s than the 1640s member-ship had been from the pre-war composition of local administration. The revolution of 1649 established a republic, purged the House of Commons, abolished the House of Lords, and vested the executive in a Council of State. Local government was also restructured, though in a less dramatic way, for the counties continued to be ruled by a combination of local committees and traditional officials. The government of the Commonwealth modified the 1640s pattern in an ad hoc manner, replacing relative coherence with a confusion of agencies, hardly to be called a system. The county and sequestration Committees, which had been in decline for several years, were abolished in 1650. The powers of the sequestration committee were taken over by London directly, but the county committee was not fully replaced.1 Some of its security functions were handled for a time by the militia committees, which became one of the central government's 2 favourite agencies. When there was an abortive insurrection in Norfolk in - 73 -November I65O, i t was suppressed primarily by the local militia, the militia a l l over south-eastern England was alerted, and the local militia commissioners 3 were given the task of the i n i t i a l investigation. The assessment committees, kept throughout the decade as the main money-raising body, s t i l l had large, comprehensive memberships, as a l l the committees in the 1640s had had, but the other committees in the 1650s had more select memberships. The militia committees were restricted to twenty-one members for the largest counties, and the Commissioners for securing the peace of the Commonwealth, the Judges for Poor Prisoners and the Ejectors were a l l small groups appointed for specialized purposes. A l l the decimation commissioners, and probably a l l the members of other small committees, were expected to attend at meetings.^ The government employed a l l the available officials, and not just the committee-men, as executive agents. More use was made of the traditional officials, such as the JPs, the Judges and Clerks of Assize, and the sheriffs. For the High Court of Justice in Norfolk in I65O, the sheriff's customary duty of entertaining the judges was extended to providing a guard for them.^ Sometimes less traditional channels were used, such as the army units and officers in 7 the countryside, and other agents who reported directly to London. On occasion, a l l available means were used in conjunction. An order for the security of Lancashire was to be executed by Major Mayres and his troops (regular army), in cooperation with the sheriff, the JPs, a militia commissioner (Colonel Birch), and the judges of assize. The overall effect was increased centralization, in that the power and prestige of the committees had been eroded as the central government had taken direct control of their former functions, or had made increasing use of other agencies. Centralization should not be taken to mean efficiency or stronger government, however, for such action in the seventeenth century could only spring from a failure to gain - 74 -the cooperation of the counties' natural rulers, and was thus an expression o of weakness. The new arrangement of local government had the effect of giving increased power to select groups of reliable supporters. In the 1650s, then, the government had to recruit two different types of people for local government: a comprehensive representation of the county gentry community for the assessment committee and the commission of the peace, and a small core group of supporters for the more sensitive positions, such as the control of the militia, and the select committees. Both requirements forced the government to look ever more widely outside the traditional pool of recruits, for i t was increasingly difficult to find enough gentry of county standing to f i l l the committees, and many of the Commonwealth's best supporters were outside the traditional officeholding class. The new format of local affairs only emerged gradually, but the events of December 1648 and January 1649 had an immediate effect on the personnel of local government, dramatically altering it in some places. This came first as an extension of Pride's Purge into the counties. The secluded MPs were generally deprived of their county offices, and though this was not universally true, a l l the MPs from Norfolk and Bedfordshire excluded from the Rump were displaced from the committees also. 1 0 Norwich was unaffected by this, for one of its members, Thomas Atkins, was a firm supporter of the Rump, and the other, Erasmus Earle, was readmitted to the House after his 11 i n i t i a l exclusion. But of the Norfolk MPs, Gawdy, Palgrave, Potts and Spelman were secluded and did not sit in the Rump or appear on county committees during that period. Sir John Holland was absent from the House in December 1648 and was therefore not secluded, but he also did not sit in the Rump or serve on county committees. Edward Owner of Yarmouth, absent for reasons of health, was not secluded, and appeared on the fi r s t committee - 75 -12 after the execution of the King, hut died shortly afterwards. The only MP from a Norfolk constituency at a l l active in the Rump was Miles Corbet, who 13 was preoccupied by his government responsibilities. Thomas Toll and Sir Thomas Wodehouse were allowed to sit in the Rump, but did so rarely. In these circumstances, Norfolk was only effectively represented in Parliament by William Heveningham, a Norfolk man though MP for Stockbridge 14 in Hampshire, who was initially a member of the Council of State. Another Rumper, Valentine Walton, had connections with Norfolk, having been Governor of Lynn."'"-' Bedfordshire was even more radically affected. None of the four MPs from the county and borough was to sit in the Rump, two of them, who were 16 Abstainers, probably by their own choice. Three other MPs with connections with the county were excluded. Sir John Burgoyne, MP for Warwickshire, and Sir Robert Napier, MP for Peterborough, were secluded, and Samuel Browne, 17 absent on account of his judicial duties, immediately resigned from office.' 18 A l l of them disappeared from the committee lis t s . Bedfordshire was in the 19 unique position of being completely unrepresented in the Rump. With the removal or withdrawal of these.MPs, the counties' communications with London were disrupted and the local committees weakened. Bedfordshire suffered the most. Its smaller committee was proportionately much more affected by the removal of six of the most prominent county gentlemen, for the Norfolk committee contained an ample number of greater gentry even without the MPs. Bedfordshire no longer had representatives to urge i t s special concerns in Parliament, or to suggest the names of local officials. Such recommendations had henceforth to come from local people well-affected to the Rump, from London agents in the locality, or from members of the 20 Council of State with knowledge of the county. The Norfolk gentry at least - ?6 -knew that one of themselves, Heveningham, was concerned with their affairs. He was chosen by the Council to bring before Parliament the matter of a recalcitrant Norfolk minister, to look into the taking of the Engagement in the county, and to ascertain the affections of some of the Norfolk 21 militia officers. Valentine Walton may also have been involved in recommend-ing officials, for he reported the names for sheriff of Norfolk to the House 22 in February 1649. The selection of officials was now the business of the Council rather than Parliament, but i t was possible for the Norfolk gentry to have more influence over the choice than their counterparts in Bedford-23 shire. The principle of the purge was soon extended from the membership of Parlia-ment to the membership of local government. The House ordered an act to be brought in to remove a l l malignant magistrates, and the Council instructed the Commissioners of the Seal and the judges in their circuits to receive complaints against disaffected JPs, remove them, and replace them with 24 well-affected persons . The Engagement, introduced in January 1650, was designed to ensure that only those who accepted the regime could hold office, and, unevenly applied though i t was, i t caused major revisions of the commissions of the peace and of the officers of corporations. The first full-scale revision of the commissions after 1648 took place in the summer of 1650, and there was continuing turnover of JPs throughout the rest of 25 the Commonwealth. The new regime evidently regarded the choice of officials as more than a matter of routine, for the l i s t s of the militia commissioners, 26 for example, were repeatedly revised. The Rump's position as a minority regime made i t imperative that such friends as i t had should hold office, to the exclusion of its avowed opponents, and after 1649 many former Parliamentarians were deemed unacceptable and deprived of their offices. - 77 -Against this was the need to keep the nominal support at least of as many people as possible, so with the purges went a contradictory desire for reconciliation with the moderate county gentlemen. The government weeded through the committee li s t s and the commissions of the peace after 1649 not just to remove the disaffected but also, for the sake of efficiency, to displace the inactive. In August 1649, the Cerks of Assize were requested to inform the Council of State of who the JPs in their circuits were, and which had and which had not, without excuse, 27 appeared at the last sessions. The Council later reported to the Rump that many JPs "did not appear and act, to the great obstruction of justice, and the country disturbed by thieves and robbers, and to desire the House 28 to take such order that those justices may do their duty." Three Oxford 29 JPs were among many others left out of the commission for refusing to act. 30 The Council also wished to know which militia commissioners were not active. It was not simply for reasons of faction, then, that the Commonwealth wished to remake the personnel of local government. The government, by removing avowed opponents, inactive members, and secluded MPs from the county committees, had initiated the change in member-ship of local government. Many other local officials voluntarily withdrew after the execution of the King. Former Parliamentarian supporters, such as Sir Miles Hobart in Norfolk, and others who had cooperated less willingly 31 before, such as another Norfolk JP, John Buxton, now refused to serve. Many followed the example of William Barnes, also of Norfolk, who "retired to a private l i f e " , despite "allurements, or threats, from him who usurped 32 the highest power." The change in personnel was the result of both forced exclusions and voluntary withdrawals, though i t is often impossible to determine which was the case for an individual, just as i t is often impossible - 78 -to t e l l i f an MP was secluded by Pride's Purge or refused the opportunity to sit in the Rump, though far more evidence is available for MPs than for 33 most committeemen. A categorical distinction is, perhaps, untenable, for both could easily be true. In practice, a refusal to serve could lead to exclusion from office for inactivity. However, in many counties there was a danger of mass withdrawals from local government by the gentry after January 1649, and the Rump, wishing for as much moderate support as possible, 34 tried to dissuade them from leaving. Often even the local committed supporters of the Rump tried to keep the participation of the county gentle-35 men. ^ When the government did purge local government, as in the revisions of the commissions of the peace, the process was delayed and usually 36 slow. It would therefore seem unlikely that the immediate disappearance of many Bedfordshire gentlemen from the committees after the King's death was initiated by the government. More probably, these committeemen had refused to serve any longer, and the government had accepted and acted on this withdrawal more promptly than was the case with other counties. As was typical, the revision of the commissions lagged behind that of the committees, and the twelve Bedfordshire JPs removed from the commission in the summer of I65O were probably people who had opted out of the committees in 1 6 4 9 . 3 7 The scale of the changes in membership of the committees can be appreciated by contrasting them with the stability of the 1640s. Apart from the two instances of atypical appointments discussed above, only seventeen committeemen in Norfolk, seven in Norwich, and thirteen in Bedford-shire ceased to serve on committees between 1642 and l647« These few disappearances are attributable to such natural factors as death, old age - 79 -oo and so on, and there is no sign of any attempt to purge the committees. This continuity was lost with Pride's Purge. Between 1648 and I65O, fifteen members disappeared from the Norfolk committees, eleven from the Norwich and seventeen from the Bedfordshire committees. In the same period, there was the first major recruitment of new members since 1645- Thirty people made their first appearance on Norfolk committees in 1649 and I65O, eleven in Norwich, and thirty-nine in Bedfordshire. Between 1648 and I65O, the membership of the committees was reconstructed in an unprecedented 39 way. Clearly, this involved conscious policy, and was directly related to the revolutionary events in London. At the same time, however, the quite different patterns displayed by the counties reveal that the personnel changes cannot be explained merely by reference to London. The Norfolk committee lost a small number of members after the King's execution, who were not replaced immediately. Seventeen of the members of the assessment committee of February 1648 were not named in April 1649, but the second committee only contained three new names compared to the first, and the only first-time appointee among them was Sir John Hofaart, replacing his late father. Nine new names were added to the December 1649 assessment committee, and seventeen to the November I65O committee, but new recruits from the county proper only began to appear after I65O. The Bedfordshire committee's losses in 1649 were so great that they had to be replaced immediately. Fifteen of the twenty-nine members of the February 1648 committee were not named in April 1649, being replaced by fifteen new members, thirteen of whom were being named to a committee for the first time. Twenty-three more new members were added in December 1649, but only three more in I65O. Norwich was different yet again, 80 -for here some of the new members were named "before Pride's Purge. Eight members of the February 1648 committee did not appear on the April 1649 l i s t , and only one more was to disappear by November I65O. Fifteen new members were added in April, seven of whom had already appeared on the abortive Militia Committee of 2 December 1648. The changes ended abruptly in April, for the November I65O committee in fact contained only fourteen changes from the February 1648 committee. One-third of the Norfolk committee changed between 1648 and I65O, and one-half of the Norwich committee, but four-fifths of the Bedfordshire committee 'was new. The reasons for such differences in both scale and timing must be sought 40 within the counties themselves. Virtually no Norfolk committeemen, apart from the MPs, were removed or withdrew from the committees in I649-I65O for political reasons. Fifteen of the pre-1648 committeemen appeared for the last time between 1648 and I65O, and four more did not serve in the 1649-1653 period. Fourteen of these had already gone by April l649« This included'four secluded Norfolk MPs (Potts, Palgrave, Gawdy and Spelman), a secluded Suffolk MP (Playters), and another MP (Holland). Two former committeemen had died, and two were central officials whose appearance on a county committee had been in any case unusual. An Independent alderman of Yarmouth, a London lawyer, and a minor figure were displaced for unidentified reasons. The only county gentleman to have left for political reasons was Sir Miles Hobart, who had developed Royalist sympathies. Five more were to disappear by November I65O, two of them because they had died. Two were aldermen of Yarmouth, and one was a county gentleman, Samuel Smith, who remained active as a 41 JP. No attempt had been made to purge the Norfolk committees of the disaffected, known though they were, nor had there been any mass withdrawal - 81 -by the county gentry. The gentry's representation oh the committees, and 42 on the commission, was scarcely affected by the events of l648-l649# The majority of the thirty people recruited to the Norfolk committees in 1649 and 1650 were from the towns, indicating the changes that had come in Norwich, Lynn and Yarmouth. As has been mentioned, Sir John Hobart was the only new face on the April 1649 committee. Nine new people were appointed in December I65O. Five were from Lynn, three of them later to be praised by Cromwell for their support of the Protectorate. One was an Independent Yarmouth alderman. The other three people appointed were obscure county residents. The changes in I65O were more significant, for twenty more new people were added. Four of these were from Yarmouth, a l l members of the Independent church there, one from Lynn, six from Norwich, and one a London lawyer of radical views who had just been appointed Steward of Norwich. Three more were from outside the county, and can have played l i t t l e part in Norfolk affairs. The five from the county itself included one obscure figure, but also three future Commissioners for securing the peace of the Commonwealth, and the nephew of one of them, known, like his uncle, to have had extreme Puritan views. However, only one of these four was at a l l active as a JP in the 1650s, and their appointment did not mean the introduction of new radical members who were going to take over the county administration. The seventeen new committeemen from the"-town reflect primarily the changes in the corporations in l649 - l650. The county representation on the committees was only marginally affected.^ The sweeping changes in the Bedfordshire committee, on the other hand, must have come for political reasons. Seventeen of the pre-1649 committeemen appeared for the last time between 1648 and I65O, and nine others, though they were to return later, did not serve in 1649-1653.^ The majority of - 82 -those leaving left immediately, for fifteen of the twenty-nine members of the February 1648 committee did not reappear in April 1649, along with three regular committeemen not named to the 1648 committee and two peers named only to the 1648 militia committee. Only four more had ceased to serve by December 1649, and the only person tp disappear from the li s t s in I65O was a minor figure named only to the December 1649 committee. Seven of these people were MPs who did not sit in the Rump. Two more were peers who, though they had connections with the county, had not been named to any committees other than the militia. One was an alderman of Bedford. But twelve of the remainder can be identified as prominent county gentry, most of them known to have been active in local affairs in the 1640s. The Bedfordshire committee, therefore, was deprived not merely of the greater gentry who had been MPs, the Lukes, Burgoynes and St. John, but also of almost a l l the solid county families: Lewis and Humphrey Monoux, James Beverley, John Vaux, Thomas Rolt, Humphrey Fish, Onslow Winch, Thomas Sadler. These were the men who in more normal times had borne 46 almost a l l the burden of county business. The MPs had solidly set themselves against the moves by the army and the Independents; and i t seems likely that the county gentlemen, given their unenthusiastic record in the 1640s, had decided to follow their lead. Very few of the 1640s committee survived. Only nine out of the forty-seven members of the November I65O committee had appeared on the February 1648 committee, and only three other 1640s committeemen served in this period. These included a few gentlemen of some standing in the county, such as Sir William Boteler, Sir Thomas Alston, Sir William Briers, Sir John Rolt and Edward Cater, and 47 and the others were at least gentlemen of respectable rank. ' The vast - 83 -majority of the gentlemen whose names one would have expected to see in local government were now gone, however.^ Thirty-nine people were added to the Bedfordshire committees in 1649 and 1650.^ Thirteen of them were appointed to the April 1649 committee. Four were Bedford men, their appointment a product of the changes which had just come in that corporation, but the other nine were a l l county people, identifiable as either middling or, more usually, very minor gentry.^ Twenty-three more people were recruited in December. This time, only one was from Beford, and two were army men from outside the county. Only one of the county people appointed can be confirmed in a claim to write 'gentleman' after his name, and no information has been found for nine of them. Recruiting then slowed down, and only three new names appear on the November I65O committee. Most of the gentry one would expect to find on the committees were now absent, and those that remained were submerged 51 in the flood of lesser figures. It would be hard to exaggerate the differences between the two counties. In Norfolk, the county gentry s t i l l dominated the commitees and the commission, and the government wished to preserve their involvement. Sir Thomas Wodehouse, for example, was allowed to return to the Rump excep-tionally late, and Sir Thomas Guybon, who had foolishly involved himself in the Winter Rising of I65O in Norfolk, was merely cautioned, and allowed to 52 continue as a committeeman and active JP. However, as in the 1640s, the moderate gentry had to-share power with a number of more committed supporters of the regime, usually either townsmen or lesser gentry. Most of these on the committees in l649 _l65 u had been appointed much earlier, but there are indications that the government was recruiting a number of radicals to county office, particularly to the control of the militia. The militia officers - 84 -of February 1650 included many of the prominent radicals, in August the Council added the people named in a Norfolk petition, who were possibly Independents, to the militia committee, and in December a militia officer 53 of humble background was added to the commissioners. The Council had 11 11 54 also taken action over disaffected militia officers. As a result, in I65O London relied increasingly on Colonel Rich and the other militia 55 commissioners as the most dependable local officials. The corporation of Yarmouth underwent changes from the inside at this time, with the result that its affairs were more securely in the hands of those favour-able to the regime.^ A higher proportion of the Bedfordshire gentlemen had been excluded from office in 1642 on account of their Royalism, and in 1649 nearly a l l the remaining major figures left local government. Only eight of the thirty committeemen known to have been active in London or in the county in the 1640s remained on the committees after 1649i and only three prominent 57 members continued to serve. The vacuum on the committees was f i l l e d by an influx of new people, most of them of lower social origins and more radical political and religious views. As in Norfolk, a number of these 58 new people were ini t i a l l y brought into local office through the militia. One new committeeman was John Okey, an army colonel of republican views, 59 who had bought Crown land in Bedfordshire. A popular party in the town had just succeeded, with Parliamentary help, in changing and democratizing the structure of the corporation, and some members of this party were to appear on the county committees.^0 The immediate explanation for the difference is in the greater repercussions of Pride's Purge in Bedfordshire and the apparent mass refusal by the gentry to serve the new government. One can only speculate why the - 85 -government should have acted - and so very promptly - on the Bedfordshire withdrawals and not on the Norfolk ones. The situation in Bedfordshire, close to London as i t was, may have been more obvious, while fewer people knew Norfolk well and Heveningham's recommendations probably carried the greatest weight. The changed relationship between the security of the county and the efficiency of the committee may also have made a difference. As in the 1640s, Norfolk's internal security was a matter of concern, after the 1648 troubles in Norwich and the attempted winter rising of I65O. The Norfolk officials proved themselves as efficient as in the 1640s in dealing with such problems, and there was no incentive for London to weaken the government of the county by displacing gentlemen of established position.^"'" Bedfordshire, freed now from the external threats of the 1640s, was also free from internal unrest. There was therefore no incentive to retain in power the committeemen who had proved so uncooperative throughout the 1640s. As a result, the situations in the 1650s were reversed, and i t was the Bedfordshire committeemen who were praised for their diligence, while 62 the Norfolk committeemen were a cause of concern in London, At a more fundamental level, the committees developed as they did because the two county communities had such different characters. In Norfolk, landholding and control over county affairs were concentrated almost exclusively in the hands of the resident gentry, and especially in the hands of the major gentry of the county. Relatively few outsiders either owned land in the county or had any say in its affairs. Only two peers owned substantial property in the county, and the combined aristo-63 cratic holdings only amounted to about 65 of the 858 manors in I65O. No peers were resident in the county at the beginning of the c i v i l war, and the only sign of remaining aristocratic influence in the 1640 elections - 86 -was the nomination of the members for Castle Rising by the Howards, though 64 even their influence was at a low ebb. Sixteen merchants, the Crown, the Church and a very small number of other outsiders also held manors, but a l l these people together, including the peers, only held about 130 manors, or about fifteen percent of the t o t a l . ^ The only non-residents whose activity in Norfolk affairs was normally tolerated were Suffolk gentle-men with land in Norfolk.^ The vast majority of the manorial lords were Norfolk gentlemen, and an exceptional amount of the land was held by the broad group of leading gentry. Thirty-five people held over half the manors, and fifteen people owned more than ten manors each, unlike Suffolk, 67 where only three people owned that many. One can identify about twenty-five great families, who shared or interchanged preeminence in county 68 affairs. Norfolk was not a county where eliminating one or two major families from office would have much effect on the gentry elite's hold on the county. Moreover, the gentry of Norfolk were, generally speaking, longtime residents and firmly established in their neighbourhoods. The 'new' families in Norfolk were the sixteenth century immigrants, and most committeemen, even in the 1650s, were descended from gentlemen named 69 on the gentry li s t s of the 1570s. Although quantitative evidence is not available, the surviving Norfolk deeds do not suggest that the first half of the seventeenth century, not even the 1640-1660 period, saw a 70 high number of land transfers. Norfolk had an exceptionally stable gentry community. This gentry community had been barely disturbed by the events of 1642. Only a few gentlemen had declared their Royalism, and even fewer had been permanently excluded from power. Those gentlemen who had dominated county l i f e before 1642 continued to do so in the 1640s. They were joined - 87 -on the committees by a small number of people who would have been minor figures in other circumstances but who acquired influence and prominence through their political activities. These two groups feuded with each other, but the traditional rulers were not displaced. This remained the situation in the 1650s. There were more people appointed from outside the traditional officeholding class, and they controlled more of the county business, but the gentry remained on the committees and the commission, and demonstrated their continuing power at the elections in 1654 and I 6 5 6 . 7 1 The Bedfordshire gentry's control over their more fluid society was far less assured. Before the Civil War, they had to share the preeminence in local affairs with six peers, the Earls of Bedford, Bolingbroke, Cleveland, Kent, Peterborough and Elgin, who had an interest in the county and took 72 some part in its affairs. The resident gentry probably owned considerably less of the land than their counterparts in Norfolk. The Crown, the Queen, and the Church - in the form of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster -owned land, and they and the peers together held about thirty percent of 73 the manors. Londoners found Bedfordshire a convenient place to invest in real estate, even i f they did not intend to reside there, and they were lords of another twenty percent of the manors at some time between 1620 and 1680. The local gentry were therefore in a relatively vulnerable position, lacking the firm, exclusive grip of the Norfolk gentry. The insecurity of their control was heightened by the transience, almost root-lessness, of the county society. Few of the committeemen, even in the 1640s, could claim deep roots in the county. The family names of only three committeemen appear on a fifteenth century l i s t of Bedfordshire gentry, and - 88 -75 many had moved to the county recently. Thirteen of the pre-1649 committee-men, and thirteen of those appointed l649-l660, had purchased their seats in the county since 1610, Of the committeemen's families whose history is known, twenty-seven had been resident in the county before 1600, and 76 twenty-nine had moved there during the seventeenth century. The ownership of land, and with i t the composition of the gentry class, was in a constant state of flux. Between 1620 and 1680, at least 133 out of the 254 manors changed hands, and the market seems to have been especially active before 77 1660, Excluded from these figures are the sales of Crown, Church and confiscated properties, made in l6k6 to 1654 and disallowed at the Restora-tion. These lands, a significant proportion of the county, were frequently sold to people from outside the county. Indeed, i t was generally true that much of the land was sold to outsiders, most especially to merchants 79 and lawyers from the capital. The sales to speculators were particularly 80 subversive of the resident gentry's position. Contemporaries were aware of and regretted the exceptional transience of Bedfordshire's gentry population and sometimes, to highlight i t , compiled l i s t s of those who 81 had left the county. Such mobility probably accelerated in 1642-1660, and the changes in officials in the Interregnum were at least partly a reflection of a real change in the composition of the county elite, a process typical of Bedfordshire in other periods as well. Moreover, the government was given much greater freedom in selecting officials. The new landowners augmented the recruiting pool for officials, and the absence of a stable dominant elite allowed the new officials a viable role in local affairs. The Bedfordshire committees, even in the l640s, did not include a l l those with territorial influence in the county. The peers ceased to play much part in local government after 1642. The Earl of Bedford was so foolish as to cross from Parliament to the King in 1643, and the Earls of Peterborough and Cleveland were also excluded by their Royalism. The Earl of Boling-faroke, head of the St. John family, died in 1646, to be succeeded by a minor. The Kent t i t l e passed in rapid succession to four short-lived Earls, and then to a minor. The Earl of Elgin, avoiding public affairs as much as possible, brilliantly maintained an immaculate neutrality, being 82 duly rewarded at the Restoration. Many of the oldest and most distinguished families were also excluded from office. The remainder of the natural rulers of the county, those with authority in their districts, maintained their influence until 1649, when virtually a l l of them left local govern-ment. New people were found to replace them, some promoted from lower ranks of society, some newly resident in the county. These people dominated the committees, the commission of the peace, the elections to Parliament, and public l i f e in the county, recasting the county's hierarchy. The inhabi-tants of Ampthill, for example, found that their local JPs were a local gentleman, Edward Cater, who was a radical member of the Nominated Parliament, and two army officers of notably radical opinions, John Okey and John Crook, 84 both of whom had purchased Crown lands in the county. The Bedfordshire gentlemen's withdrawal from local office in 1649 was presumably a matter of their own convictions. The government was able to accept their decision, however, because the county society provided the option of a viable alternative administrative class. There were people in Bedfordshire willing to replace the old rulers, and habits of loyalty to the old gentry were not so deeply ingrained that newcomers could not expect obedience'. Even in Bedfordshire, however, the government found i t Increasingly difficult during the l650s to find committeemen who could carry conviction. The gentry in Norfolk, however, retained their local power, and their appearance - 90 -on the committees and commissions was merely a recognition of something that would have been true in any case. The distance between Norfolk and Bedford-shire on this is very great, and not to be explained simply in terms of a more powerful gentry community, but also in terms of a stronger sense of county identity. Norfolk's inhabitants, the gentlemen included, saw them-selves as being distinctive, as having a corporate personality which set them off from the rest of England, and felt a responsibility to act together for the good of their county. This is evident in the protection of county independence in the 1640s, and in the corporate decisions made by the Q c gentlemen in the 1650s. There is l i t t l e sign, however, that the inhabitants of Bedfordshire thought themselves very different from the men of Hertford-shire or Buckinghamshire, or that the gentlemen attempted any kind of 86 solidarity. Many of the gentlemen were, after a l l , only recent arrivals, and many had interests either in London or, like the Burgoynes, in other Or; counties. In such circumstances, the resistance many gentlemen undoubtedly felt to the government's pressures remained unorganized and often inarticulate. The greater influence of radical political and religious ideas in Bedfordshire also affected the change in the county's hierarchy. The county had been a leader before the Civil War in the opposition to extra-parliamentary taxation, and in the 1640s and 1650s i t remained fertile soil for advanced views, their growth encouraged by the residence of the many army men who had 88 bought land there. Republican petitions found ready support, the MPs returned in the 1650s were radical men, and Thurloe assumed that Okey would be able to raise support there for a projected rising against the Protectorate RQ in 1654. Norfolk, outside of the main towns, had always been a more docile place, and the extremists never found i t favourable ground.90 The MPs in - 91 -91 the 1650s, for example, were county gentlemen of moderate views. A similar contrast is seen in the success of the new sects in the- two bounties. Bed-fordshire was reported to have fifteen Baptist and thirteen Quaker groups in 1669, while only seven Baptist and eleven Quaker groups were reported 92 for Norfolk. Norfolk had at most fifteen Independent churches before 1660, hut over eighty ministers were associated with the Presbyterian Norfolk 93 Association. J The main Independent strength was in the towns, especially Yarmouth, where at least ten aldermen and eleven common councilmen were 94 members of the church. The Independents in Bedfordshire, however, had a solid base in the countryside, especially in the south, traditionally the 95 most Puritan area of the county.The in-depth strength of the radicals allowed the establishment of a new hierarchy in the county, by providing 96 support for i t and some members of i t . In Norfolk, fewer such people held office, and did not receive the same kind of support. What happened to the Norwich administration, though quite different, was as closely related to the fundamental structures of the town as the changes in Norfolk and Bedfordshire were to the fundamental county structures. The recruiting of new members to the corporation was limited by the written and unwritten requirements for office. In the 1640s, the Parliamentary majority had successfully managed the elections to office by controlling the choice of sheriffs. As most of the ex-sheriffs were Parliamentarian, this had not disrupted the normal patterns of promotion very much. It had previously taken thirteen or fourteen years to progress from sheriff to mayor, and this was not radically reduced in the 1640s. More-over, the expected number of sheriffs from the 1630s progressed to 97 alderman and mayor.7 - 92 -TABLE IV THE PROGRESSION FROM SHERIFF TO MAYOR IN NORWICH Number Years 1615-1619 6 14.3 1620-1624 3 14.0 ' 1625-1629 4 13.2 1630-1634 6 13.O 1635-1639 4 " 15.5 1640-1644 7 9.6 1645-1649 4 9.0 1650-1654 3 5.0 1655-1659 6 8 . 8 ' 1660-1664 7 12.0 1665-1669 3 14.3 Notes; Number Number of sheriffs in each period who later became mayor. Years Average number of years between the shrievalty and mayoralty for these people. Source: L i s t s of mayors and sheriff in Blomefield, Vol. III. The realignment of p o l i t i c a l groupings in the town in the late 1640s had threatened the Parliamentarians' control. A, moderate, John Utting, was chosen as mayor, and a Royalist sympathizer, Roger Mingay, elected as alderman. The drastic measures needed to correct this situation created a real discontinuity in the promotion of o f f i c i a l s . Through new electoral regulations and the intervention of the House of Commons, the corporation 98 was thoroughly purged in 1649. The moderates and Royalist sympathizers were removed: six aldermen were expelled i n January 1649, one in 1650, and two died. In addition, another five aldermen died in 1649-1650, and two - 93 -99 more disappeared for reasons which cannot he positively established. There were only ten former sheriffs available for office in 1649, and three of these were not eligible for e l e c t i o n . T h e seven eligible candidates f i l l e d the seven vacancies for aldermen in early 1649• To find further candidates, the requirement for aldermen to be chosen from those who had served as sheriff had to be dropped. The four new aldermen of the summer of 1649, and four of the five new aldermen in 1650, had not served as sheriff."^^ The pressures of factional choice had radically revised the system of promotion in a way that had not happened in the 1640s. The progress from common councilman to sheriff, from sheriff to alderman, from alderman to mayor, became quicker and quicker, and the requirement for sheriffs to be 102 common councilmen, and for aldermen to be former sheriffs, was dropped. The sixteen new aldermen were, with two exceptions, members of an identifiable 'independent' party in the town, and the elections had been manipulated to 103 ensure their selection. But, unlike the new committeemen in the counties, they were of comparable status and wealth to the men they replaced, and they met the town's normal criteria for aldermanic off ice."'" ^  The membership of the town committees continued to reflect the controlling group in the corporation. Since the changes in the aldermanry were related to local, not national, developments, the first new committee appointments preceded Pride's Purge. Two of the new l649 _ l 6 5 0 aldermen were appointed to the committee of 2 December 1648, three to the April 1649 committee, and three to the November I65O committee."'"^  The others added to the committees at this time were mainly the new aldermen from earlier in the 1640s, together 106 with a few people from outside the town. - 94 -The demand for such a large number of new aldermen in a short space of time provided an opportunity for advancement for some people who would have had to wait longer for an opening in a less hectic period. John Man, alderman in I65O, was an example of a man on his way up, already wealthy, destined to become mayor, then an alderman of London, and a gentleman with 107 his own coat of arms. The concentration of elections also provided the chance for a whole group, the worsted weavers, to penetrate city government in a way denied to them previously. The weavers had been relatively poor in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, with no political influence. Any weaver who made money tended to move into the distributive trades which monopolized city government. The merchants, grocers and drapers provided 108 75 of the 102 mayors between 1500 and 1592. No weaver was mayor before 1640, and no weavers were aldermen in the 1620s and 1 6 3 0 s . T h e shift in economic power to the textile workers had already begun, however. The admissions to freemen include an increasing proportion of weavers throughout the seventeenth century.1"'"0 Legislation for their protection was a major concern of the corporation in 1 6 4 0 - 1 6 6 0 . 1 1 1 A few city magistrates had 112 been weavers in the 1630s. After 1640, weavers began to appear in more important posts. Four weavers, along with fifteen grocers and six merchants, were among the committeemen appointed before 1649- Between 1649 and 1657, only five merchants and grocers, but seven weavers, were added to the 113 committees. The new aldermen in 1649-1650 included four weavers, some of whom were to become mayor, and the weavers maintained this representation 114 -among the aldermen after the Restoration. The two decades of the c i v i l war and Interregnum probably had l i t t l e direct influence on the economic 115 growth of the textile industry. J Rather, the industry's steady growth throughout the century first had an effect on the aldermanry in 1649-1650 because of the abnormal demand for new officials then. - 95 -In Norfolk, in Norwich, and in Bedfordshire, the patterns of committee membership established in l649 - l650 were adhered to for the rest of the 1650s. The gentry in Norfolk continued to coexist in county government with the more radical committeemen. The recruiting of new county members, delayed since 1649, came in 1651 and 1652. The rising of I65O may have provided a stimulus to appoint some more reliable supporters, and by 1651 William Heveningham had l e f t the Council of State and others, including 116 possibly Walton, were recommending the new committeemen. The twenty-117 seven I652 recruits included twenty people from the county proper. The only representatives of prominent Norfolk families were the sons of committee men, John P e l l and Robert Woods junior. The others were mainly gentry of middle rank, though one of them was a promoted head constable, and three 118 were lawyers. Six were members of Independent congregations. Many of them had already seen county service, and appear on either the l i s t of m i l i t i . 119 officers or the l i s t of additional committeemen, both of December 1651. Sixteen of the new committeemen were active as JPs in the 1650s, and several either assisted the Major-General or were exceptionally active at the 120 Quarter Sessions in 1655-1656* It seems that a deliberate and largely successful attempt was made to strengthen the group of government supporters already in county office by adding a number of people who had similar p o l i t i c a l and religious views and were prepared to involve themselves in local a f f a i r s . Replacements had been found at the time for those leaving the Bedford-shire committees in 1649-1650, so that fewer people needed to be added to the committees i n 1651-1652 than in Norfolk. As in Norfolk, however, those recruited were mainly from the county i t s e l f . Two were London lawyers, two were from Bedford, and one a new landowner, but the other eleven were - 96 -121 from the county. Most were very minor figures, and only two or three could he described as middle gentry. Three of the local people were 'esquires', and two 'gentlemen'. Two of them were later to assist the Major-General, several were militia officers, and others are known to have been active, but on the whole they do not seem to have been leading 122 figures on the committees. Their addition demonstrates, however, that the committee as reorganized in l649~l650 was s t i l l felt to be inadequate. After the reorganization of Norwich corporation's membership had been completed in 1 6 5 0 , the membership of both the corporation and the committees remained extremely stable until 1659• However, the recruits to the town's committee in I652 show a slight divergence between the personnel of the committees and of the town's administration. The sheriffs and aldermen elected after 1650 tended to be moderates, but the recruits to the committee included three strong supporters of the Commonwealth. The committees could include supporters not qualified for the higher town offices, and, being under London's control, they did not respond to the resurgence of the 123 moderate party in the town. Just as the committee system had lost its coherence and unity after 1 6 4 9 , so the committeemen no longer formed a homogenous group. The recruits were different in each county and in each year. They have in common that they were generally of lower social rank than their predecessors, and were 12k appointed at a slightly younger age. Only just over half the seventy-one people added to Norfolk committees between 1649 and I 6 5 6 were county people, the rest being townsmen or from outside the county, so that fewer display the marks of gentry status. Considering this, the proportion of county gentry among the recruits remained relatively high. Only one baronet and no knights - 97 -were added, but a l l those availale had been automatic choices for committees in the l640s. Seventeen were 'esquires' and eleven 'gentlemen', showing a tendency to recruit from outside the customary officeholding class, but over a third came from families included in the 1570s.' gentry li s t s or 125 recognized at a seventeenth century Visitation. Less than a fifth, much fewer than before, had a university education or had attended one of the 126 Inns of Court. They were s t i l l mostly commonly moderately well-off, with 127 few either very wealthy or known to have been of limited means. Some obscure figures were now being added, and no information at a l l could be found for nine of the recruits. TABLE V THE STATUS OF COMMITTEEMEN" APPOINTED 1649-1656 Norfolk Norwich Bedfordshire PEERS 0 0 0 BARONETS 1 1 0 KNIGHTS 0 0 0 ESQUIRES 17 2 6 GENTLEMEN 11 5 9 TOTAL IDENTIFIED 29 8 15 TOTAL IN GROUPS IV-VII 71 18 57 - 98 -TABLE VI THE WEALTH OF COMMITTEEMEN APPOINTED 1649-1656 . Norfolk Norwich Bedfordshire A 3 1 1 • B 16 9 13 C 5 1 19 TOTAL IDENTIFIED 24 11 33 TOTAL IN GROUPS IV-VII 71 18 57 Sources, tables V and VI: app. 4. Those added to the Bedfordshire committees in the same period were of lower rank than their counterparts in Norfolk, but were a more significant part of the committees. The recruits represent thirty-six percent of a l l the Bedfordshire committeemen 1642-1660, while the Norfolk recruits were 128 only twenty-four percent of the to t a l there. There were no baronets or knights among the Bedfordshire recruits, and there were nine 'gentlemen', three more than the 'esquires'. The status of a remarkably high number of the fifty-eight members of this group could not be identified, and there were eleven committeemen for whom no further information could be found. The families of less than a f i f t h had been recognized at a Visitation, and only ten had been to university and five to one of the Inns. Only one i s known to have been very wealthy, and n i ^ ^ t e n had small incomes, while 129 thirteen were moderately well-off. Some of these recruits were gentry of middling status, but hardly any could have been expected to serve at this level of local government in an earlier period. The government was now mostly selecting people completely outside the former officeholding class. - 99 -The additions to the Norwich committees represent only twenty percent of the total of a l l committeemen. The recruiting here was not restricted to the new aldermen, for only eight of the eighteen new committeemen were people elected as aldermen in 1648-1652. Most of them were of good position in the town. One was very wealthy, nine moderately well-off, and one relatively poor. Several also had the marks of county status, for two were 'esquires' and five 'gentlemen'. Most of these recruits met the town's customary criteria for its officeholders. The membership of the committees had remained stable in the counties throughout the 1640s. After the first major changes had been made in 1649, the stability was gone for good, and the membership continued to turn over rapidly for the rest of the 1650s. The impermanence of the Bedfordshire recruits in particular largely accounts for the difference in the scale of recruiting between the counties. The new committeemen appointed between 164-9 and 1656 and serving t i l l 1657 or later were very nearly the same proportion of a l l committeemen in each area: 16 percent in 131 Norfolk, 14 percent in Norwich, and 17 percent in Bedfordshire. The total of new committeemen for Bedfordshire is so high because there were more temporary than permanent appointments, so that the recruits who did not serve after I656 were 20 percent of a l l committeemen, as against 9 132 percent in Norfolk and 6 percent in Norwich. Even in Bedfordshire, i t ^ .0 would appear, there was a limit to the number of^vLable new committeemen who could be found, and the less suitable people chosen when that supply was exhausted did not prove adequate. Length of service on the committees was directly related to social position. Those of highest rank were likely to remain longest, which is what one would expect, while those of very low social rank were frequently - 100 -only named to committees for a short period of time. Of the original appointees, those who did not serve after 1649 (Group i) were of noticeably lower status than those whose service continued t i l l after I656 (Group III), Group I for Norfolk contained forty-five, committeemen, twelve of whom came from Visitation families and seven of whom had a university education. Six of the ten 'gentlemen' appointed before 1649 were in this group, but only one baronet and three knights. No information could be found for eleven members. Group III was only slightly larger, with forty-eight members, but twenty-one came from Visitation families and the same number had a university education. There were ten baronets and four knights in the group. In Bedfordshire, too, Group III was higher socially than Group I, though here the gap was not so great, because so many county gentlemen had left office by 1649• The same held true in the 1650s. Those appointed 1649-1656 who served t i l l after 165? (Groups V and Vii) were of higher status than those who had ceased to serve by I656 (Groups IV and VI'). Groups IV and VI in Norfolk contained twenty-five people, of whom four came from Visitation families, three were 'esquires' and five 'gentlemen', and eight are people for whom no further information could be found. Groups V and VII, with forty-six members, contained twenty-one people from Visitation families, one baronet, fourteen 'esquires' and six 'gentlemen'. Groups IV and VI in Bedfordshire contained thirty-one people, with two 'esquires', four 'gentlemen', and ten of whom nothing further is known. Groups V and VII, with twenty-six members, contained six 'esquires' and five 'gentlemen', and only one person about whom no further information 133 was found. This relationship between social status and service on the committees was at the heart of the government's dilemma in the 1650s. - 101 -Once recruiting from outside the officeholding class had "begun, the government was forced to continue recruiting as it discovered which of its choices were unsatisfactory or unacceptable, and had to search ever wider for committeemen who were ever less likely to "be suitable. But to return to rule by the gentry elite of the counties would mean giving up many of its political aims, for there was no way of bringing the county gentry back on to the committees without giving them the freedom to run the county as they wished. The successive governments of the 1650s were never to resolve this satisfactorily. The events of 1649 and I65O had established the pattern of the next ten years in each area. In Norfolk, the decade saw continuing rivalry between the gentry elite, s t i l l present on the committees, and the small group of more radical supporters of the government. In Bedfordshire, where the former elite had been obliterated in 1649, the search for a stable new elite went on at the same time as a growing reconciliation between the former Parliamentarian and Royalist gentlemen. In Norwich, Yarmouth and Bedford, the new leadership of the corporations established in 1649-1650 maintained their positions, though the rigidity of the town structures also preserved an opposition presence on each council. - 102 -Notes to Chapter 3 1 API i i . 329-35; Underdown, Pride's Purge, pp. 3OI-3O2. 2 AOI i i i . 397-402; CSPD. I65O, p. 557; CSPD. 1651, p. 453. 3 CSPD. I65O. pp. 447, 449, 454-55. 4 CSPD, 1649-1650. p. 80, The Commissioners for securing the peace of the Commonwealth, or more shortly the decimation commissioners, were to assist and support the Major-Generals and to collect the decimation tax on Royalist estates (CSPD, 1655, pp. 346-47). The Judges for Creditors and Poor Prisoners were to deal with the cases of those in prison for debt (API i i . 753~64). The Ejectors, like the Commissioners of the 1640s, were to remove scandalous or insufficient ministers (API i i . 9 6 8 - 9 0 ) . 5 TSP iv. 207, 237, 240. 6 "Your justices of peace and judges of assize have large power to give remedy in these cases" of riots and contempts (CSPD, 1650, p. 4 9 ) . The judges of assize were asked to investigate a problem in Norfolk (CSPD, 1650. p. 147). For the clerks of assize, see CSPD, 1649-1650, p. 262. For the Norfolk sheriffs, see CSPD, I65O, p. 468. 7 E.g. the Excisemen. 8 CSPD, 1650, p. 4 4 . The county committees were already forgotten. 9 Though Morrill argues that local administration in Cheshire in the 1650s was more efficient than before, not because of greater centralization, but because of the exclusion of the county gentry (Cheshire, pp. 233-53). 10 Underdown, Pride's Purge, p. 299- Information about the MPs is from the lists of secluded members in Underdown (pp. 361-98) and of Rumpers in tforden, Rump Parliament, pp. 387~94. Underdown's l i s t can be misleading, for a 'secluded' MP could also be a Rumper, as Earle was (Underdown, Pride's Purge, p. 197) . 11 The amount of business Atkins undertook for Norwich demonstrates how important its MP was to a town (Bell, Memorials, i . 323~24, i i . 114-15, 115-16, 116-17). Atkins wrote to the Mayor on 27 December 1649 that "I want a good partner to carry on your business" (ibid., i i . 114-15). 12 Underdown, Pride's Purge, p. 210; Keeler, Long Parliament, p. 292. 13 Yarmouth complained that Corbet was not able to serve them effectively as their member because of his other duties: among other offices, he was a parliamentary commissioner in Ireland (Worden, p. 250; Palmer, Manship, i i . 208). - 103 -Notes to Chapter 3 14 AOI i i . 335. 15 See below for his employment by the Council on Norfolk business. 16 Sir Oliver and Sir Samuel Luke were secluded, Sir Roger Burgoyne and Sir Beauchamp St. John were abstainers (Underdown, Pride's Purge, p. 55). 17 Ibid., p. 210. 18 See app. 2. Napier was not a committeeman for Bedfordshire at this time. 19 Worden shows Bedfordshire as having no representatives in either January I65O or March 1653 (pp. 396-97). BNQ i i . 253 incorrectly notes Richard Edwards as MP for Beds.; he was Recruiter for Christchurch. 20 Recommendations for Bedfordshire appointments could have come from Sir Gilbert Pickering. 21 CSPD. 1649-1650. pp. 422, 438; CSPD, 1650. p. 177. 22 CJ v i . 128. 23 Council members were to give in to the Council subcommittee drawing up the legislation for the militia committees "such names as they think f i t " for the county commissioners, and the Council later considered the names (CSPD, 1649-1.65,0. pp. 80, 408). 24 Whitelock, Memorials, i i i . 10, 14. 25 Underdown, Pride's Purge, pp. 3 0 0 _ 11. 26 CSPD. I65O. pp. 34, 293, 303, 392, 419, 452, 483. 27 CSPD, I649-I65O. p. 262. 28 CSPD. 1649-1650. p. 408 (November 1649). 29 CSPD. 1650". p. 337. 30 CSPD. 1650, pp. 288-89. 31 Calendar of the Committee for Compounding, p. 2322; TJJP v. 371. 32 Blomefield ix.' 153-33 Worden, pp. 391-92. - 104 -Notes to Chapter 3 34 Underdown, Pride's Purge, pp. 262-68. 35 Underdown says of the situation in Somerset in 1649: "Pyne was willing to promote men of lower rank - to obtain reliable local officials he had no alternative - but he also accepted the services of many who were only outward supporters of the regime, conformists who regarded any government as better than none" (Somerset, p. 157). 36 Underdown, Pride's Purge, p. 300. 37 Ibid., p. 311. Underdown comments: "Only where the local governors refused to comply was there room for the promotion of more than a handful of new radicals" (ibid., p. 300). 38 See chap. 2 and app. 3« Six of the Norfolk committeemen had died by 1647, three were Norwich citizens only briefly appointed to county committees, and three were from other Norfolk towns and had possibly only served on the committees .while they held office in their own towns; only five had gone-'for-no apparent reason. One of the Norwich committeemen had also died. The Bedfordshire committee-men who left before 1648 were mainly minor figures, no information being available for three of them; seven had been recruited as additional committeemen in June 1643 and were not named after 1644. 39 See app. J>. 40 Figures for first and last appearances are given in app. 3i but in this instance the straight comparison of memberships is also useful. The Norfolk committee of November I65O had 94 members, of whom 63 had been committeemen in February 1648; the Norwich committee had 26 members, 12 of them from 1648; the Bedfordshire committee had 47 members, 9 of them from 1648. 41 See apps. 2 and 3« 42 For the membership of the commission, see Walker, Names of the Justices  of Peace, pp. 38-.39« Sir John Palgrave and John Buxton, among other county gentlemen, s t i l l appeared. 43 Sir Horatio Townshend was also a new member, for his only previous committee had been the swiftly-repealed militia committee of December 1648. 44 See app. 2. Only one of the Norwich appointees was a new alderman: the others had a l l been aldermen before 1648. 45 See app. 3» table XII. Those who disappeared 1648-1650 appear as exits between 'L' and *0'. - 105 -Notes to Chapter 3 46 See app. 2 . 47 The other stable members were Robert Stanton, Richard Edwards, John Harvey, and John Neale of Deane. 48 The I65O commission of the peace had been similarly revised. The only county gentlemen on the commission but not on the committees was Sir Beauchamp St. John (Walker, Names of Justices of Peace, pp. 3 -4) . 49 See app. 3, table XII. These people are the members of Groups IV and V. 50 Parsloe, "Corporation of Bedford", pp. 154-55. 51 See app. 2 . 52 Worden, p. 72; CSPD, 1651, pp. 48-49. 53 CSPD, 1650, p. 504; ibid., p. 3°6; ibid., p. 483. 54 CSPD, 1650, p. 177. 55 CSPD, 1651, pp. 20, 28. 56 Palmer, Manship, i . 390; Blomefield xi. 363. 57 The prominent members were Boteler, Alston and Cater. 58 Wagstaffe and Samuel Bedford fi r s t held county office as militia commissioners (CSPD, 1650, p. 455)• Cf. the signatures to a letter from the Beds, militia commissioners to the Council (CSPD, 1651. p. 212) . 59 H. G. Tibbutt, Colonel John Okey, 1606-1662, BHRS XXXV (1955); John Grew and John Easton. 60 Parsloe, "Corporation of Bedford", pp. 154-59; Parsloe, The Minute  Book of Bedford Corporation, 1647-1664". BHRS XXVI ( 1949) , pp. 28-37. 61 For the Winter Rising, see Ketton-Cremer, Forty Norfolk Essays, pp. 24-30; David Underdown, Royalist Conspiracy in England, l 6 4 9 ~ l 6 6 0 (New Haven, I960), pp. 4 3 f f . ; CJ i i . 504-506; CSPD. 1650, pp. 447, 449, 452, 454-55. 62 CSPD. I 6 5 I , p. 203; CSPD, I65O, p. 177. 63 These, and the following figures for manorial holdings, are taken from the tables in S;pratt, "Agrarian Conditions", esp. pp. 94 f f . The peers were only two among the fifteen major-landowners, and one family, the Howards, was heavily in debt. - 106 -Notes to Chapter 3 64 The other aristocratic attempts to influence the 1640 elections had failed. (see chap. 2) . 65 Only 39 out of 266 manorial lords were outsiders• Holmes estimates that 64 Norfolk manors in 1640 were held fay East Anglian residents outside the county, and 36 manors fay people from outside East Anglia. However, he excludes the holdings of the Crown, the Church, other corporate "bodies, and the E a r l of Arundel. (Eastern Association, P. 230). 66 See chap. 2. 67 Spratt, loc. c i t . 68 See chap.2 for names. 69 See app. 4. Holmes estimates that of 59 Norfolk gentlemen who were p o l i t i c a l l y eminent in 1640 42% had settled i n the county "before 1485, 44$ "between 1485 and I6O3, and 13% after I6O3 (Eastern Association, p. 230). 70 NA XIII, 146-276. The sales of Crown lands did not faring new office-holders to the county: the largest purchaser, Edward Whalley, though appointed to committees in the 1650s, does not seem to have "been active on them (S. J. Madge, The Domesday of Crown Lands (London, 1938). P« 374; see app. 2 ) . 71 See chap. 4. 72 Godfaer, pp. 214-42; see chap. 2 afaove. 73 The figures for the ownership and transfer of manors are derived from the manorial histories in VCH, Bedfordshire, vols. II and III. Manorial holdings and land ownership did not, of course, necessarily coincide, "but the manors provide at least an approximate guide. One must remember that profaafaly more than half the land was not in gentry hands, i f the Hereford figures are typical (M. A. Faraday, Herefordshire M i l i t i a Assessments of 1663. Camden Society, 4th Ser. X (1972), p. 18). The Crown, the Queen, the Church and the peers held 50 manors. 74 Londoners held 28 manors. It was common for people to have interests in "both London and Beds.: some inhafaitants of the county had claimed exemption from contributing to the muster on the grounds that they had already paid in London (Acts.of the Privy Council, I6l8 - l 6 l 9 , p. 119). 75 BNj£ i . 169-72. - 107 -Notes to Chapter 3 76 There were 157 committeemen 1642-1660: Beds, residents "before 1600: 27 Beds, residents after 1600: 29 Beds, residents, no date: 41 Bedford town: 19 Outsiders: 7 Not known: 34 (Principal source: VCH, Bedfordshire.) 77 Manors held by the same family 1620-1680: Manors which changed hands 1620-1680: Manors whose history i s doubtful: 114 133 7 There were 55 manor transfers in 1620-1639, 63 in 1640-59, and 33 in I66O-79. 78 Madge, p. 368. 79 S i r William Alston of the Inner Temple.purchased several manors in Willey between 1633 and I638. Henry Brandreth, a London merchant, bought an estate in 1652. Many other inhabitants had recently moved from London: Beecher, Chester, Turner, Samuel Browne, Anderson, Kelyng. Such sales were especially common in l 6 4 9 - l 6 6 0 (e.g. the five Londoners who bought manors in Caddington in 1649 and 1655» and the sale of a manor in Sandy in 1657 to Jasper Edwards, Chief Registrar of Chancery). See also Godber, pp. 243~44. 80 E.g. the sales of Henlow ( l640) , Northill (I652) Caddington (1655). 81 '.. A l i s t from 1668 names 65 gentlemen who had remained, and 103 who had l e f t the county in the previous f i f t y years. An undated addendum gives the names of a further 29 who had l e f t , presumably since the compiling of the f i r s t l i s t (Blades, 1634 Visitation, pp. 206-208). 82 Godber, pp. 241-52. 83 See chap. 2. 84 Tibbutt, Okey, p. 81. Okey became custos rotulorum. 85 See the meeting of the 1654 MPs, the assessment commissioners' discussions in 1655, and the j^oordLnation of the. opposition during the I656 elections (T. Burton, The TJiary of Thomas Burton (London, 1828), i . xxxv-xxxvi (Goddard's Journal); TSP i i i . 328; Ketton-Cremer, Forty Norfolk Essays, pp. 34-35; HMC, Buxton, pp. 270-7-1. 86 See chap. 2. - 108 -Notes to Chapter 3 8? Sir Roger Burgoyne lived in Warwickshire (BNQ, i . 154). 88 Madge, p. 368; Tibbutt, 6key, pp.' 74-78. 89 . The Humble and Serious Testimony of many Hundreds of Godly and well" affected people in the County of Bedford and parts adjacent (April, 1657); Tibbutt, Okey, pp. 86-89; TS? i i i . 148. The Bedfordshire nominees (Taylor and Crook) and actual MPs in 1653 (Taylor and Cater) were a l l radicals (Brown, Bunyan, p. 95). 90- See chap. 2. 91 See chap. 4 . 92 G. Lyons Turner, ed., Original Records of Early Nonconformity under  Persecution and Indulgence (London, 1911). i i . 110. 93 Ten Independent congregations were named in a contemporary l i s t of 1655 (C. B. Jewson, ed., "Return of Conventicles in Norwich Diocese I669", NA XXXIII (1962), 11-12). W. A. Shaw, A History of the English  Church during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth, 1640-1660 TLondon, 1900), i i . l 6 l . 94 A. Stuart Brown, ed., "The Church Books of the Old Meeting House, Norwich and Great Yarmouth Independent Church", NRS XXII (195l) , pp. 1-40. 95 H. G. Tibbutt, ed., Some Early Nonconformist Church Books. BHRS LI (1972), esp. pp. 10-11. 96 Though few Baptists seem to have been committeemen (ibid., passim). 97 See table TV, and chap. 2. 98 CJ. v i . 153; Blomefield i i i . 396-399; Cary, Memorials, i . 402. 99 Evans, pp. 191-94. 100 The only one who could have served as alderman was a Royalist sympathizer (Evans, p. 224). 101 Evans, pp. 224-25. 102 The average common council experience of sheriffs (in years), which had been 9.0 in the l 6 2 0 s , 6.1 in the l 6 3 0 s , and 8.0 in the 1640s, dropped to 3«9 in the 1650s, before recovering in the l660s to 7«4 (Evans, p. 394). The average number of years from sheriff to alder-man, 7.5 in the 1620s and 5.2 in the 1630s, became 3.2 in the 1640s and 1.5 in the 1650s (Evans, p.. 401), Also see table IV. The turnover on the Common Council also became extremely high in the 1650s (Evans, P. 377). .. - 109 -Notes to Chapter 3 103 Evans, p. 2 2 6 . 104 Evans, p. 479. 105 Two more appeared i n 1652 (app. 2 ) . 106 The outsiders were Gabriel Barber, S i r Ralph Hare, and Fleetwood. 107 Venn; NA XVII, 250-51. 108 A l l i s o n , "Norfolk Worsted Industry", p. 78. 109 Sachse, p. 20; Evans, p. 565. 110 Admissions to the freedom of the c i t y i n t e x t i l e s (predominantly weavers) as a percentage of a l l freemen: 1600-1619: 23 1620-1639: 31 1640-1659= 37 1660-1679: 44 1680-1699: 99 1700-1719: 58 ( C o r f i e l d , p. 277) . 111 CSPD, 1655-1656. p. 201; B e l l , Memorials, i i . 114-16; CJ v i i . 452, 459; Apr i i . 451, 775. 1137. 112 Evans, p. 563. 113 The weavers were i d e n t i f i e d from Percy M i l l i c a n , ed., The Register  of the Freemen of Norwich. 1548-1713 (Norwich, 1934). 114 Two aldermen were weavers i n the 1640s, f i v e i n the 1650s, four i n the 1660s, and eight i n the 1670s (Evans, p. 5 6 5 ) . See also Co r f i e l d , p. 278. 115 C o r f i e l d , pp. 278-84. 116 In A p r i l I 6 5 I , the Council referred a Norfolk p e t i t i o n to Walton, Fleetwood and Harrison f o r consideration (CSPD, I 6 5 I , p. 1 3 l ) . 117 See app. 2 . Five were from towns and two from Suffolk, 118 Names of Independents are prima r i l y taken from two a r t i c l e s by C. B. Jewson: "Norfolk and the L i t t l e Parliament of I653", M XXXII (1961), 129-41, and "Return of Conventicles". 119 CSPD, "1651. p. 516; CJ v i i . 54. 120 Howell James, Norfolk Quarter Sessions, passim. The Council was sending i t s orders at t h i s time to such people as Charles George Cock, - 110 -Notes to Chapter 3 Colonel Underwood (the deputy governor of Lynn) and Tristram Diamond, and largely ignoring the county gentry (CSPD, 1651, pp. 5, 19)• 121 See app. 2. 122 Significantly, the 'additional commissioners' for Bedfordshire of December I65I were mainly people already on the committees (CJ v i i . 54). 123 See app. 2 and chap. 4. 124 The following analyses are of the membership of Groups IV, V, VI and VII ( see apps. 3 and 4). Since only a few of the committeemen were appointed I653-I656, they have been Included in the analysis at this point. 125 See table V and app. 4, table XIII. 126- Three had attended Cambridge as Fellow Commoners, six as Pensioners. 127 See table VI. 128 The number in each category (and the number as a percentage of a l l committeemen 1642-1660): 129 See app. 4 and tables V and VI. 130 See app. 4 and tables V and VI. 131 See app. 3« These are Groups V and VII. 132 Groups IV and VI. 133 See app. 4. Norfolk Norwich Beds. Groups I-III 129 (44?Q Groups IV-VII 71 (24*) - I l l -CHAPTER FOUR THE FAILURE OF THE RADICAL EXPERIMENTS, 1653-1658 Those living in the middle 1650s could see no self-evident outcome to the succession of political experiments. The restoration of the monarchy-was not inevitable, though few put much faith in the longevity of the Protectorate. Merchants refused to make loans to the government after 1654 at least partly because of its uncertain future."'" The government, in its ceaseless search for a stable settlement, repeatedly reversed its policy, hesitating between a reconciliation with the county communities and a whole-hearted commitment to the rule of the godly. The government never gave up entirely its hopes for either the cooperation of the county gentry or the control of administration by the saints, though i t emphasized them alternately, as i t tried to be first exclusive, then inclusive, in its selections for local office. The dismissal of the Rump and the calling of the Nominated Parliament represented the temporary triumph of elitist, even millenarian, views. The new elections proposed by the Rump would have returned as members many presbyterians, neuters or conceivably Royalists, as the 1654 elections were to do, and Cromwell was convinced by the officers that agreeing to this would mean abandoning the dream of a righteous reformation. The Rump's replacement, the Nominated Parliament, was meant to be restricted to the known faithful, the men of "approved fidelity and honesty", chosen by the local saints and not the counties at large, and Cromwell called at the same time for a "sifting and winnowing" of officials. This Parliament did indeed revise the commissions of the peace extensively. The Protectorate, however, began in a broader and more conciliatory spirit. The taking of the Engage-- 112 -ment was dropped as a requirement for office in January 1654, and the officials appointed at this time, though s t i l l selected with great care, were fairly traditional choices,^ The Council's names for assessment commissioners appear to have been accepted by Parliament without emendation, and the Ejectors included more county gentlemen of standing than might have been expected. The threat to internal security of Penruddock's rising in 1655 drove the government towards a restrictive policy once more. The Council, influenced by its more radical members, established the Major-Generals as c i v i l officials, supported by select groups of the local faithful, and instructed them to purge malignants from office and assert London's 7 authority in local affairs. The counties' stormy response to this, expressed by the MPs elected in 1656, was met by a reversion to a broader policy in l657 -l658, as Cromwell encouraged the participation of the county 8 gentry in both local and central government. The constant changes in direction by the government had their repercussions in the counties, in local officeholding and in the relations between London and the counties. Local government continued to be organized on much the same lines as under the Commonwealth. No one committee was given extensive powers. The county committees had gone, and the militia committees seem to have been left in abeyance after I 6 5 I . 9 The early 1650s were the low point for rule by committee, and the most regularly used agents were the JPs. An order from the Council on the examination of a prisoner, and a warning of possible conspiracies, which in the 1640s would have been sent to the county committee, and in 1650 to the militia commissioners, was sent in 1655 to the Bedfordshire JPs. 1 0 The office of sheriff revived in importance because of the number of Parliamentary elections. A hostile - 113 -sheriff thwarted the election of a government candidate in Norwich in 1654, and trouble in the 1656 election in Suffolk was " a l l occasioned by a malignant simple high sheriff." 1 1 A well-disposed sheriff, as in Norfolk 12 in I656, could be a great advantage to the government. The choice of JPs and sheriffs was, therefore, exceptionally critical in these years. The government also relied increasingly on small, specialized committees, whose membership could be confined to reliable people, and on agents directly responsible to London, of whom the Major-Generals were the 13 paradigm. The role of the large committees was almost gone, with the assessment committees, their function now routine, left as the sole survivor. This arrangement of local government allowed London, i f i t wished, to concentrate much of the power in the counties in the hands of an elite group of i ts choosing. The relationship between local and central government depended on whether the Council was ruling with or without Parliament. The members of Parliament, when i t was sitting, s t i l l provided the most obvious channel of communication between London and the counties. In September 1653 the Nominated Parliament undertook a revision of the commissions of the peace, and in November the Council asked two of the Norfolk members to look into 14 the matter of a petition from the county. The members of the 1654 15 Parliament suggested names from their counties for Ejectors. The 1656 Parliament provided the recommendations for the assessment commissioners in 1657, and had the deciding voice In their selection, as the succession 16 of votes on the subject shows. The choices made by Parliament would, as in the 1640s, reflect the type of people who were members. The 1653 members, naturally, represented the Independent congregations, and not - 114 -the counties as a whole. The Norfolk members were Henry King of Norwich and William Burton of Yarmouth, Ralph Woolmer, a military officer, and 17 two county gentlemen of middle rank, Tobias Frere and Robert Jermy. One Bedfordshire member was a London lawyer, Nathaniel Taylor, the other was Edward Cater, a local gentleman active on the committees since the 18 1640s. The Norfolk members in 1654 were quite different, for they were a l l county gentlemen, most of them with limited sympathy for the Protectorate, Only Frere, the one 1653 MP elected in 1654, was whole-heartedly ready to 19' subscribe to the declaration required at the beginning of the session. The towns' representatives, on the other hand, included two army officers, Skippon and Goffe, and were generally more favourable to the regime, though a strong government supporter was denied election in Norwich by the sheriffs' 20 machinations. The Bedfordshire members were, from the government's point of view, safe choices, containing neither lukewarm gentry, nor the extremists who had tried to get themselves elected. With the exception of Sir William 21 Boteler, they were middle or minor gentry. Parliament, however, never had the same control of local appointments after 1649 as before. Even during the Rump, the House often merely approved the choices already made by the Council, and the 1654 Parliament, for example, 22 confirmed the Council's names for assessment commissioners. For part of the time, moreover, the Protector and his Council could select local officials without any reference to Parliament. The Council asserted its right to revise the commissions of the peace and the assessment committees in 1654, and repeatedly exercised its powers of displacement and appointment 23 during the time of the Major-Generals. In neither Bedfordshire nor Norfolk did the local gentry have much input into this process of selection. - 115 -Sir Gilbert Pickering, of Northamptonshire, was probably the Council member 24 who took most interest in the Bedfordshire choices. William Heveningham had been dropped from the Council of State by I65I, and Norfolk matters 25 were the concern of Wauton, and to some extent Fleetwood. For additional information, the Council relied on reports from government agents in the districts, such as the Major-Generals, or from the core group of supporters 26 in each area. William Sheldrake, an Independent minister in Norfolk, wrote to Thurloe in early 1655» reporting on the situation in the counties 27 and suggesting some people for appointment. The recommendations for the names of the Commissioners for securing the peace of the Commonwealth for Southampton show how the various sources worked together. Sixteen names were proposed by members of the Council, five by "my lord Richard" and 28 Mr. Major, and five more by Hildisley, Captain Pitman and Major Husbands. Against this, the customary informal ties between gentlemen could s t i l l affect decisions. Bulstrode Whitelock noted that in I656 he had got Sir Thomas Cotton off from being sheriff of Bedfordshire, being indebted to 29 him for the freedom of his excellent library. But generally i t was the connection between Council members and the regime's friends in the counties that carried the most weight. It is frustratingly difficult to identify the changes in the personnel of local government in this period. The only committee lists for I653-I656 available to this writer were for the Judges for Poor Prisoners (in Norfolk), the Ejectors, and the Commissioners for securing the Peace.of the Common-wealth, which were a l l small committees and are l i t t l e guide to the changes evidently under way. The assessment committee of 1657 was changed by one-third from that of 1652 in Norfolk, by one-sixth in Norwich, and by one-half in Bedfordshire, a scale of change which cannot, in the counties at least, be - 116 -30 accounted for by normal wastage and renewal. It is unfortunately not possible to identify with certainty when the changes took place, but i t seems most likely that they were concentrated in 1653 and 1657. The largest revisions yet of the commissions of the peace for a l l of England came in 1653» though i t is suggested above that in these counties the 31 changes had been anticipated by the committee l i s t s . The Protectorate began with revisions of both the commissions and the committees in early 1654, though the nature of the revisions does not suggest they involved a very large number of names. The regulation of the lists of JPs was partly a matter of establishing who in fact was now on the commissions, 32 and of consolidating the many previous revisions. The Council apparently added new assessment commissioners, not removing the 1653 appointees, and 33 their choices were not challenged by Parliament later in the year. The rest of 1654 and 1655 passed without evidence of any further comprehensive 34 revisions. The Major-Generals could not attempt any ambitious review, and their suggestions to Thurloe are limited to the removal or addition 35 of a few individuals at a time. J The I656 Parliament, however, gave its f u l l attention to the committee list s , and long debates were held and pain-staking care taken over the appointments of assessment commissioners in 36 l657. The 1657 revisions quite possibly account for the great majority of the changes since the 1652 committee. Confirmation of this can be found in Norfolk, where most of those active in local government l653"l656 had already been recruited for local office by the end of 1652. The Quarter Sessions records of the county show seventy JPs who were present at at least one session between the third quarter of 1653 and the second quarter of 1657- Twenty-nine of these had been named to - 11? -committees before 1649, twenty-two appeared on their first committees 1649-1652, and only thirteen appeared for the first time later than 1653'"^ There is no reason to suppose that most of the active members of local government in Bedfordshire, too, had not been in i t i a l l y recruited by I652. What is more, in both counties the core group of reliable supporters in these years was mainly drawn from people already within the system. The Commissioners for securing the peace of the Commonwealth who turned out to assist the Major-Generals were demonstrating their undoubted allegiance to the Protectorate. Twenty-one of the twenty-nine active commissioners in Norfolk, and a l l eleven in Bedfordshire, had been appointed to committees before 1653* A.s these figures show, the real question in this period was not so much who was in local government, for most of the government supporters 39 already held office, as who controlled local affairs. The men who were to be the basis of the 'honest party' in Norfolk had established their place in local affairs in I65I-I652, and many of them had held office much longer. Some were the members of the sequestration committee of the 1640s, the most prominent being Jermy and Frere. They were supported by a number of townsmen who had acquired a role in county politics in recognition of their political reliability, and by a number of formerly obscure people who had risen through the service in the army or the militia, such as Robert Swallow, Ralph Woolmer and Roger Harper. They included many members of Independent congregations: John Balleston, 40 Thomas Dunne, Samuel Prentice, John Toft, as well as the Barebones MPs. Though many of these people had been promoted to office earlier, I653-I656 were the years of their greatest activity and influence. The Council was sending its orders to them.^1 Often they only became active at Quarter Sessions atthis time. Of the eighteen Commissioners for securing the peace - 118 -of the Commonwealth who attended Quarter Sessions between I65O and 1 6 5 7 , only seven did so before the end of the Rump, even though three-quarters 42 of the commissioners had appeared on committee li s t s before then. Even in such a traditional county as Norfolk, the character of county government had changed by the early years of the Protectorate. Only seven of the seventeen most active JPs 1 6 5 0 - 1 6 5 7 were from the gentry establish-ment which customarily f i l l e d the bench, and only seven of them had been named to committees before 1649. Eight had appeared on their first committees between 1649 and 1 6 5 2 , and two had only appeared even later. These active JPs were not by any means a l l members of the core group of 43 government supporters, but they were a l l reasonably cooperative. A number of the new JPs, and of the new committeemen, were people who would not have held such office at an earlier date. An attorney, Luke Constable, was now the most active JP in his division, and the most active JP of a l l was a minor gentleman, Edmund Cremer. The constable of Hunstanton who had so infuriated Sir Hamon Le Strange earlier, Tobias Peddar, attended most sessions after l653> Possibly five other head constables served on committees in the 1 6 5 0 s , one perhaps also being a justice. Not a l l the new names were of obscure people. Robert Baldock and John Shadwell, JPs and committeemen, had already begun their rise, and used local office as 44 a step up the ladder. The role of the county gentry had been much reduced, even at the Quarter Sessions, formerly the scene of their power. Excluded from the centre of affairs as they were, however, their residual influence was very great, and when the mechanics of local government permitted the expression of their power, they were seen to be as strong as ever. The old establish-ment dominated the elections of 1654 and I 6 5 6 with contemptuous ease. - 119 -The county gentry had not essentially changed their position or their thinking since the 1640s. For the sake of the county, they were prepared to tolerate a government for which they had l i t t l e sympathy. Their feelings were exemplified at a meeting of the assessment commissioners early in 1655« Cromwell's dissolution of the 1654 Parliament had, like the dissolutions of 1653 and the execution of the king, thrown into question the legitimacy of the government s continued rule. What worried the Norfolk commissioners was whether there was s t i l l legal authority for them to collect the assessment, or whether they would he laying themselves open to legal proceedings. The former MPs apparently "would not be drawn to act publicly about the assessments by any means, but openly declined i t " . The commissioners, when they met, "were ready to put i t to the vote, whether they should act or not". They did in fact decide to act, but i t was debated in language which showed how many of them s t i l l thought in the political terms of 1640, though Cromwell had now taken Charles' place. The fear was that Cromwell was refusing to take the legal responsibility for the continuance of the tax himself, so that the county commissioners would be asserting it s legality by "requiring" its payment. Some commissioners said that "my lord will not meddle with the legislative power himself, but put i t upon us, and we must by action establish it a law, and so may be sued, and may prove a ship-money-cause".^ The supporters of the Protectorate held most of the major offices in the Norfolk towns, but in each town an opposition found opportunities to express itself. The desire of the pro-regime leadership was always to ensure rule by "honest" people, so that their approach to elections was elit i s t rather than democratic. The opposition appears to have taken advantage of some confusion over whether the government had suggested - 120 -widening the franchise for the 1654 elections. The corporation of Yarmouth decided to hold i t s elections as usual, although the sheriff of Norfolk had ordered them to proclaim the election on the next market day. Three members of the assembly disagreed, and one of them was expelled. Three aldermen and twenty-six common councilmen then proceeded to elect Col. William Goffe and Thomas Dunne, but one bailiff refused to sign the return and held a second election "with the generality of the freemen and householders of the town". The government saw this as the action of those "dissatisfied with the present government", and the House confirmed t 47 the corporation s choices. The franchise in King s Lynn had been extended to. the freemen in 1640, but at this election the Mayoral court and the burgesses each tried to return a candidate. Once again, the House supported 48 the corporation. There was a similar dispute over the Norwich elections. Two government supporters, Charles George Cock and Thomas Barrett, were elected at the fi r s t poll, but the sheriffs, Jay and Mingay, both moderates or Royalist sympathizers, decided to hold a second poll. A petition, signed by more than a hundred members of the town's Independent party, claimed that "the old spirit wrought again." The sheriffs "proclaimed by trumpet and bellman (never before used means) that a l l freemen might come and vote at another place", and a non-resident, John Hobart, was elected, it n49 who was followed by the disaffected. As member for Norwich, he was opposed to Cromwell in 1654, I656 and" 1658.^° As these elections show, the Puritans in a l l three towns were the people who would have liked to restrict popular involvement, while their opponents were trying to extend the franchise. The connection between the democratic party in Bedford and the left-wing churches seems to have been most atypical. The elections are also evidence for the strength of the opposition in the towns, and the - 121 -threat to the control of the 'honest party' In them. In Norwich, the dispute merely brought into the open the revival of the opposition alliance which had begun in I65O. Once the direct control of town elections imposed in 1649-1650 was dropped, the freemen began returning Royalists or Presbyterians as sheriffs, and in due course as aldermen. Only two of the sheriffs I65O-1659 were associated with the Independent party, while at least seven were opposition members. The massive majority among the aldermen that the Independents had ensured for themselves in 1649-1650 was not lost, but mayoral elections often went against them, and their policies could be thwarted by a hostile mayor, as Jay later claimed he had been able to do.^1 Such overt action was rarely taken by the disaffected in Bedfordshire. At most, there was friction at a parish level, but unlike Norfolk, the gentry did not use the elections to demonstrate their power. Instead, they devoted these years to slowly rebuilding the community disrupted by the c i v i l war. Gradually, the former Parliamentarian and Royalist families forgot their old quarrels, preparing the way for the reuniting of the county before the Restoration. Sir Samuel Luke had refused to help Lady Dorothy Temple over a disputed choice of parson in 1645, but a tentative reconcilia-tion came in the early 1650s. Dorothy Osborne wrote in May 1653: "Since these times, we have had no commerce with that family, but have kept at great distance, as having upon several occasions been disobliged by them. But of late I know not how Sir Samuel has grown so kind as to send to me for some things he desired out of this . garden, and withall made the offer of what was in his, which I had reason to take for a high favour". At elections, i t was those to the left of the regime, not the county gentry, 53 who provided the opposition. The middle 1650s were the high point for the radical men in local government. They dominated the committees and the - 122 -54 commission, and were, conspicuously the most active officials. Although, as has "been described, the government veered from policies of reconciliation with the county gentry to policies of godly rule by the elect, the membership of local government did not react significantly to every new vacillation. The government had to leave the officeholding of the counties largely in the hands of those who had been appointed before 1652. The Norfolk gentry continued to sit on the assessment committee, and the Bedfordshire gentry continued their absence. The government had to concentrate more of its attention on the problems of the effective control of the counties and the efficiency of local administration. The rule of the Major-Generals was at once the fullest statement of elitist and centralized rule, and the classic illustration of the problems of such rule. After an unsuccessful rising in March l655> the government established in each county a standing militia of horse, their pay to be raised by decimation commissioners, with Major-Generals with wide c i v i l powers to command the militia, each given responsibility for several counties. Cromwell claimed that the way was s t i l l open for reconciliation, promising "tenderness" to any former delinquents who gave "a real testimony of their godliness and good affection to the present government", but who would believe this after the decimation of supposedly forgiven Royalists? The Major-Generals' appointment was not just a response to a security threat, or the adding of some new officials, but an attempt to deal with some of the perennial problems of local government: control by the centre, efficient rule, the encouragement of government supporters. The officers were directed in their instructions to see that certain laws were "put in more effectual execution than hitherto", and Cromwell said that - 123-"a remissness in some of the Justices of the Peace" was a primary motive for the government's action: "we had indeed many and good laws, yet . . . we have lived rather under the name and notion of the law than under the thing, so that 'tis resolved to regulate the same (God assisting) oppose 56 who will". Local JPs had, indeed, been prosecuting those carrying out such duties as sequestration. One Suffolk JP "mostly makes use of his authority against good men, countenancing actions and suits against them, and gratifying the malignant party with his warrants to apprehend the persons employed as sequestrators of a living". The Major-Generals were to work within the complex and traditional structures of local government, manipulating the system to provide greater efficiency and responsiveness, and to protect and encourage the well-affected in each county. William Boteler, of Northamptonshire, was the Major-General with the responsibility for Bedfordshire, and Hezekiah Haynes was deputy CD Major-General for East Anglia, including Norfolk. The use of central agents in the localities was scarcely new, and both Haynes and Boteler had carried out c i v i l duties in their districts before. The Council had asked Boteler in September 1653 to watch for "great meetings" in his county and to prevent them by force, and had sent him orders again in 1654, and in I658 Boteler was in trouble for s t i l l exercising his authority in Northampton-59 shire. Haynes had been named as an Ejector for Norfolk in 1654, and was a militia commissioner for Essex, with central orders being sent to him, and was active in Norfolk and Essex at the beginning of October 1655, two weeks before his appointment.^0 Tifhat was new was the scale of their activities. They rapidly became catch-all officials, responsible for seeing - 1 2 4 -that everything in the counties was working well, burdened with instructions from London, which now went to them more often than to the JPs. London could look to them for recommendations for appointments and dismissals, 6l and local people could use them as a direct channel to London. They supervised the other officials, attended assizes, boosted morale, created enthusiasm, suppressed the malignant. Their powers were ill-defined, but what mattered was their image. Another Major-General, Berry, reported with surprise-and. amusement the inflated picture of his power held by a prisoner, who applied "himself to me as to a l i t t l e king, that could redress every grievance."^ Boteler, understanding the power of appearances, reported that he had "exceeded the bounds of my power, as I am enforced to do in something or other every day almost", but he succeeded in bluffing five Bedford councillors into resigning. Haynes had his bluff called when he threatened a Norwich minister, Boteman, that i f he did not leave "you will constrain me to that, which I am in my nature most averse to." When Boteman declared "I am resolved to undergo that, whatever i t may be, that you say your nature is so adverse to", Haynes, unable to act, had to appeal to the Protector Both Haynes and Boteler had some success in their districts. The Commissioners for securing the peace of the Commonwealth, who assessed and collected the decimation tax on the estates of former delinquents, proved 65 reliable, even enthusiastic, in each county. Some malignants were displaced, i f only temporarily, from office. But the decimation tax proved inadequate for the support of the militia, partly because London granted so many exemptions, and Haynes was unable to make use of the militia in I656 66 because he did not dare muster them until they could be paid. Boteler had - 125 -more success than Haynes i n what many of the Major-Generals saw as their primary function, the creation and encouragement of a viable "honest party" i n each county, though even in Bedfordshire he had trouble finding a suitable sheriff. Thurloe's suggested names were out of the question, "there being none of those (whose names you sent me,) that w i l l either lead or follow any of your commissioners in their work, or that can be hoped to comply with the government.Haynes similarly found many o f f i c i a l s unsatisfactory, especially in Norwich, where he complained of the "malignant magistracy", saying the town's government was "in the hands 68 of persons notoriously disaffected upon the worst principles." He wanted to protect and stimulate his local a l l i e s , seeing that " i f something of this nature be not done for the encouragement of our friends, their s p i r i t s w i l l in a l l likelihood despond very much". Such encouragement would include the promotion of the regime's friends to such offices as the shrievalty, and the exclusion of the unreliable. Haynes warned that the government should not be tempted to appeal too widely for the sake of immediate advantage; the door should be made "strait enough; else w i l l the hearts of those, that have cleaved to you in your late straits, be sad, and a compliance to other persons w i l l be but as the daubing with untempered 70 mortar". But the attempt to f i l l county offices with those who could be relied on to continue the work of reformation and settlement ran foul of the necessary structures of local government. Despite the many changes since 1642, local officeholding was s t i l l restricted to those who met certain requirements. Officers had to be wealthy enough to carry the expense of office, prominent enough to exercise leadership, old enough to be the head of their family. Goffe, for instance, rejected the names suggested for sheriff of Sussex on the grounds that they were people of no standing in the county, and no one in Chichester had ever heard of them.^1 Many of the - 126 -government's friends were too poor or insignificant to be sheriffs, and would have been hurt by the office. Berry put the dilemma succinctly: "To put i t upon our friends is to do them a great discourtesy, and to put . »?2 i t into other men's hands is.to do ourselves a greater." The only way out would have been a true revolution in local government, the introduction of paid officials. It was discussed on occasion, once by Boteler, who wrote to Thurloe about the possibility of "standing sheriffs", with "the charge wholly taken off", but this radical, subversive and, especially, 73 expensive innovation was never tried. The Major-Generals had tried to convince the government to make a whole-hearted commitment to the rule of the "honest party', but they only succeeded in demonstrating the inherent impossibility of such an approach for the government of the Protectorate. The latent strength of the county gentry, and the continued necessity of their involvement in local government, had been made clearer. The Major-Generals' energy had only emphasized further the government's failure to enforce its wishes in the localities, or to dislodge the malignants s t i l l entrenched in the corporations, even in Bedford. Haynes himself became aware of the extent of his failure at the I656 elections. The 'honest party' in Norfolk was ineffective and dis-couraged, its members reluctant to be seen taking vigorous action, and the 74 opposition swept the poll. Seven of the 1654 MPs were returned, along with two county gentlemen, John Buxton and Sir Horatio Townsend, and one member of the government, Fleetwood. The other people associated with 75 the regime - Frere, Denny, Gurdon, Garrett, Cock - a l l lost heavily. Haynes' i n i t i a l quiet reception had been illusory; he had achieved nothing permanent. The results from Bedfordshire were more satisfactory, with - 127 -sound supporters of the Protectorate returned. Two new members were Richard Wagstaffe, the most active of the decimation commissioners, and Thomas Margetts, an army officer who had bought Crown land in the county. The success here, however, owed more to the history of the previous seven years than to Boteler's efforts. 7^ The I656 elections provided the opportunity for the inhabitants of many counties, including Norfolk, to express their hostility to the Major-Generals. Haynes was amazed at.the passion aroused in Norfolk against the Major-Generals and against him in particular. As in the assessment committee debate the previous year, the language was strongly reminiscent of 164-0-1642. There were attacks on "arbitrary power", and even a proposal 77 to "do as was done in the late king's days, raise a war." Not surprisingly, this parliament brought a conservative reaction against the radical and authoritarian moves of l655 -l656, above a l l against the military inter-vention in c i v i l affairs. Cromwell did not intervene when Parliament swept away the Major-General system, instead telling the officers that " i t is time to come to a settlement, and lay aside arbitrary proceedings, so 78 unacceptable to the nation." Parliament thoroughly revised the assessment committees in- 1657. As has been argued above, most of the new names appearing on these committees were probably added in l657« In Norfolk, forty-one of the 1652 Assessment Committee had now gone from the committee for good, while the 142 commissioners of June 1657 included fifty-four new people. The new l i s t was a partial return of the concept of local officeholding as a representation of the county community. Four of the secluded MPs were named to their first 79 committee since 1648. 7 However, the low social status of many of the recruits - 128 -indicates that i t was not yet the time for return to a pre-war approach to selection. These new people of lower rank were not just those recruited between 1653 and I656, for many of them only appear on the second 80 committee l i s t , in July. The fifty-four new people included many from respectable backgrounds, for twenty-one were from Visitation families, and twenty-six from Norfolk gentry families of the sixteenth century, but many were of humbler families, for there were sixteen 'gentlemen' and only thirteen 'esquires *, nine with small incomes but only four of middling wealth, and eleven for whom further information has not been found. The clue to their appointment may l i e in the fact that while the l6k9~l656 recruits included twenty people from the East division and seven from the North and South, the I65? recruits included seventeen from the North and 81 South, and only six from the East. The Norwich committees were left virtually untouched. The moderates whose power in the town was growing steadily were not promoted to the committees. The three new committeemen in 1657 were John Balleston and Timothy Norwich, both members of the Independent church, and Richard Brown, an active decimation commissioner.^ The Bedfordshire committee did not yet reflect any notable return to the customary personnel of local government. Thirty-two former committee-men did not reappear in l657» many of them people of extremely low social position who had made only brief appearances on the committees. Three of the secluded MPs had now returned: the Burgoynes, and Samuel Brown, who had earlier been named as an Ejector. In addition, there were sixteen first-time appointments, of similar backgrounds to those appointed earlier in the decade. Four were from Visitation families, one was an 'esquire' and three - 129 -'gentlemen', one was very wealthy, five of moderate wealth, and three with small incomes. The geographical distribution of these recruits possibly indicates the beginnings of a return to more normal selections, however. The l640s committeemen had been predominantly from the north of the county, but nineteen of the recruits I649-I656 came from the south and only seven from the north. The 1657 recruits were drawn evenly from the two halves of the county. On the whole, though, these selections were not an On adumbration of the Restoration. For the remainder of Oliver's time as Protector, government policy followed the uneasy middle course laid down by the ambiguities of his personality. He might desire to implement his beliefs in a reformation of society, he might be aware of the pressing necessities of government, but he was also a county gentleman, with an ingrained acceptance of the county hierarchies, and an understanding of and sympathy with the county gentlemen in their desire to preserve the world they knew. Even a former Royalist like Sir William Paston could expect Cromwell to respond when he wrote asking for help in preserving his game. A similar ambiguity was present in many county gentlemen. Sir John Hobart came from a strong Puritan family and was allied with the Protector by marriage and inclination, but he was also by birth one of the leaders of Norfolk, "the darling of the county", and he used his tremendous influence in traditional ways, Q c to maintain the county community. No resolution to this tension had been found by 1658. - 130 -Notes to Chapter 4 1 H. J. Habakkuk, "Public Finance and the Sale of Confiscated Property during the Interregnum", EcHR 2nd Ser. XV (1962-3), PP. 82-83. 2 Worden, Rump Parliament, pp. 345~84. 3 Jewson, "Norfolk and the L i t t l e Parliament", p. 130; J. Nickolls, ed.,, The Milton State Papers (London. 1743;), p. 105; Austin Woolrych, "Oliver Cromwell and,.the Rule of the Saints", in The English C i v i l  War and after. 1642-1658. edited by R. H. Parry (Berkeley, 1970), PP. 59-77. 4 Underdown, Pride's Purge, pp. 340-41; CJ v i i . 315. Underdown, "Settle-ment in the Counties, l653 - l658", in The Interregnum: The Q.uest for  Settlement, 1646-1660, edited by G. E. Aylmer, (London, 1972), pp. 165-82. 5 CSPD. 1653-1654. pp. 364, 344. 6 CSPD. 1653-1654. pp. 402, 403; Whitelock, Memorials, iv. 150-51; S. R. Gardiner, History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, l649~l660 (London, 1894), i i . 316. 7 Abbott, Cromwell, i i i . 844-48. Cromwell ordered in September "that special care be taken that a l l magistrates and ministers of justice be pious, discreet and fait h f u l , and that none of the aforesaid prohibited persons hold any office u n t i l his pleasure be further known" (CSPD, 1655, p. 343;• 8 See below. 9 See chap. 3« The m i l i t i a commissioners appear to have been called back into active service only when trouble occurred (CSPD, 1655, PP. 43, 77-78, 117). 10 CSPD. 1655, p.93. 11 CSPD. 1654, pp. 277-78; TSP v. 230. 12 TSP v. 230. 13 See chap. 3« 14 CJ v i i . 315; CSPD. 1653-1654. pp. .234.282. 15 CJ v i i . 372; Whitelock, Memorials, 3y. 150-51. 16 CJ v i i . 500,- 537, 556, 559, 568. 17 Jewson, "Norfolk and the L i t t l e Parliament", pp. 129-41. The Norfolk churches had suggested Skippon, Frere, Woolmer, Henry King and Roger Harper (ibid., p. 130). - 131 -Notes to Chapter 4 18 Brown, Bunyan, p. 95 • The churches had suggested Taylor and John Crook. 19 Burton, Diary, i . xxxv-xxxvi (Goddard's Journal). The other Norfolk MPs were S i r John Hobart, S i r William Doyly, Sir Ralph Hare, Thomas Weld, Robert Wilton, Thomas Sotheron, Philip Wodehouse, Robert Wood, and Philip Bedingfield. 20 MPs for Lynn: Philip Skippon and Guybon Goddard; for Yarmouth: William Goffe and Thomas Dunne; for Norwich: Bernard Church and John Hobart. 21 The other Bedfordshire MPs were John Harvey, Edmund Wingate, John Neale, Samuel Bedford; Bulstrode Whitelock represented the town of Bedford. The Council investigated an attempt to get more radical people -Okey, Taylor, Crook, Cater, Barber - elected (CSPD, 1654. p. 334; Tibbutt, Okey, pp. 81-82). 22 CSPD. 1649-1650, p. 80; CSPD. 1654, p. 202. 23 CSPD. 1653-1654. p. 344; Whitelock, Memorials, iv. 81; CSPD. 1655. pp. 11?, 29?i and see below. 24 CSPD, 1655, p.390. 25 CSPD, 1651. pp. 1311 205-6. 26 See below. 27 TSP i i i . 328. Cf. the recommendations for B arebones. 28 TSP iv. 363. 29 Whitelock, Memorials, iv. 273-30 See apps. 1 and 3« 31 Underdown. Pride's Purge, p. 312; CJ v i i . 315-32 CSPD, 1653-1654. p. 344. 33 CSPD. 1653-1654. pp. 402-403; Whitelock, Memorials, i v . I l l , 157. 34 The normal pattern in the l640s and 1650s was for the commissioners for the assessment to be continued from Act to Act, unless i t was specifically decided to change them (e.g. API i i . 511-13). From May 1653 to I656, there i s no record of a revision of the assessment committees, which would normally have been a matter of discussion in Parliament or the Council. Cn the other hand, there were repeated renewals of the assessment Acts without name changes attached - 132 -Notes to Chapter 4 (May 1653: Whitelock,- Memorials, iv. 12; December I653: CSPD, 1653-1654. p. 267; June 1654: CSPD. 1654.. p. 202; November, 1654: Whitelock, Memorials, iv. 157; February and May 1655: CSPD. 1655. PP- 33. 190-91; November l655 : Whitelock, Memorials, iv. 216. 35 TSP iv. 160, 211, 284, 391. 36 See n. 16. 37 The figures for the.first committee appointments of these JPs: appointed 1642-1648: 29 appointed 1649-1650: 7 appointed 1651-1652: 15 appointed, Ejectors, 1654: 4 appointed 1657: 8 appointed 1660: 1 no committee service: 6 (Names of active JPs from Howell James, Norfolk Quarter Sessions.) The figures illustrate the recruitment of radicals in I65I-I652, and also to the Ejectors, who were not such traditional choices in Norfolk. 38 Eight of the Norfolk commissioners had been appointed by 1648, thirteen more by 1652, seven to the Ejectors, and one had not served previously. Three of the Bedfordshire commissioners had been appointed to committees by 1648, six more by I65O, and the other two in 1652. (Commissioners' • names from TSP iv. 207-208, 7O5.) 39 Underdown (Pride's Purge, p. 312) says that "only in 1653 did the trickle of new men become a torrent." This was not the case in Norfolk or Bedfordshire. 40 For the Independents, see three articles by C. B. Jewson: "Norfolk and the Little Parliament", '*The English Church at Rotterdam", and "Return of Conventicles". 41 The Council asked Frere, Jermy, Thomas Bendish and Majors Keen and Burton to investigate a church problem in Lowestoft in February 1654 . (CSPD, 1653-1654, p. 381). 42 Of the 29 decimation commissioners, eighteen were active as JPs 1650-1657; eight of the eleven who were not were townsmen, and may have served on the town commissions. Of those known to have acted as JPs, seven; hadcattended a Quarter Sessions by the date of the dissolution of the Rump; two more appeared in 1653...four^more_in.l654, ...^ d_the other five in I655-I656 (Howell James, Norfolk Quarter Sessions). 43 The active county gentlemen were Berney, Hobart, Pell, Smith, Weld, Wilton and Wood. - 133 Notes to Chapter 4 44 Howell James, pp. 4-5• 45 Cf. Whitelock, Memorials, iv. 6-7; Aylmer, State's Servants, pp. 42-43. 46 TSP, i i i . 328. Two assessment commissioners in Warwickshire were arrested for attempting to collect the assessment.in July 1655 after a JP had instructed his tenants not to pay "because the assessment was_i.llegal and contrary to the instrument of the present government" (CSPD, 1655, PP. 296-97). The case of the Protector versus Streeter in 1655 similarly turned on the question of authority once Parliament had been dissolved (Aylmer, State's Servants, p. 304). 4 7 CSPD, 1 6 5 4 , pp. 216, 2 8 4 - 8 5 ; Palmer, Manship, i . 394, i i . 209-11. 48 Keeler, Long_ Parliament, pp. 56~57; Burton, Diary, i . clxxv. 4 9 CSPD, 1 6 5 4 , pp. 277-78; Evans, pp. 211-16. 50 C. H. Firth, ed., "Letters Concerning the Dissolution of Cromwell's Last Parliament", EHR VII ( I 8 9 2 ) , 102-103. 51 Evans, pp. 218-224, 226-231; Ketton-Cremer, Forty Norfolk Essays, pp. 29-31. 52 G. C. Moore Smith, ed., The Letters of Dorothy Osborne to William Temple (Oxford, 1 9 2 8 ) , p. 46; Luke, p. 2 2 1 . Cf. the way the Osbornes were helped in their sequestration problems by a Beds.,committeeman, Sir William Briers, in 1652 (Moore Smith, Temple Letters, p. 295). 53 See above. 54 Tibbutt, Okey, pp. 74-91; also see his Bedfordshire and the Protectorate (Elstow, 1959), and "John Crook, 1617-1699: A Bedfordshire Quaker", BHRS XXV (I947), PP. 110-13. 55 Abbott, Cromwell, i i i . 839. No full-length study of the Major-Generals has yet been published. S t i l l useful is D. W. Rannie, "Cromwell's Major Generals", EHR X (1895) 5 more recent is Ivan Roots,.. "Swordsmen and Decimators - Cromwell's Major-Generals", in The English Civil War  and After. 1 6 4 2 - 1 6 5 8 . edited by R. H. Parry, (Berkeley, 1 9 7 0 ) , pp. 78-92. 56 Abbott, Cromwell, i i i . 845; iv". 112-13; CSPD. 1655'. p.. 344. 57 TSP, v. I 6 5 . The Council had earlier had to consider the matter of "godly ministers being ejected or interrupted in possession of their livings, by proceedings at common law" (CSPD, 1 6 5 5 , p. 2 1 2 ) . Two assessment commissioners in Warwickshire were actually arrested and gaoled by a JP who refused to pay (CSPD, 1655, pp. 296-97). - 134 -Notes to Chapter 4 58 CSPD, 1655, pp. 379, 387. See Paul H. Hardacre,' "William Boteler: A Cromwellian Oligarch", Huntingdon Library Quarterly XI (194?); and, for Boteler and Haynes, Maurice Ashley, Cromwell's Generals (London, 1954), pp. 151-64.-59 CSPD, 1653-1654. p. 171; CSPD. 1654, p. 67; CJ v i i . 636-37. 60 CSPD, I655. pp. 62, 369, 372. 61 TSP iv. 240, 300, 434, 595; CSPD. 1655-1656. p. 125. 62 TSP;iv. 391• Clarendon suggested that each Major-General "had a l l that authority which was before scattered among committeemen, justices of the peace, and several other officers" (History of the Rebellion and  Civil Wars in England, edited by W. Dunn Macray, (Oxford, 1888), xv. 24). 63 TSP iv. 632. 64 TSP v. 289, 297. 65 TSP iv. 207, 218 (Beds.); iv. 170-71, 216-17 (Norfolk); see also the arrests of suspected persons - including John Cleveland - by the Norfolk commissioners (TSP iv. 184-85; CSPD. 1655. pp. 346-47). 66 TSP v. 165, 220. 67 TSP iv. 207. 68 TSP iv. 257, 216-17. 69 TSP v. 328. 70 TSP v. I65. 71 TSP v. 218; cf. 267, .394. 72 TSP iv. 272. 73 TSP. iv. 234. Parliament had discussed proposals for making the office of the sheriffs "less burthensome to themselves, or to the Common-wealth" in 1653 and 1654, but i t was difficult to achieve both these aims at the same time (CJ v i i . 347"48, 394). 74 TSP v. 271. 75 Of the 1654 members, Weld and Bedingfield did not stand, and Frere was defeated (NA I, 67). - 135 -Notes to Chapter k 76 The county MPs were Sir William Boteler, Harvey, Wagstaffe, Samuel Bedford and Richard Edwards, and the town's member was Margetts. 77 TSP v. 370. 78 Burton, Diary, i . 384. 79 Palgrave, Potts, Spelman and Thorowgood. 80 See apps. 1 and 2. These are the members of Group VIII. The Norfolk committees would seem to confirm Underdown's statement that 1657 was the time when "the old families came drifting back", but that "the personnel of local government s t i l l contained a curious blend of older gentry, Commonwealth upstarts and military men, and agile survivors from each earlier stage of the revolution" ("Settlement", pp. 177, 179). 81 See app. 4. 82 See apps. 2 and 3« 83 See apps. 2, 3> and 4. 84. Abbott, Cromwell, iv. I 9 O - 9 L In l655« Paston interceded with Cromwell on behalf of Thomas Knyvett (Ketton-Cremer, Norfolk Assembly, chapter on "Sir William Paston"). 85 TSP v. 220. - 136 -CHAPTER FIVE THE RESTORATION OF TRADITIONAL RULE, 1659 - 1660 After the death of Oliver Cromwell, the government in London never again seemed assured in its control over events, and the political situation soon "became confused, i f not anarchical. Richard Cromwell's attempt to continue with moderate policies ended in May 1659 when he was forced to resign by the army officers. The officers, together with the Rump, recalled that same month, tried once again to settle the commonwealth and achieve the ends of the good old cause. The Rump, quickly at odds with the army, was again dismissed in October, but Lambert and Fleetwood failed to get Monk's support for their Committee of Safety, and, with the army visibly disintegrating, Fleetwood resigned in December and the Rump reassembled. But Monk, arriving in London in February, ensured the return of the secluded members, and the Parliament dissolved itself in March, to allow fresh elections. The new Parliament met in April, and in May invited Charles II to return. Events in London moved too swiftly for local government to react to each new turn. In the middle of 1659, however, there was one last effort to put local administration in radical hands, but by the end of the year the conserv-ative reaction in the counties was beginning to dictate the new appointments. Even in February 1659» when Richard was nominally in control, the Earl of Stamford had written to Whitelock, "complaining of his being put out of the commission of the peace, and the like done to other persons of quality, and of mean men being put into commission, who insult over their betters."^ Later, the officers and the Rump cooperated on further revisions on similar lines. The commissions of the peace were to be revised by the Committee of - 137 -Safety, with the advice of MPs, and the militia commissioners, also nominated 3 "by the MPs, were the radicals from the lower ranks of society. The signs of a new mood in the counties are apparent in the appointments later in the year. A Royalist sympathizer was added to the Norfolk militia commissioners in August.^ The next revision of the committees, in January 1 6 6 0 , again in the hands of the MPs, was thoroughly conservative, and the militia committees of March 1 6 6 0 , even though they predate the Restoration by two months and were not meant to include any Royalists, show that in many counties a Restoration 5 had effectively already taken place. If the additions to the assessment committee for Norfolk in 1657 showed some signs of the return of the county gentlemen to the committees, the militia committee appointed in July 1659 showed the last desperate attempt to put new men, especially those of radical views, in charge of county affairs. Many of the appointees from 1657 did not appear on this committee, primarily because the assessment committee had peaked in 1657 at 142 members, while the new committee had only sixty-four. Many of the unimportant figures who had been added during the 1 6 5 0 s had now disappeared, and did not serve again. However, yet more new people were found to strengthen the radical presence on the county committees and in other county offices. The new commissioners included William Emperor, an Independent from Yarmouth and formerly an agent of the Council in Rotterdam, and William Arnop, at one time a head constable and now a militia officer.^ Indeed, possibly four of the new commissioners were officers in the county militia. The militia commissions of August 1659 were a summary of the familiar names, the radicals who had come to dominate county government. The colonels were Brampton Gurdon, Robert Wood, Robert Jermy and Edward Bulwer, a l l respectable gentlemen, and a l l of demonstrated loyalty, but their junior officers were either very minor figures or committed - 138 -7 radicals, like Woolmer and Balleston. However, the militia commissioners included many county gentlemen, and Sir William Doyley was specifically added to the l i s t in August. Also added were two outsiders, Oliver St. John and g Sir John Wrey. The moderate and conservative influences in the county, noticeable even at this stage, were soon to be predominant. The character of the committee was changed in January 1660 by a number of deletions and the addition of six people, at least five of whom were to have successful post-9 Restoration careers. A more thorough revision came in the committee of March 1 6 6 0 , after the arrival of Monk. Thirty-five more names were deleted from the committee, making a total of 118 committeemen dropped from the lists between July 1659 and March.1660. The sixteen new names, together with the return of a few people long absent from the committees, clearly anticipated the Restora-tion, They included representatives of some of the greatest families in the county: Bacon, Berney, Bedingfield, Potts, Townsend, Richardson and Woodhouse. Sir John Holland appeared on his first committee since 1 6 4 8 . 1 0 The Norwich committee had had a very stable membership throughout the 1 6 5 0 s , and this continued in 1 6 5 9 , as only two new people were added to the July committee, though a few regular members were also dropped at this time. 1 1 In January 1 6 6 0 , however, the committee was revised, as seven committeemen were dropped and twelve new people brought in. The membership of the committees and of the corporation had been diverging as more and more moderates had been elected to city office, and the new appointments were a belated recognition of this. They included the four most recently chosen aldermen, Mingay, Jay, Holmes and Payne, and others who were shortly to become aldermen, Briggs and 12 Woods. Only two more new names were added in March, but a further twenty people had been excluded from the committee, making a total of thirty-one 13 people dropped in 1659 and 1 6 6 0 , J - 139 -In Bedfordshire, too, the July 1659 committee was smaller, and fifteen of the 1657 committeemen had disappeared from the l i s t s . The twelve new names 14 were fairly minor figures, not especially known as supporters of the regime. The committee was left virtually unchanged in January 1 6 6 0 , evidence that the conservative reaction did not yet have influence in the county. The changes were saved t i l l March, when the l i s t was dramatically revised. Twenty-seven of the January committee did not appear, while twenty of the forty-six members were first-time appointees. The committee in fact increased in size, in order to accommodate the influx of county gentlemen who now wanted to return to county affairs. Sir Beauchamp St. John, Sir Samuel Luke, James Beverley and Humphrey Monoux had not appeared on committees since 1 6 4 8 . The new members included four peers, two baronets, three knights, and representatives of other county families: Luke, Winch, Osborne, Rotherham and Spencer.1^ In each area, there had been a reassertion of the old hierarchy. In Norfolk, this had taken the form of an alliance between the moderate county gentlemen who had remained active in local affairs in the 1 6 5 0 s and those gentlemen who had withdrawn or been excluded from office. The gentry commun-16 h ity, indeed, had never been deeply divided within itself. The ^ Letter sent to Monk by Norfolk and Norwich, calling for the readmission of the secluded members to Parliament, was signed by twenty-eight county gentlemen, of whom 17 eighteen had been committeemen. In Norwich, too, there had been an alliance between the more moderate of the former Parliamentarian party and their 1 6 5 0 s opposition in the corporation. Fourteen of the aldermen and twenty-five of the councilmen signed the Letter to Monk. Eight of the aldermen who did not sign had been petitioners against the election of Hobart in 1 6 5 4 . On the other hand, six of the former Parliament men did sign the Letter, including Parmenter, Burman, Rayley and Andrews. They were joined by the moderates and Royalists, - 140 -18 such as Payne, Holmes and Jay. In Bedfordshire, there was a simple transfer of power, rather than any new alliance, for the original Parliamentarians and Royalists had "been equally excluded from power in the 1 6 5 0 s , and had spent 19 that decade making up their differences. The committeemen appointed in the months before the Restoration were the same kind of people as the original committeemen, or as the pre-1642 members of local government. The thirty-six new committeemen appointed in Norfolk were mainly county gentry. One was a peer, two baronets, one a knight, and eleven 'esquires'. Fourteen had been to university, seven as Fellow Commoners, and thirteen had gone on to one of the Inns of Court. The families of ten had been recognized at a seventeenth-century Visitation, and the families of twelve appear on the 1 5 7 0 s l i s t of gentlemen of the county. Two were extremely wealthy, and eight well-off, while only two had small incomes. When one rem-embers that this group includes the July 1659 appointees, one realizes how exceptional these figures are. Unlike the 1657 recruits, they came predominantly from the East division. The Norwich recruits included a number of very prom-inent townsmen. Four were outstandingly wealthy, and three moderately well-off, and, remarkably, the families of six out of the sixteen had been in the lists of county gentlemen for the 1 5 7 0 s . The Bedfordshire recruits provided the sharpest contrast of a l l with the earlier appointments of the 1 6 5 0 s . The twenty new names included four peers, two baronets and three knights, and seven 'esquires', but only one 'gentleman'. Nine had attended university, four as Fellow Commoners, and six had attended one of the Inns of Court. Nine were extremely wealthy, and eight moderately well-off, but none is known to 20 have had a small income. As these figures make clear, in 1660 officeholding was once again restricted to those who met the traditional criteria. The reduction in size - 141 -of the committees made i t possible to select a l l the officials from within the customary pool of recruits, and to eliminate those who did not meet the requirements. The developments of 1660 would make i t seem that the attempts in the 1 6 5 0 s to widen the pool of recruits, and to restrict officeholding to government supporters, was a futile struggle against the inherent nature of seventeenth-century local society. As soon as the pressure from the centre was removed, the former rulers of the counties reasserted themselves. Much of what had happened in the 1 6 5 0 s had been ar t i f i c i a l , imposed from London without significantly affecting the counties' structure. However, some of the changes in personnel had corresponded to real changes in individuals* social standing, and this was recognized at the Restoration. The people appointed in 1660 were not necessarily the same people as had been excluded from office. They were, rather, the same type of people as had held, office before 1 6 4 2 . Individuals who had been promoted to county office between 1642 and 1660 generally retained their positions i f they met the county criteria for office, and i f there were no compelling reasons for their removal, while some Royalists found themselves passed over. The membership of local government was thoroughly revised at the Restoration, but there was considerable continuity, most apparent among the Parliamentarian leadership of the 1 6 4 0 s . The assessment committees appointed 21 in the first years of Charles II's reign provide a basis for comparison. The l 6 6 l committee for Norfolk contained 126 names for the county, not including the town committees. More than a quarter of these were baronets or knights, and the rest were mainly from gentry families. Fifty-three had been committeemen between 1 6 4 2 and March 1 6 6 0 . Nineteen of these had been first appointed before 1 6 4 9 , twenty-two had been named first between I 6 5 O and 1 6 5 9 , and the other thirteen had only appeared in 1 6 6 0 . Although there were many - 142 -familiar names on the l66l committee, this should not conceal the extent of the change from four years earlier, for only thirty of the 142 assessment commissioners of July 165? were s t i l l serving. The 1642-1660 committeemen s t i l l on the committee in l66l include most of the early Parliamentarian 22 leaders, and the county's members in the Long Parliament. More surprisingly, just as many of the 1650s recruits also continued to serve after the Restor-ation, though these were often either the members of established county families, like Thomas Rant or Edward tfalpole, or else rising men whose improved condition, recognized in the 1650s, gave them the traditional qualifications for office. Lawyers such as Erasmus Earle, Guybon Goddard and Robert Baldock were the most successful at continuing their prosperous Interregnum careers 23 into the Restoration period. Others were unable to emulate them. Of the early Parliamentarian leaders, the regicides, Heveningham and Corbet, and the republican MPs, Frere and Sotherton, disappear from county office. Nearly a l l the members of the core group of radicals from the 1650s also went. Virtually none of the militia officers who had held committee positions, and only one of the decimation commissioners, appeared on the l66l committee. No prominent Independents appeared either. The others who disappeared from office were those of humble background, promoted in the 1650s as the government had had to search ever wider to find new recruits. A l l the former constables, for instance, were demoted from the committees. Local government was once again, as before the c i v i l war, the preserve of the county gentry. The town administrations were affected just as much by the Restoration, i f not more so. Several of the prominent Parliamentarians in Lynn managed to maintain their positions, though the l66l l i s t s suggest that even here there 24 had been changes. But in Yarmouth the changes of the previous two decades were almost completely undone, as ten aldermen and eleven councilmen, a l l - 143 -25 Independents, were displaced. The aldermanry of Norwich was almost completely revised "by 1662, more as a result of pressure from the King than "by internal initiative. Only nine of the aldermen of 1660 were s t i l l in office in 1662. Four had died and one had chosen to resign at the Restoration, hut four were displaced in. l 6 6 l on the grounds that they had been improperly elected, one was displaced in accord-ance with the Act of Indemnity, and four were displaced in 1662 through the Corporation Act. The only surviving ejected alderman from 1643 without a seat was restored to the aldermanry. However, the purge was not thorough, and at least four more aldermen could have lost their places.^ The government of Norwich in the 1660s was therefore not as unfamiliar as i t might have "been. Indeed, a l l hut one of the signatories of a letter from Norwich corporation 27 to the government in 1669 had been committeemen. The greatest change was naturally in Bedfordshire, where the gentry had been virtually excluded from power after 1649. Twenty-seven of the fifty-three assessment commissioners of l 6 6 l had been committeemen before the Restoration. Of these, thirteen had first served before 1649, four had first served between 1650: and 1659, and ten had only appeared on the March 1660 committeemen. Far more committeemen had been recruited in the 1650s than in Norfolk, but far fewer continued their political careers after 1660. Only eight of the l 6 6 l 28 committee had been assessment commissioners in 1657. Virtually a l l the 1650s radicals had been excluded. The former Parliamentarians were joined in office by the Royalists or their sons: fourteen of the l 6 6 l members came from Royalist families. Here, too, the concept of the rule of the county gentry had been restored, and the l i s t included one peer and nineteen baronets and knights, no fewer than twelve of whom had received their honours since the Restoration. Charles had rewarded impartially former Royalists and former Parliamentarians - 144 -among the gentry. The monarchy was restored, and with i t the traditional forms and member-ship of local government. The committee structure, already much reduced in significance, was dismantled, and even though the government found i t convenient for a time to raise revenue through assessment committees, there was a conscious 29 attempt to avoid administrative forms used in the Interregnum. County affairs began to follow their familiar patterns. The Earl of Bedford, rather than John Okey, was custos rotulorum of Bedfordshire, and Sir Philip Wodehouse 30 31 replacedPhilip Skippon in Norfolk. The sales of Crown land were voided. However, the two decades had their effects. A standing army was maintained, and in various forms the concept of a regular county levy to raise revenue was continued. In both counties, too, the factions of the c i v i l war were echoed in the continuing power struggles among the gentry, especially those between the Whigs and Tories. In Norfolk, Sir John Hobart led the Whigs, Sir Horatio 32 Townsend the Tories. In Bedfordshire, the Earls of Bolingbroke and Ailesbury 33 competed for a following among the gentry. In the towns, the religious 34 disputes continued with almost unabated heat. There were few, however, who wished to repeat the experiences and experiments of the c i v i l war and Interregnum: the events of those years remained as a warning to the gentry of the consequences i f not merely the royal authority, but also the county hierarchy, were challenged. - 145 -Notes to Chapter 5 1 A recent account of the solutions proposed and tried in the last years of the Interregnum is given by Austin Woolrych, "Last Quests for a Settlement, 1657-1660", in Aylmer, Interregnum, pp. 183-204. 2 Whitelock, Memorials, iv. 340. 3 CJ v i i . 648, 687, 694-95i Underdown, Somerset, p. 190. 4 CJ v i i . 744. 5 Whitelock, Memorials, iv. 390, 397, 403, 406; CJ v i i . 821. 6 CSPD. 1649-1650, pp. 107, 406, 469. Arnop had been head constable of Flegg in 1651 (Howell James, Norfolk Quarter Sessions. 14 January I651)• 7 CJ v i i . 760. 8 CJ v i i . 744. 9 Francis Cory was MP for Norwich in l 6 6 l and Recorder in I663, and his cousin Thomas Cory became Town Clerk. George England, a wealthy Yarmouth merchant, was later knighted. Roger Pepys became Recorder of Cambridge in 1660 and MP for the town the following year, and a Bencher in 1664. Francis Bacon continued active in Norfolk affairs after 1660 (app. 2). 10 See apps. 2 and 3« 11 See apps. 2 and 3« 12 App. 2; Evans, p. 243. 13 Significant absences from the March committee were John Toft, Charles George Cock, Ashwell, Allen, Andrews, and Richard Kett (app. 2). 14 Thomas Gibbs, the Bedford radical leader, and Henry Brandreth, a London merchant, were probably supporters of the regime (Parsloe, Bedford  Corporation Minutes; J. E. Farnell, "The Usurpation of Honest London Householders: Barebone's Parliament", EHR LXXXII (1967), 35). But the others do not f i t this pattern. Henry Massingburgh was created a baronet at the Restoration. John Ravens was presumably appointed because his father had died and he had just been called to the Bar. Edmund Wylde was an eccentric intellectual and inventor of good family. No reason can be identified for the appointment of the others (app. 2). 15 See app. 2. 16 See the examples of Thomas Sherriff, who privately assisted those sequestered, and after the Restoration "lived beloved and died respected,'" and Guybon Goddard, who helped out the Brampton family (Blomefield i . 23, v i . 436). - 146 -Notes to Chapter 5 17 NA VII, 311-12. Cf. the similar petition to Parliament in January ^Whitelock, Memorials, iv. 39l)• 18 Evans, pp. 235-36; NA VII, 312. 19 See chap. 4. 20 See app. 4. 21 Statutes of the Realm v. 325"48. 22 E.g. Holland, Palgrave, Potts, John Spelman. 23 Erasmus Earle, of a Norfolk family, was a lawyer, and Recorder of Norwich I649-I663. He was Oliver Cromwell's own serjeant, serjeant of the Commonwealth under Richard, reappointed serjeant-at-law at the Restoration, and continued to have a great reputation and business until his death. Guybon Goddard, Recorder and MP for Lynn in the l650s, was receiver for excise for Norfolk under Charles II, and was made serjeant-at-law in I669. Robert Baldock, a rising lawyer in the 1650s, became Recorder of Yarmouth and was knighted in 1671, and was eventually a judge of King's Bench in 1688. (B. Cozens-Hardy, "Norfolk Lawyers", NA XXXIII (1962), 266-297; J. Davey, "Speech of Sir Robert Baldock, 1671", NA II (1849), 75-80; Blomefield v i . 245-46, 438; Venni) 24 Three of the people on the l66l committee for Lynn had been praised for their enthusiasm by Cromwell, and two others had been committeemen by 1657. 25 Stuart Brown, "Norwich and Yarmouth Church Books", pp. 5-40, 26 Evans, pp. 237-249. 27 "The Correspondence of Thomas Corie, Town Clerk of Norwich, 1664-168?," NRS XXVII (1956), P. 29. 28 Statutes of the Realm v. 207-225. The committeemen from I65? were Samuel Browne, Sir Roger Burgoyne, Sir Thomas Alston, St. John Charnock, Sir William Beecher, John Neale, John Harvy, and Gaius Squire. 29 The Kent assessment of 1662 dragged on for years because the assessors could not decide i f i t were legal to base their method of assessment on the fiscal experience of the Interregnum. The Hereford assessors tried to base their assessment on pre-war precedents. (Everitt, Kent, p. 322; Faraday, Herefordshire Militia Assessment, p. 14.) 30 Tibbutt, Okey, p. 121; Howell James, Norfolk Quarter Sessions, p. 5« 31 Madge, pp. 259-66. 32 Ketton-Cremer, Forty Norfolk Essays, pp. 44-46. - 147 -Notes to Chapter 5 33 Godber, p. 252. 34 Evans, pp. 263-353; Carruthers, "Norfolk Presbyterianism", pp. 89-100, - 148 -CONCLUSION There is, perhaps, no such thing as a typical English county in the c i v i l war and Interregnum. Three of the counties recently studied - Kent, Somerset and Cheshire - had their own separate experiences in this period, and the history of each was so affected by their particular characters that i t would be dangerous to generalize about the response of the rest of England on the basis of these studies. Norfolk and Bedfordshire not merely differed from each other, but also from the three counties mentioned above. It is not claimed that either Norfolk or Bedfordshire is any more typical than the others, but they have the advantage for a historian that their gentry elites survived the first and second c i v i l wars intact, undisrupted by the warfare. The contin-uity in the leadership of the counties until 1648 makes i t easier to isolate the effects of the revolution in central government. The traditional rulers, with the exclusion of a few determined Royalists and the addition of few people of lesser social rank, controlled local government until Pride's Purge. In 1649, the Bedfordshire committees lost virtually a l l their members from the major gentry families, as well as the secluded MPs; in Norfolk, most of the gentry* and some of the MPs, remained. Some other English counties also experienced a high turnover in committee membership in 1649, though possibly none on the same scale as Bedfordshire, while others remained as stable as Norfolk."'" Local government in Bedfordshire was dominated throughout the 1650s by people new to county office, many of them of radical political or religious views. Similar people held office in Norfolk, but they coexisted uneasily with the county gentry, who never surrendered their role or influence in local affairs. Nearly a l l the new people recruited to the committees during the 1650s were eliminated at the Restoration, unless they came of acceptable gentry stock. The character of the people recruited in the two counties followed a - 149 -broadly parallel pattern. The people appointed to the committees before 1649, and those appointed in 1660, were of the same quality as those who f i l l e d the commissions of the peace before 1640, but those appointed between 1649 and 1659 were, on average, of lower social rank, and in many cases would not have been considered qualified for county office in more normal times. The committee memberships are a valuable guide to what was happening in the counties, and correlation with the other available evidence suggests that the picture they provide is usually accurate and rarely misleading. The method of analysing the committee memberships has been successful in isolating signi-ficant groups of appointments. The importance of the first appointments speaks for itself, but the use of last appointments also has had the important result of revealing the correlation between the social-rank and length of service on the committees. The committee memberships, when analysed, emphasize the broad patterns of events: the continuity of the l640s, the discontinuity of the 1650s, They can also be a surprisingly sensitive indicator, responding more quickly to events than the commissions of the peace, certainly in 1649 and probably in 1642-1643 also. This type of analysis of the committees would be inadequate on its own, for i t would conceal such things as the ri f t s between committees and the changes in active, leadership in the 1640s, but i t is d i f f i -cult to think of a more useful guide to the county history of these two decades. It is the committee list s , for example, that reveal the location of government supporters inside and outside the aldermanry in Norwich, and provide some of the first indications of the rise of the weavers in the corporation. Most especially, they are the best evidence for who was actively involved and pro-vided leadership in local government in the 1650s. The changes in committee membership had complex and various causes, but in each case the new membership was determined by the interplay of three factors: - 150 -the initiative of the central government, the character of the county community, and the structures of local administration. Government policy was rarely con-sistent, and in the 1650s was in tension between the incompatible desires to preserve the hierarchies and to ensure the rule of a godly elite in the counties. But even when the government knew what i t wanted to do, i t was restricted by the fact that its members were often themselves county gentlemen, sharing the, gentry's conception of the normal ordering of county society. It was further restricted by the nature of the county community. In each county there were only a limited number customarily considered f i t for office, but this supply was exhausted by the succession of exclusions from office, so that the govern-ment was forced in the 1650s to recruit from outside the normal officeholding class. To what extent this was possible depended on the character of each county. The gentry of Norfolk were never excluded from county affairs, though they had to accept the presence of less traditional types on the commissions and the committees. Bedfordshire had a much weaker county community, and the gentry could be excluded and to some extent replaced, but even there the many short-lived appointments of people of inferior rank suggest there were s t i l l effective limits to the number of adequate officials. The structures of local government also helped determine who could be appointed. The administrative functions of the committees decided how many people were needed for each, and the degree of political reliability to be required of them. The kind of work expected of an official also limited the choice. The sheriffs, for example, had to be wealthy enough to bear the expense of their office, and prominent enough so that people would respect them and follow their leadership.• For most of the seventeenth century, the government was prepared to let its choices of officials be decided by the composition of the county community and by the requirements of office, but the special situation during the c i v i l war and - 151 -Interregnum drove the government to extend the traditional limits, to struggle against the massive inertia of local officeholding. The classic study of Kent by Alan Everitt has influenced a l l subsequent writers on the English local history of this period. He made i t a common-place of historical thinking that the primary loyalty of a gentleman was to his county, or his "country", as a seventeenth-century man would refer to i t . Other loyalties, such as those to political ideologies, came second. The events of these years are to be described, not in terms of broad socio-economic factors, but in terms of each introverted county community, and most especially in terms of the gentry community of each county. He concluded that " i f the Great Rebellion proved anything, i t was the necessity of employing country 3 gentry in country affairs." This vivid conception of the central importance of the county has been modified by Underdown, who has related the changes in the counties to the events in London, and by Holmes, who has described the subtle interrelation between the government in London and the counties of the Eastern Association. Everitt s concept has also been subverted in a more 'fundamental way by Morrill in his study of Cheshire, who, while writing a very similar kind of county history, has not restricted himself to the gentry, but has also described the people who replaced them in the 1650s, and the new development of the village community. He found that local government did not collapse on the removal of the traditional ruling families, but was in several ways more effective and efficient than before."' The study of Norfolk and Bed-fordshire, including as i t does one county with a strong and one with a weak county community, has not tended to confirm Everitt's thesis. In Bedfordshire, and even to some extent in Norfolk, there was a possible alternative administra-tion, who managed the county affairs satisfactorily in the 1650s. It is also clear that to many people in these counties national ideologies were important. - 152 -The corporations of Bedford, of Norwich and of Yarmouth were divided into factions on parallel lines to the national conflicts, and the gentlemen of Bedfordshire regarded affairs in London as vital as those of Bedford. Such commitments were also extremely important to many of the 1650s recruits in Norfolk. Perhaps the greater attention paid to national politics may he partly attributed to the fact that Norfolk and Bedfordshire affairs were not managed by any magnate and his faction in the way that Pyne ruled Somerset, Weldon Kent and Brereton Cheshire. This study has been based, as the evidence dictates, on the county as the basic unit of research and the gentry as the main object • of Interest, but even with these restrictions i t has become clear that the central government was a successful initiator of change in the counties in 1640-1660, and that the explanation of events lies not just in the resistance of the localities to the centre, but in the interdependence of the two levels of government. - 153 -Notes to Conclusion 1 Aylmer, State's Servants, pp. 3H-12. 2 A sample of other county committees showed one other county with a turn-over of two-thirds of the membership in 1649 (Berkshire), a number with a turnover of one-half (Cornwall, Derbyshire, Cheshire, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire), and some with stable committees (Essex, Cambridge, Huntingdonshire, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Warwickshire, Sussex). (Lists from API: see app. l ) . 3 Kent, p. 321. 4 Underdown, Pride's Purge; Holmes, Eastern Association. 5 Morrill, Cheshire, p. 252. 6 Derek Hirst, in a review of Morrill's work and Hassell Smith's Court  and County said of the choice of these counties: "The fact that there is a distinct county community and ethos is probably an incentive to study that county as an instance of the locality's relations with the nation: i t would be use-ful i f studies of counties like Buckinghamshire, Essex or Hertfordshire, more fully penetrated by London, were available as antidotes." (Historical Journal. XVIII (1975), 423-27.) - 154 -SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY PART I: PRIMARY SOURCES 1. Contemporary Books and Pamphlets A Catalogue of the Lords, Knights and Gentlemen that have Compounded for their Estates. Printed for Thomas Dring. London, 1655• The Humble and Serious Testimony of many Hundreds of Godly and well-affected  People in the County of Bedford, and parts adjacent. 14 April 1657-The Names of the Justices of Peace, in England and Wales. Printed for Thomas Walker. London, 1650. A True and Exact Relation of the Present Estate of the City of Norwich. London, (25 August) 1642. Truth Vindicated from the Unjust Accusations of the Independent Society in  the City of Norwich. London, 10 August 1646. Vox Norwici, or the Cry of Norwich, vindicating their Ministers. London, 1646. Vox Populi, or the People's Cry against the Clergy. (London, 25 August 1646.) 2. Official Publications Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Advance of Money, 1642-1656. Edited by M.A.E. Green. 3 vols. London, 1888. Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Compounding, 1643-1660. Edited by M.A.E. Green. 5 vols. London, 1889-1892. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, of the Reign of Charles I. Edited by John Bruce. 23 vols. 1858-1897. Calendar of the State Papers, Domestic Series, 1649-1660. Edited by M.A.E. Green. 13 vols. London, 1875-1886. Firth, C.H., and Rait, R.S., eds. Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660. 3 vols. London, 1911. Historical Manuscript Commission: Lowndes MSS. 7th Report, App. I. 1879. Marlborough MSS. 8th Report, App. I. I9O7-I9O9. Great Yarmouth MSS. 9th Report, App. I. 1883-1884. - 155 -Gawdy MSS. 10th Report, App. II. 1885. King's Lynn MSS. 11th Report, App.. III. 1887. Le Strange MSS. 11th Report, App. VII. 1888. Gurney MSS. 12th Report, App. IX. 1891. Portland MSS. 13th Report, App. I and II. 1891-1892. Buxton MSS. 15th Report, App. LIU. 1901-1914. Lothian MSS. 16th Report, App. III. I9O5. The Journals of the House of Commons. London, I8O3. Journals of the House of Lords. London, I8O3. List of Sheriffs, for England and Wales, from the Earliest Time to 1831. Public Record Office, Lists and Indexes, No. IX (I898). Return of the Names of Every Member Returned to Serve in Each Parliament. 2 vols. London, 1878. The Statutes of the Realm. 11 vols. London, 1810-1828. Reprinted, London, T$6T. 3. Other Publications a) Norfolk and Norwich Brown, A. Stuart, Ed. "The Church Books of the Old Meeting House, Norwich and Great Yarmouth Independent Church." Norfolk Record Society, XXII (1951), PP. i - 4 o . Clarke, A.W. Hughes, and Campling, Arthur, eds. The Visitation of Norfolk  anno domini 1664. Norfolk Record Society, IV and V (1934). Cozens-Hardy, Basil, ed. Norfolk Lieutenancy Journal, 1676-1701. Norfolk Record Society, XXX (I96I). Hart, R. "Analysis of the Harleian Manuscript, Cod. 4756." Norfolk Arch-aeology, III (1852), 40-51, and IV (1855), 292-95-Hudson, William, and Tingey, John Cottingham, eds. The Records of the City  of Norwich. 2 vols. Norwich, 1906-1910. James, D.E. Howell, ed. Norfolk Quarter Sessions Order Book, 1650-1657. Norfolk Record Society, XXVI (1955). Jewson, C.B. Transcript of Three Registers of Passengers from Great Yarmouth  to Holland and New England, 1637-1639. Norwich, 1954. Johnson, G. "Chronological Memoranda touching the City of Norwich." Norfolk  Archaeology, I (1847), 140-66. - 156 -Morant, Alfred W. "Notes on a Letter and Declaration of the Gentlemen of Norfolk and Norwich to General Monk." Norfolk Archaeology, VII (1872) , 309-20. Millican, Percy, ed. The Register of the Freemen of Norwich, 1548-1713. Norwich, 1934. Rye, Walter, ed. The Norwich Rate Book: From Easter 1633 to Easter 1634. London, I9O3. , ed. The Visitations of Norfolk, 1563, 1589, and 1613. Harleian Society, XXXII (1891). Sachse, William L,, ed. Minutes of the Norwich Court of Mayoralty, I63O- 1631. Norfolk Record Society, XV ( 1942) . Saunders, H.W., ed. The O f f i c i a l Papers of S i r Nathaniel Bacon of Stiffkey, Norfolk, as Justice of the Peace 1580-1620. Camden Society, 3d. Ser. XVI (1915) . Schofield, Bertram, ed. The Knyvett Letters (1620-1644). London, 1949. Styleman, H. L'Estrange. "L'Estrange Papers." Norfolk Archaeology, V (1859) , 122-45. ' Williams, P.M., ed. "Norwich Subscriptions to the Voluntary Gift of 1662." Norfolk Record Society, I ( l 9 3 l ) , PP. 69-86. t>) Bedfordshire Bedfordshire Notes and Queries. 3 vols. Bedford, 1886-1893' B e l l , Patricia, ed. "Minutes of the Bedfordshire Committee for Sequestrations, 1646-7." Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, XLTX (1970), pp. 81-121. Blades, F.A., ed. The Visitation of Bedfordshire, annis domini 1566, 1582, and 1634. Harleian Society, XIX (1884). Emmison, F.G., and Emmison, M., eds. "The Ship Money Papers of Hen. Chester and S i r W i l l . Boteler, l 6 3 7 - l 6 3 9 » " Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, XVIII (1936), pp. 43-88. Fowler, G.H., ed. "The C i v i l War Papers of S i r Will. Boteler, 1642-1655." Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, XVIII (1936) , pp. 1-42. Gilmour, G.D., ed. "The Papers of Richard Taylor of Clapham, c.1579-1641." Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, XXV (1947), pp. 104-109, Notes and Extracts from the County Records. Vol. II: A Calendar of Volume  I of the Sessions Minutes Books, 1651-1660. Edited "by W.J. Hardy and W. Page. Bedford, h.d. ( 1 9 0 9 J . - 157 -Osborne, Dorothy. The Letters of Dorothy Osborne to William Temple. Edited by G.C. Moore Smith. Oxford, 1928. Parsloe, Guy, ed. The Minute Book of Bedford Corporation, 1647-1664. Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, XXVI ( 1949) . Tibbutt, H.G., ed. The Letter Books 1644-1645 of Sir Samuel Luke. Historical Manuscripts Commission, Joint Publications IV. 1 9 ^ 3 • , Some Early Nonconformist Church Books. Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, LI (1972). c) Other Publications Bell, Robert, ed. Memorials of the Civil War. 3 vols. London, 1849• Birch, Thomas, ed. A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe. 7 vols. London, 1742. Cary, Henry, ed. Memorials of the Great Civil War in England from 1646 to  1652. 2 vols. London, 1842. Clarendon, Edward Hyde, 1s t Earl of. The History of the Rebellion and Civil  Wars in England begun in 1641. Edited by W. Dunn Macray. Oxford, 1888. Faraday, M.A., ed. Hereford Militia Assessments of l663» Camden Society, 4 t n Ser. X (I972y; Firth, C.H., ed. "Letters Concerning the Dissolution of Cromwell's Last Parliament." English Historical Review. VII (1892), 102-110. Morley, Henry, ed. Character Writings of the Seventeenth Century. London, 1891. Nickolls, John ed. Original Letters and Papers of State .addressed to Oliver  Cromwell . . . (l649~ l 6 5 8 ) , found among the Political Collection•of John  Milton. London, 1743. The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest Period to the year 1803. Vol. I l l : 1642-1660. Edited by William Cobbett. London, 1808. Pennington, D.H., and Roots I.A., eds. The Committee at Stafford, 1643-1645: The Order Book of the Staffordshire County Committee. Manchester, 1957. Rutt, J.T., ed. The Diary of Thomas Burton, Esq. 4 vols. London, 1828. Turner, G. Lyons. Original Records of Early Nonconformity under Persecution  and Indulgence. 3 vols. London, 1911-1914. Whitelock, Bulstrode. Memorials of the English Affairs. 4 vols. London, 1853« - 158 -Wilson, Thomas. The State of England Anno Pom. 1600, by Thomas Wilson. Edited by F.J. Fisher. Camden Society, 3d Ser. LIT (1936). PART II: SECONDARY WORKS 1. Norfolk and Norwich Allison, K.J. "The Norfolk Worsted Industry in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries." Yorkshire Bulletin of Economic and Social Research, XII (I960), 73-83. . "The Sheep-Corn Husbandry of Norfolk in the Sixteenth and Seven-teenth Centuries." Agricultural History Review, V (1957), 12-30. Blomefield, Francis. An Essay towards the Topographical History of the County  of Norfolk. 11 vols. London, I8O5-I8IO. Campling, Arthur. East Anglian Pedigrees. Norfolk Record Society, XIII (1940), Carruthers, S.W. "Norfolk Presbyterianism in the Seventeenth Century." Norfolk Archaeology. XXX (1952), 89-100. Corfield, Penelope. "A Provincial Capital in the Late Seventeenth Century: The Case of Norwich." Crisis and Order in English Towns. 1500-1700. edited by Peter Clark and Paul Slack, London, 1972. Cozens-Hardy, B. "Norfolk Lawyers." Norfolk Archaeology. XXXIII (1962), 266-97. Davey, J. "Speech of Sir Robert Baldock, 1671." Norfolk Archaeology, II (1849), 75-80. Evans, John T. "The Decline of Oligarchy in Seventeenth-Century Norwich." Journal of British Studies. XIV (1974;, 46-76. . "The Political Elite of Norwich, 1620-1690: Patterns of Recruitment and the Impact of National Affair." Ph.D. Thesis, Standford University, 1971. Hillen, H.J. History of the Borough of King's Lynn. 2 vols. Norwich, 1907. Holley, G.H. "Observations and Comments on the Visitation of Norfolk, 1664." Norfolk Record Society, XXVII (1956), 59-100. Ingleby, CR. A Supplement to Blomefield's "Norfolk". London, 1929. Jewson, C.B. "The English Church at Rotterdam and its Norfolk Connections." Norfolk Archaeology XXX (1952), 324-37. - 159 -Jewson, G.B. "Norfolk and the Little Parliament of 1653." Norfolk Arch-aeology, xxxii (1961), 129-41. , "Return of Conventicles in Norwich Diocese, 1669." Norfolk Arch-aeology, XXXIII (1962), 6-34. Ketton-Cremer, R.W. Felhrigg: The Story of a House. London, 1962. , Forty Norfolk Essays. Norwich, I96I. , Norfolk Assembly. London, 1957. , Norfolk in the Civil War. London, 1969. , "A Note on Thomas Windham," Norfolk Archaeology, XXXII (l96l), 50-52. , "The Rhyming Wodehouses." Norfolk Archaeology, XXXIIII (1962), 35-42. Manship, Henry. The History of Great Yarmouth. Edited by C.J. Palmer. 2 vols. Great Yarmouth, 1854-1856. Pound, J.F. "The Social and Trade Structure of Norwich, 1525-1575." Past and  Present, XXXIV (1966), 46-49. Quinton, J. Bibliotheca Norfolciensis. Norwich. I896. Riviere, M. "A Note on the D'Oylys of Shotesham." Norfolk Archaeology, xxxii, (1961), 47-49. Rye, Walter. A History of Norfolk. London, 1885• Smith, A. Hassell. County and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558-1603. Oxford, 1974. , "The Elizabethan Gentry of Norfolk: Office-Holding and Faction." Ph.D. Thesis, University of L'ondon, 1959• Spratt, J. "Agrarian Conditions in Norfolk and Suffolk, I6OO-I65O." M.A. Thesis, University of London, 1935• Victoria History of the County of Norfolk. 2 vols. I9OI-I9O6. 2. Bedfordshire Brown, John. John Bunyan (1628-1688): His Life, Times, and Work. Tercentenary edition, edited by F,M. Harrison, London, 1928. Conisbee, L.R. A Bedfordshire Bibliography. Bedford, 1962. - 160 -Foster, C.W. "Institutions to Ecclesiastical Benefices in the County of Bedford, 1535-1660." Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, VIII (1924) pp. 133-64. Godber, Joyce. History of Bedfordshire, 1066-1888. Bedford, 19&9. Marshall, Lydia M. The Rural Population of Bedfordshire, 1671 to 1921. Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, XVI (1934). Page-Turner, F.A. "The Browne Family of Arlesey." Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, II (1914), pp. 137~56, Parsloe, G.G. "The Corporation of Bedford, 1647-1664." Transactions of the  Royal Historical Society, 4th Ser. XXIX (194?), 151-65. Peyton, S. "Ecclesiastical Troubles in Dunstable, c.l6l6." Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, XI ( 1927), pp. 109-128. Tibbutt, H.G. Bedfordshire and the Protectorate. Elstow, 1959. , Colonel John Okey, I6O6-I662. Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, XXXV (1955). , "John Crook, 1617-1669: a Bedfordshire Quaker." Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, XXV (1947), pp. 110-128. ffigfield, W.M. "Recusancy and Nonconformity in Bedfordshire, 1622-1842." Bedfordshire Historical Records Society, XX ( 1938), pp. 145-229. Victoria History of the County of Bedfordshire. Edited by H.A. Doublday and ¥. Page. 3 vols. London, 1904-1912. 3. General Abbott, ¥ilbur Cortez, ed. The Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell. 4 vols. Cambridge, Mass., 1937-1947. Ashley, Maurice. Cromwell's Generals. London, 1954. Aylmer, G.E. The State's Servants: The Civil Service of the English Republic, 1649-1660. London, 1973-Barnes, T.G. Somerset, 1625-1640: A County's Government During the "Personal  Rule". Cambridge, Mass., I96I. '. ~ Brunton, D., and Pennington, D.H. Members of the Long Parliament. London, 1954. - 161 -Coleman, D.C. "An Innovation and its Diffusion: the 'New Draperies'." Economic History Review, 2d,Ser. XXII (1969), 417-429. Darby, H.C., ed. A New Historical Geography of England. Cambridge,.1973. Defoe, Daniel. A Tour Thro' the Whole Island of Great Britain. Introduction by G.D.H. Cole. 2 vols. London, 1927. The Dictionary of National Biography. Edited by Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee. 22 vols. London, 1921-1922. Dodd, A.H. "Nerth y Committee". Studies in Stuart Wales, pp. IOO-176. Cardiff, 1952. Everitt, Alan. Change in the Provinces: the Seventeenth Century. Leicester, 1969. , The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion, 1640-60. Leicester, 1966. . •-, The Local Community and the Great Rebellion. London, 1969. , ed. Suffolk and the Great Rebellion, 1640-1660. Suffolk Records Society, vol. I l l (i960). '• Farnell, J.E. "The Usurpation of Honest London Householders: Barebone's Parliament." English Historical Review. LXXXII (196?), 24-46. Fiennes, Celia. The Journeys of Celia Fiennes. Edited by Christopher Morris. London, 1949. Foster, Joseph, ed. Alumni Oxonienses: the Members of the University of  Oxford. 1500-1714. 4 vols, London, 1891-1892. Gardiner, S.R. History of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1649~l660. 3 vols. London, 1894-1901. Gleason, J.H. The Justices of the Peace in England, 1558-1640. Oxford, 1969. Gordon, M.D. "The Collection of ^ hip-Money in the Reign of Charles I." Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 3d Ser. IV (1910), 141-62. Habakkuk, H.J."Public Finance and the Sale of Confiscated Property during the Interregnum." Economic History Review. 2d Ser. XV (I962-I963), 70-88. Hardacre, Paul H. "William Boteler: A Cromwellian Oligarch." Huntington  Library Quarterly, XI (1947-1948), 1-12. Hexter, J.H. The Reign of King Pym. Cambridge, Mass., 1941. - 162 -H i l l , Li»M. "County Government i n Caroline England 1625-1660." Origins of the  English C i v i l War, edited by Conrad.Russell, pp. 66-90, London, 1973• Holmes, C l i v e . The Eastern Association i n the English C i v i l War. Cambridge, 1974. , ed. The Suffolk Committees f o r Scandalous Ministers, 1644-1646. Suffolk Records Society, v o l X I I I (1970). Howell, Roger. Newcastle upon Tyne and the Puritan Revolution. Oxford, 1967. Hur s t f i e l d , J o e l . "County Government: W i l t s h i r e c.1530 - c. 1660," Freedom, Corruption and Government i n Elizabethan England, pp, 236-93• London, 1973 Karraker, Cyrus H. The Seventeenth-Century Sh e r i f f . Chapel H i l l , 1930. Keeler, Mary Frear. The Long Parliament, l640-l64l: A Biographical Study of  i t s Members. Philadelphia, 1954. Kingston, A l f r e d . East Anglia and the Great C i v i l War. London, 1897. Madge, Sidney J . The Domesday of Crown Lands. London, 1938. M o r r i l l , J.S. Cheshire 1630-1660: County Government and Society during the  English Revolution. Oxford, 1974. Notestein, Wallace. The English People on the Eve of Colonization, I6O3-I63O. New York, 1954. Pennington, D.H. "The Accounts of the Kingdom, 1642-1649." Essays i n the  Economic and Soc i a l History of Tudor and Stuart England, i n honour of  R.H. Tawney, edited by F.J. Fisher, pp. 182-203. Cambridge, I 9 6 I . Rannie, D.W. "Cromwell's Major Generals." English H i s t o r i c a l Review, X (I895), 471-506. Roots, Ivan. "Swordsmen and Decimators - Cromwell's Major-Generals." The  English C i v i l War and After, 1642-1658, edited by R.H. Parry, pp. 78-92. Berkeley, 1970. Shaw, William A. A History of the English Church during the C i v i l Wars and  under the Commonwealth, l640 - l 6 6 0 .2 vols. London, 1900. Simpson, Alan. The Wealth of the Gentry, 1540-1660. Cambridge, I96I. Thirsk, Joan, "Industries i n the Countryside." Essays i n the Economic and Soc i a l History of Tudor and Stuart England, i n Honour of R.H. Tawney, edited by F.J. Fisher, pp. 70-88. Cambridge, 1961. , ed. The Agrarian History of England and Wales. Vol. IV: 1500-1640. Cambridge, I967 - 163 -Underdown, David. Pride's Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution. Oxford, 1971. , Royalist Conspiracy in England, 1649-1660. New Haven, i960, , "Settlement in the Counties, l653-l658." The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646-1660, edited "by G.E. Aylmer, pp. 165-82. London, 1972. . Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum. Newton Abbot, 1973• Urwick, William. Nonconformity in Hertfordshire. London, 1884. Venn, John, and Venn, J.A. Alumni Catabrigienses. Part I: From the Earliest  Times to 1751. 4 vols. Cambridge, 1922-1927. Woolrych, Austin. "Last Quests for a Settlement, l657-l660." The Interregnum: The Quest for a Settlement. 1646-1660. edited by G.E. Aylmer, pp. 183-204. London, 1972. . "Oliver Cromwell and the Rule of the Saints." The English Civil War and After, 1642-1658, edited by R.H. Parry, pp 59~77. Berkeley, 1970. Worden, Blair. The Rump Parliament, 1648-1653. Cambridge, 1974. - 164 -APPENDIX 1 COMMITTEE LISTS The following are the committees appointed December 1642 to March 1660 for Norfolk, Norwich and Bedfordshire for which membership l i s t s were available. CODE COMMITTEE DATE NUMBER OF MEMBERS Norfolk Norwich Beds. A. l Midlands Association 15 Dec 1642 - _ 11 A.2 Weekly Assessment 24 Feb 1643 29 - 12 B.l S eque stration 2? Mar 1643 29 - 12 B.2 Additional Committeemen Apr 1643 44 10 -C Levying of Money 7 May 1643 27 - 12 D Additional Committeemen 1 June 1643 43 7 33 E Levying of Money 3 Aug 1643 27 23 19 F Eastern Association 10 Aug 1643 19 10 -G Eastern Association 20 Sept 1643 44 7 -H General Assessment 18 Oct 1644 40 11 39 I New Model Ordinance 1? Feb 1645 65 25 28 J Assessment 21 Feb 1645 64 25 28 K Assessment 23 June 1647 78 23 32 L Assessment for Ireland 16 Feb 1648 80 21 29 M M i l i t i a 2 Dec 1648 43 19 21 N Assessment 7 Apr 1649 69 27 31 0 Assessment 7 Dec 1649 78 23 45 P Assessment 26 Nov 1650 94 26 47 Q High Court for Norfolk 10 Dec I650 19 - -R Assessment 10 Dec 1652 119 38 63 S Poor Prisoners 5 Oct 1653 9 7 T Ejectors 28 Aug 1654 25 - 18 U Decimators Nov 1655 29 - 11 V Assessment 9 June 1657 121 27 43 ¥ Assessment (additions) 26 June 1657 21(=142) 3(=30) 2(=45) X M i l i t i a 26 July 1659 64 24 34 Y Assessment 26 Jan 1660 64 35 34 Z M i l i t i a 12 Mar 1660 . 66 19 46 Notes CODE: The code letters are used to identify committees in the tables in apps. 2 and 3> A . l and A.2 appear as 'A', B.l and B.2 as 'B', in the appendices. COMMITTEE: Assessments are monthly unless otherwise stated. - 165 -NUMBER OF MEMBERS: The number does not include ex o f f i c i o members not mentioned by name (e.g. "mayor of Norwich"). The l i s t s are often garbled, with names omitted, misspelt or duplicated. Such errors have been corrected, when i t i s clear what was meant. Members were sometimes added during the l i f e of a committee, and their addition recorded in the Commons' Journal, the Lords' Journal, or the State Papers: where only one or two people were involved, they have not normally been included in these totals. Sources (References are to API unless otherwise stated) A . l : i. 49-51; M v i i . 493. A. 2: i. 85-100. B. lI i. 106-117. B.2 (Norwich only): CJ i i i . 49; LJ v i . 10. C: i. 145-155. D (Additional committeemen for the Levying of Money): i . 168-71; LJ v i . 76. E: i . 223-41. F: i . 242-45. G: i. 291-98. H: i. 531-53. I (Commissioners to raise money for the New Model Army): i . 614-26. J: i . 630-46. K: i . 958-84 L: i . 1072-1105; (additional commissioners) i . 1107. M: i . 1233-5L N: i i . 24-57. 0: ii. 285-319. P: ii. 456-90. Q (High Court of Justice appointed for East Anglia after the Norfolk rising): i i . 492-93-R: ii. 653-88. S (Judges for the Relief of Creditors and Poor Prisoners): i i . 753-64. T (Ejectors of Scandalous, Ignorant and Insufficient Ministers): i i . 968-9O. U (Commissioners for securing the peace of the Commonwealth: names from signatures to letters to the Protector): TSP. iv. 207-208, 705. V: i i . 1058-97. W (superseded V, but only the additional commissioners were named): i i . 1234-49. X: i i . 1320-42. Y: ii. 1355-1403. Z: ii. 1425-55. - 166 -APPENDIX 2 THE SERVICE OF COMMITTEEMEN 1642-1660 TABLE VII NORFOLK \ • j- in 4- J- J--£> Q in in M in -* in in LO p-ir> -o cr Lf) o A B C D E F G H 1 J K L ryi N 0 p Q R s T u V v\ X Y Z A . A.stley, Sir Isaac -Bedingfield. Philip Berney. Sir Richard 1 Coke, John — f — . 1 Cooke, William - •'!•. Fountain, Brigg Gawsell, Gregory — Heyeningham, William Holland, S i r John i Hofaart, Sir John . i •1 Hobart, S i r Miles j Hoogan, S i r Thomas Houghton, John.. Jermy, Francis Mountford, Sir Edmund Palgrave, S i r John Percival, John Potts, S i r John Rich, Robert Sidley, Martin Smith, Samuel — Sotherton, Thomas Spelman, John 1 T o l l , Thomas i Tooley, John -— | Weld, Thomas Windham, Thomas — Wood, Robert Wo.odhouse, Sir. Thomas — D Barkham, S i r Edward Beckham, John Blofield, Jeremy i Browne, John | Brewster, John Calthorpe, James Clarke, 1 1 Collins. --— 1 Honey, W i l l i am Corbet. Miles - 16? -NORFOLK A B C D E F H 1 J K L IV N 0 P Q R S T U V w X Y z Dagley, Robert I " l Feltham, Robert Frere, Tobias Gibbon, John Girlely, William Gooch, Robert Harvey, Richard •-Jay, John i • i-Jay, Suckling ! Johnson, Thomas I Kett, Robert 1 King, Henry Lincoln, Thomas j Money,'Samuel i 1 Reymes, John - h Russell, Thomas. -4-» — Seamier, James i Sheppard, Robert - H i ! Sherwood, Livewell • - ! 1 S Shouldham, Frances i j i Springall, Thomas i Swalter, John ! ! Symonds, William 1 Utber, Thomas i —!— Vincent, John 1 Walter, j ! ! Warner, Richard - _. - I t' -Wilton, Robert Wythe, Richard - • F Astley, S i r Edward t • l'-Gawdy, Sir Thomas - H G Galthorpe, Philip Gower, Robert Guibon, Sir. Thomas Jermy, Robert Parks, Samuel 1 1 Walpole, John 1-4-H De Grey, Sir. Robert 1 .1 Paston, S i r William i -Wauton, Valentine i f I Balnham, Robert ' Buxton, John ' — Chamberlain, Edward De Grey, James- - H Doyly, Sir William Gawdy, Edward Gawdy, Framlingham Heyward, Edward Houghton, Robert Hunt, George Kettle, Henry • Long, Robert May, John - 168 -NORFOLK D|! H K L M N I O PQRS T vWxMz Owner, Edward P e l l . S ir Valentine Seamier. Adam Skippon. Philip Taylor, Henry Thoresby, Edmund Townsend. - S i r Roger-Ward, Hamond-Webb, John Windham, S i r George Wright, Thomas K Atkin. Thomas Barber, Gabriel B.edingf ield, S i r Thomas Earle, Erasmus Gooch, Charles Hare,- S i r Ralph Nelson,. Thomas Playters, S i r William Robinson, Thomas Smith, Simon Waller, Thomas Walpole, Robert Wormall, Bartholomew Carter, Thomas Crane, Thomas Fleetwood, Charles Gooch, Thomas Maxey, Nathaniel Penington, Isaac Robinson, Edward Slaney, Thomas .M Cutting, Nicholas Manchester, Earl.of Thorowgood, S i r John Townsend, Sir Horatio Warwick, Earl Of N Hobart, Sir John Astwood, James .Bassett,.John Calthorpe,- Robert Green, Joshua Preston, Isaac Scot, Jonas Sims, John Spensley, Thomas To l l , Thomas, Jr. Bendish, Thomas Burman, Edmund Burton, William Carter, John Cock, Charles G eorge Doughty, Robert - 169 -NORFOLK A B C D E F G H 1 J k L V N 0 P Q R S T U V \AJX Y Z Green, Thomas - - -Gurdon, Brajn.pt on Harvey, Richard • Lucas, Thomas -Puckle, Samuel Rayley, John ' ' " . ' ' Read,-Thomas . • Sidley, John Underwood, Francis i ' Waller, Francis ' -1 - t -Q Barrett, Thomas — Brewster, Robert H-Parmenter, Adrian _ | R Balleston, John 1—r Brown, Richard i Cobb, Edmund -. Constable, Luke Cooke, William' — Crcmcr,' Edmund '_.";; . Denham, Edward Denny, Lt. Col. Denny, Edward . . Garrett, Thomas"' Goddard, Guyfaon Harper, Roger Hastings, Martin Kott, Thomas Lawrence, John Miller, John . _ • Neave, Richard Paynell, Robert. Pe l l , John Prentice, Samuel Salter,. Nicholas Sheriff, Thomas -Steward, William Suckling, Robert Ward, Edward Wood, Robert, Jr. Woolmer, Ralph Ashwell, Thomas Steward-, George --T Anderson, William i B e l l , Nicholas Bulwer, Edward Copeman, Richard Dunn, Thomas Haynes, Hezekiah Lawrence. Henrv -L i f e . Wi 11 ia . m c r r > n + Th^ma.R Swallow. Robert Toft. John - 170 -NORFOLK ..[. i A B C D E F G H 1 J K L M p Q R S T u V X Y Z u Gurney, Thomas j — V Baldock, Robert I Beckham, Thomas i i Berners, Hatton i Berney, Thomas i Blckley, Francis 1 Burman, John i i B ullin, George ! -Church, Bernard 1 Colby, John / - 1 . Coulston, John i .Crowe, Bozune i Day, Thomas - i Daynes, Thomas Doughty, William , • •!'• Drury, Robert I-Drury, Thomas i Gooch, John,Jr. j Hawes, John s Heme, Robert . i Hoogan, Henry I Howse, John . l Kendal, John I Nabs, John I Peddar, Tobias 1 Pepys, Robert i .- t Rant, -Thomas ( i Scapes, William "I ! • Scarborough, Henry • 1 i Shadwell, John 1 Shouldham, Nathaniel ! Spelman, Clement • 1 Stebbin, Francis i Steward, Robert j Thimblethorpe., Charles i Thorowgood Robert Thrower, Augustine i Walpole, Edward Whalley, Edward j I i Woodroffe, John ' t i -1 Wormall, Doughty . i Wright, John j • Wyn, Christopher . I Barber, Edward 1 Dixon, Thomas Lane, Robert Long, James Long, Matthew Manfield, Thomas 1 OxbormiP-h, T.a.wT"p-nr>p P A T mar Pike, John Smith, John - 171 -NORFOLK ... A B C D E F G H 1 J K L V N 0 P Q R S T U V X Y Z Utfaer, Bernard -Waters, Robert X Arnop, William Barnham, William Benton, Violet Brown, Robert I Cubit, William Ely, Thomas -Emperor, William Gawsell, Robert Gooch, Leonard Gore, William Mann,. John Sheldrake, John Style, .William-Tennant, James Warner, Capt, Y Bacon, Francis Cory, Francis Cory, Thomas England, George - ' • Hobart, John -Pepys, Roger Z Bacon, Sir Edmund Berney, Henry B.edingfield, Philip Jr. Brown, Thomas -Fielder, Edward Garnish, John Hewitt, William Hovel, William Jollopp, Robert Meadowes, Thomas Potts, John -Richardson, Thomas Swift, Townsend, Thomas Woodhouse, S i r Philip i - • . . . . . 1 - 172 -TABLE VIII NORWICH - O r*-J--© cr J -o If) If) m if) tf> LO if> ~o cr LD o A B C P E F G H 1 J K L M N 0 P Q R s T u V X Y Z . B..2 Baker, Thomas. J Barrett, Christopher Lindsoy, Matthew Parmenter, Adrian . Peckover, Matthew'• -' Puckle, Samuel Sherwood, Livewell . Smith, Samuel Thacker, John Tooley, John D Watts, Henry E Astley, Sir Edward Barkham, Sir Edward Calthorpe, Philip Frere, Tobias Gawdy, S i r Thomas Gibbon, John Gower, Robert Guibon, S i r Thomas Harman, Richard Jermy, Robert •Johnson, Thomas ! Parks, Samuel j • Heymes, J ohn 1 j Russell, Thomas - i t I Sheppard, Robert i ' I i Walpole, John i i Wilton,.'Robert* " F Bur man, Edmund Greenwood, John Symonds, William H Earle, Erasmus Gostlin, William I Barrett, Thomas Brewster. Samuel fihurch, Bema-rrl O r\~\ "1 T /-\-v» T /-\"U^ v-i — W U J J - L —o U f l l l ; ; ; rj-p^ y, . T n h n : = King,' Henry - 173 -NORWICH • 1 1 • 1 1 A B C D E F G H 1 J K L VI N 0 P Q R SJT u V X Y z Salter,-John H .1 Scottow, Timothy 1 " Toft. John ! ! Toft. Thomas Waller, Thomas K Atkin, Thomas • :L.. Cock, Charles George -M Ashwell, Thomas H Barber, Gabriel . Baron, Robert • Davy, William — Hawes, John Paynell, Robert Rayley, John Allen, Robert- - . •. .v'-.v Andrews, John Barnham, William- • Cory, John Fleetwood, Charles ' . . Hare, .Sir Ralph.. Kett, Richard Wenman, Richard P Mann, John -Poynter,.Nicholas h Wood, Giles - i -R Bateman, Richard - Everard, John .. .... ,|— Garrett, Thomas L_ Knight, John Salter, Nicholas Steward, George Took, William -V Balleston, John Norwich, - Timothy W Brown, Richard X Everard, Thomas Swallow, .Richard . :. -V ± Bendish, Robert Benton, Violet 1 Briggs,. Augustine 1 U Colaham, Richard Gooch, Robert. ; Holmes, Robert -Jay, Christopher Mingay, Roger Norwich, Francis Norwich, Thomas Payne, Joseph Woods-, Henry j z Gostlin. John —. Hobart, John — i 1 - 174 -TABLE IX BEDFORDSHIRE i C-4 -J-vO in j -r*-J -oo .» 1 1 OS 91 ] in in m NO [ • 939TJ ft-in ~o U) o A B C D E F G H 1 J K L VI w P Q R s T u V X Y Z A . l Beverley, James Boteler," Sir William Browne, Samuel . -Burgovne. Sir: John. i Gat er, Edward Duncombe, William i Kempson, Robert j Monoux, Humphrey > Rolt, Thomas i Sadler, Thomas i St. John, S i r Beauchamp -3 Vaux, John i A.2 Alston, S i r Thomas > --Burgoyne, S i r Roger 1 Luke, S i r Oliver 1 i Luke, Sir Samuel i Monoux, Hampton i Osborne, Edward ! Rofaart, Thomas I 5 Stanton, Robert C • Ashton, S i r Thomas i . Rolfe, Thomas D Astrey, Francis - j Bannister, Francis H Bradshaw, — i j Briers, S i r William . . — . Cockayne, .Richard i Edwards, Richard. Fish, Humphrey i Jones, Edmund { ' Mallory, Ralph J Mondux, Lewis i Neale, John. Neale, Peter i j Nodes, John a S i h l o i r . J nhn f f T _ * J_ 1 _ T _ 1 'I bmith,—u ohn : Snagge, Ralph - J t Wells, i i - 175 -BEDFORDSHIRE | i A B C D E P G H I J | K L M N | O j .....i.— P 0 R S T U V >' Y Z Wells, John . . ..... n I . | -E Rolt, S i r John i « "_f~ H Harvey, John -- . . . . - H i I Hawes, Robert — - H ! Hawes, Thomas » • i i Paradine, Thomas - f - •1 - Thompson, Sir John - t " J Winch, Onslow- - -+- i K Armiger, Clement -- p -• i -4 i Dacres, Thomas 1 -h :. i -1 D aniel, Thomas - 1: ! M Lord Bruce !• — i , Kent, Earl of r i 1 N" Allen, William — • — -. Beverley, Robert .. _L_ i Brownsall, Thomas Cater, Thomas - ! Charnock, St. John — j -Easton, John . t —1— . Grew, John Haselden, John — H Landy, ..Richard. — i Reynolds, Anthony . • ! - 4 -Sadler, Edward • t-Walker, John — -Wingate, Edmund h 0 Arnold, Thomas - — Baker, Thomas l 1 Barber, Joseph • • Cooke, Michael l ! -Eakins,. h Eden, Henry 1 !~ Field, Thomas ~ \- — ..•Gamble, Henry — •I I -Green, John l: — i i — - r- -Hensman, Thomas - 1 1 King, John \ . • f h Lander,.Richard ! Manley, John 1 |— -0-key, John H Prior, William ' 1 l. Robinson, John . . • 1 -1 Rush, John • i . -Sames, John -- 1 Sayer, Joseph i -Suger, Richard Tap, Robert Vincent, Thomas h Wells", Franoi s P .- Johnson, Richard J i Wagstaffe. Richard K Wyan, Thomas Barber, John - 176 -BEDFORDSHIRE --A B C D E F G H 1 J K L VI N 0 P Q R S T U V X Y Z Bedford, Samuel Christy, Thomas Cockavn. John Crookr John Johnson. Nicholas Lovet. Robert • - . • Noel, James-. . - • ... .Piggot. Thomas Spencer, John Squire,' Gaius ": '. • Taylor. Nathaniel West, Edmund .Whitebread, Henry Whitebread. William -Whitelock . Bulstrode-' T .Mallory, Peter. •u . Saunder. Richard ." V . Andrews, William. Baker, . . -. Beecher, William Bell,.Robert - -Blofield. Edward Boteler, William Faldoe, William . • -Freeman, William Goods, William Johnson, William Margets, Thomas Neal, Noah- ... • Norton, Luke Orlebar, George Wells, Thomas ¥ Bridge, Major. Gen. - _ X - Baker, George - -Braridreth, Henry Cooper, Gibbs, Thomas . Googe,-. William - - -King, — — ! Massingburgh, Henry. Miller, John . 1 u Powell, Robert • j i Ravens, John 1 Weeks, :-• I-Wylde, Edmund i z Atwood, Edward ! Barnadiston, Robert "|-Beaumont, John i — Becket, Simon i 1 — Bedford. Earl of - I Bolingbroke, EarT <~>f ' 1 flhpnpy, Thomas Duncombe. S i r John - 177 -BEDFORDSHIRE . A B C D E F G H 1 J K L VI IMG-j P Q R S T U V X Y Z • • Elgin/ Earl of • .... . i Litton, S i r William i i — Luke, Oliver 1 Napier. S i r Robert 1 — Osborne, John 1 -Palmer, S i r William i' 1 -• Rotherham, John.. . . - - I Russell, Lord 1 — J Snagge, Thomas 1 Spencer, William I Thompson, St. John i Winch, Humphrey " • •_. • .. ..... . •'. . . " -• -" \ ! •i i • -* • - 178 -APPENDIX 3 COMMITTEEMEN: ENTRIES AND EXITS The committeemen (see app. 2) from each area are plotted on grids (Tables X-XIl) according to their entries (the f i r s t committee on which their names appear) and their exits (the last committee on which they appear). The committees on which they enter are li s t e d across the top of each grid, identified by the code letters from app. 1, and those on which they exit down the side of the grids. Thus the eight new members for 'L' (the February 1648 Assessment Committee) for Norfolk appear in the vertical column 'L' in Table 1. Three of them also exit at 'L', one at 'R', three at 'w', and one at 'X'. To discover how many people exit at 'L', and when they were f i r s t appointed, one reads across the horizontal line 'L'. Each committeemen, therefore, appears once on one of the grids, and the identity of individuals can be found from the l i s t s in app. 2. The nine groups used for analysis (see chap, l ) are shown by the red lines superimposed on the grids. The number of each group is shown within i t in red Roman numerals. - 179 -TABLE X NORFOLK ENTRIES p A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 p Q R S T u V W X Y Z 1642 -3 A 0 B I I C I I D n n E 0 F 0 G 3 i 4 1 6 4 4 H i 1 1 3 1645 I 0 J 4 1647 K I X r 3 1648 L I X - 1 3 7 M I 2. 3 1649 N I i 2 0 1 2 3 1 6 5 0 P i TT 1 l\i \ fl 3 Q I J i i 1 2 1652 R 5 3 i 1 1 b 5 1 4 4 3q 1653 S I 3 1654 T I l 1 3 1655 U • 2 1 3 1657 V U V IH u 0 W 2 6 i i 1 2 3 1 i 6 i 6 i 2? 12 V 1659 X i 1 I X 1 5 1 12 1660 Y 3 3 ( 3 2 14 5 35 Z II i 1 1 7 3 2 i X 3 5 Z 10 l 1 15 66 T O T A L -E N / T R I E S 11 0 0 31 0 z 6 3 24 0 13 8 5 1 1 3 2? 2 II ! 42 1-2 IS 6 15 Total number of committeemen: 290 - 180 -TABLE XI NORWICH-ENTRIES A B c D E F G H 1 J K L M N 0 P Q R S T u V w X Y z 1642-3 A 0 B 0 C 0 D 0 E \k '4 F T 0 G 0 1644 H 1 1 1645 I 0 J I 2 I. 4 1647 K I 1 r 2 1648 L 2 - z 4 M i 2 3 1649 N i 1 Z 0 I I •2 1650 P 1 - f i - 1 V/ v 11 2 Q l l \ M \ fl 0 1652 R I f 2 6 1653 S 0 1654 T 0 1655 U 0 1657 V vi (T 7) 0 W Til 1 \j 1 1 \ 7n "i 4 1659 X i i 1 _y_ z It! z i 7 1660 Y i 1 1 i 1 3 1 z 20 Z 2 1 i 1 2 Z 1 3 2 T O T A L EMTftl ES 0 Z 0 1 I T 3 0 Z II 0 \ i T 0 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 i ! 2 12 1 Total number of committeemen: 90 - 181 -TABLE XII BEDFORDSHIRE o x ENTRIES \- UJ A B c D E F G H 1 J K L M N 0 P Q R S T u v W X Y Z 1642-3 A i i B 0 C 0 D Z 2 E j 0 F T 0 G i - 0* 1644 H 2 1 6 1645 I 0 J j Q 1647 K i 1 i •z 1648 L i 1 2 -\ 1 M 3 1 1 5 1649 N 1 1 2 0 1 'I 1650 P 1 Z 1 h ! \ 4-Q li \} i /i. 0 1652 R 2 3 4- i3 1 5 2^  1653 S 0 1654 T i i 2 1655 U 1 1 1657 V VI II I) 0 W 1 1 TI 1 I \ f 1 \ /II 1 1/ 1? 1659 X i l [ *ft* 0 1660 Y I 2 i 4- 10 27 Z a Z 1 1 3 k- i 2 -TOTAL E N T R I E S 20 0 1 IS 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 1 2 13 23 3 0 life 0 i I 15 1 \\1 0 20 Total number of committeemen: 157 - 182 -APPENDIX 4 GROUPS I-IX: BIOGRAPHICAL DATA Tables XIII-XV show the number of committeemen in each group, together with selected biographical information about the members of each group. The columns in the tables give the following information (reference i s to column numbers): 1 Group The explanation of the groups, and their definition, are given i n Ch, 1, and their derivation can also be seen in app. 3» tables 1-3• The groups are: Entry Exit I Before 1649 Before 1649 II Before 1649 1649-1656 III Before 1649 1657-1660 IV 1649-1651 1649-1656 V 1649-1651 1657-1660 VI 1652-1656 1652-1656 VII 1652-1656 1657-1660 VIII 1657-1658 1657-1660 IX 1659-1660 1659-1660 E The fourteen county gentlemen appointed only to E, the August 1643 committee (see chap. 2 ) . (Norwich only) 2 Number The number of committeemen i n each group (see app. 3)• 3 Residence in county The area of residence, where known, of those who lived in the county where they were committeemen. This excludes the town residents (see below). i) Norfolk. Shows the number of people from the North (N), South (s) and East (E) Quarter Sessions divisions (see chap. 2 ) . i i ) Norwich. Shows the number of committeemen resident in Norfolk rather than in Norwich i t s e l f . - 183 -i i i ) Bedfordshire. Shows the number of committeemen from the six northern hundreds (N) and the three southern hundreds (s) (see chap. 2 ) . 4 Town residents The committeemen'-living in certain of the towns within their counties. i) Norfolk. Norwich (Nw), Great Yarmouth (GY), and King's Lynn (KL) residents. i i ) Norwich. Not used. i i i ) Bedfordshire. Residents of the town of Bedford. 5 Outsiders People who did not l i v e i n or come from the area for which they were appointed. i) Norfolk. Shows a l l outsiders. i i ) Norwich. Does not include Norfolk residents. i i i ) Bedfordshire. Shows a l l outsiders. 6 Family residence Indicates whether the committeemen came from families which had lived in the county for some time. i) + i i ) Norfolk and Norwich: shows the number of committeemen who came from families which appear on the l i s t s of Norfolk gentry of the 1570s. Sources: Hassell Smith, Elizabethan Gentry, pp. 333-64; NA III. 43~51, IV, 292-95 (Bibl. Harl., God. 4756; Harleiaji MS. Cod. IIO9); and see chap. 2 ) . i i i ) Bedfordshire. Not used. 7 Visitation Shows how many committeemen came from families whose coat of arms,had been given or confirmed by the College of Arms at a herald's visi t a t i o n during the seventeenth century. Sources: Norfolk and Norwich: Rye, The Visitations of 1563. 1589. J 6 l ? ; The 1664 Visitation, NRS vols. 4 and 5. Bedfordshire: Visitations of 1634 and 1639. - 184 -8 Status The status of the committeemen, where known, i s given according to the contemporary distinctions of rank: peer (P), baronet (B), knight (K), esquire (E) and gentleman (G). Since many people styled themselves 'esquire' when appointed to a county office, committeemen-have only been identified as 'esquires' or 'gentlemen' when their claim to this rank could be confirmed from a source other than the committee l i s t s , most commonly from the Visitation records, 9 Wealth Although their actual income could be ascertained for only a few committee-me_n,_ the evidence available makes i t possible to estimate the relative  wealth of many more. Taxation l i s t s , land ownership, and the lordship of manors can be used as a guide to the comparative means of the county gentry, though they might be unsatisfactory indicators of any individual's absolute wealth. Although manor holding has been questioned as a measure of wealth, there would appear to be an adequate correlation between manor and land ownership for the purposes of this study. The taxation l i s t s can often be easily analyzed into the great magnates, the middle gentry, and the minor figures - possibly parish gentry or yeomen. Modern studies also provided much incidental information, occasionally in tabulated form. On the basis of this evidence, the committeemen were allocated, where possible, to one of three groups: A: These were the very wealthy. They were the great county magnates: in Norfolk, for example, the twenty-five greatest landowners, as l i s t e d by Spratt. Generally, they would be the lords of ten or more manors, and would perhaps have an income in the region of 1000 pounds per annum. In Norwich, this group includes the outstandingly successful merchants. B: These were the moderately wealthy. They would l i k e l y be gentry of 'esquire' rank, lords of two to nine manors, or substantial landowners. Their wealth made office possible for them, though the expense of being sheriff might strain their resources. In Norwich, these were the properous merchants; the aldermen and the richest t h i r d of the common council. CV This includes a l l those with incomes less than 'B*. Their wealth was limited. They might be parish gentry, lords of one manor or none, or barely gentry at a l l , or, in the towns, lesser tradesmen. They would normally have been excluded from county office before 1642 on account of their incomes. Sources: Information about manors and landholding was principally from Blomefield, Spratt, and VGH, Bedfordshire, vols. II and III. A partial assessment for Norfolk for 1663 i s in HMG, Lothian, - 185 -pp. 89-117. The l 6 ? l Hearth Tax returns for Bedfordshire are in Marshall, Rural Population, pp. 65-159• Norwich Information was from The Norwich Rate Book:" From Easter, 1633 to Easter 1634, edited "by Hf. Rye, (London,. I9O3);' the 1643 Subscript ion XVIII, 150-60); and the 1662 Voluntary Gift. (P. M. Williams, ed., "Norwich Subscriptions to the Voluntary Gift of 1662", NRS Vol. I ( l 9 3 l ) i PP« 69-86. Much information i s also a y a i l a b l ^ general biographical sources: Venn; Keeler, Long Parliament; Brunton and Pennington, Members of the Long; Parliament; BNB; and see the sources at the end of this appendix. 10 University The jxumber who had attended Cambridge or, in a few cases only, Oxford. Sources: Venn; J. Foster, Alumni Oxonienses (Oxford, 1891-2). For the significance of a university education as part of a gentleman's training, see Gleason, Justices of the Peace, pp. &3~95> 11 Status as student The status each student had at Cambridge was an indication of his family's rank and wealth. F : Fellow Commoner. The highest status: the sons of peers or major county families. P : Pensioner. The second level: the sons of gentlemen. S.: The lowest status. From a poor family. Sources: Venn. On significance of the ranks, see Notestein, English  People, p. 141. 12 Inns of Court The number who attended one of the Inns of Court, to gain some legal training. This, an accepted part of a gentleman's education, normally indicates a gentry background. The figures in the Table are, with a few additions, those who went on to an Inn after university. The figures in Gleason (Justices of the Peace, p. 88) for the I636 commission that two-thirds of those at the Inns also went to university. Sources: Venn; and see Gleason, op c i t , pp. 90-5, and Notestein, English  People, pp. 86-95. 1 3 MP The number of committeemen who served as members of Parliament. Sources: O f f i c i a l Returns of Members of Parliament (London, 1878); - 186 -W. Cobbett, ed., The Parliamentary History of England, Vol. I l l (London, 1808); D. Brunton and D._ H. Pennington, Members of the Long Parliament (London, 1954); NA I, 69. 14 Sheriff The number who served as sheriff. Source: Public Record Office, L i s t and Indexes No. EC. Li s t of Sheriffs  from the Earliest Times to A.I). 1831 (London, 1898.). 15 Mayor . The mayors of any town in the county. 16 Alderman The aldermen of any towns in the county. Age This i s the average age on f i r s t appointment. The number in parentheses i s the number of committeemen in each group whose age could be ascertained. Nulls The number of committeemen for whom no information, outside of the committee l i s t , was found in the course of this study. A Note on Sources for App. 4 A number of the sources referred to above under specific categories also contain much useful general information. Venn gives brief but informative and generally reliable biographical notices of each alumnus, and Keeler, especially, i s valuable for the MPs. A number of general biographical works, such as the Complete Baronetage, were also consulted, but, with the exception of DNB, they rarely provided new information. Most of the information came from the general sources of county history (see Bibliography). Blomefield, for Norfolk, and VCH, for Bedfordshire, were the most useful. Many notes and articles on family histories are found in Norfolk Archaeology (1847+) and the Bedfordshire Magazine (194?+), and both BHRS and NRS have printed many genealogical histories: see the articles by F.A. Page-Turner in the early volumes of BHRS, and the volume of East Anglian  Pedigrees, edited by A. Campling, NRS XIII (1940). The most f r u i t f u l sources of information for people below the ranks of the county gentry are the church histories: for example, John Brown, Bunyan; Jewson, "The English Church at Rotterdam", "Norfolk and the L i t t l e Parliament", and "Return of Conventicles, I669"; Carruthers, "Norfolk Presbyterianism"; and Lyons Turner, Original Records of Early Nonconformity. VIII VII < • < 3 III H H H GROUP N> U l CN N> - V 0 0 c r - -T- NUMBER ro m Lo z rM to Z m c/iZ in U 2 j3 — O - 0 00 O.-F - cn 0 — cn - 0 0 0 0 5 LP u) RESIDENCE IN COUNTY 7^ US Z r- r< i ^•d z: 7=r O Z C ^ £ rr ^ f. ^ & z 1 c 2 ^  X ^ ^  z: TOWN -p-O OJ-C- - M Ul - O N> — O >o ui 1 0 - P - -F- N> RESIDENTS ' — — N OUTSIDERS N^ N> — )-o r--> FAMILY ON O N> O -— •— ^° r VISITATION -O ^ ro TP •*><??."!' S O T ^ -x> ca -y - H - O O O 0 0 0 O O O O - O OOO •F- O 0 (nW 0 GO - N> {T> in £f> in U 0 -p- OK) W * cn FT — 0 in in in rt h> Cri £Ti tn ON _a STATUS CO O o ^  0> 00 JE> fN CO z> ^ TOD pi TO JO CO K> 1 0 4 J 0 -4> — 0 >o — ON OJ °o 0 ^ WEALTH \o N> -N UNIVERSITY O C/*l —Q T J C/~\ -rj -r» -0 -n -0 "n <n -O -T) (A -0 -rl STUDENT O f -M . ~ O Col O O — — O - t° - - 0 O 4 J 0 — LNI STATUS H1-O Osl •— O cr-INNS OF COURT ro " CN 0 . N> -N C T N MP VjJ • — .1° — • 0 O -W . N SHERIFF !-»• -r — •— UJ C T N MAYOR — U i LA C O ALDERMAN !->• ON 1 '_ O N ^ O AGE !-»• O 4-^ — — O — NULLS !->• CO -, ^ 81 -m 9 VIII VII <; • M < S3 III H M GROUP »->• oo LP N> CO CO NUMBER ro - r — — — RESIDENCE IN COUNTY TOWN RESIDENTS -p-— • — OUTSIDERS o — O o -— C M L H FAMILY ON O — — o — O VISITATION 3^ J O H LM O N cn - to O - o - o m »o - r-o -+J pi O N> fi"> rn o — STATUS CO O n S ("N CK> J5 r> Oi CD 3> Pi cn J> p> oo ;t> WEALTH MD --+J - /O LO-p~ - - O o - o O f O o _ — oo o >° o O Ul — — O o o O — UNIVERSITY M-O </i -x> -n i " 1 1 1 "N -o T) fO "? 7? o - O <A -o TI - - o STUDENT STATUS !->• r-»> o - o o o - O r° O c& O o o o o — — INNS OF COURT ro o O O — . 'O MP — o o O o • — — o o SHERIFF h->--p-•—• o O o LA O -+J MAYOR o — — —- CH —Q ALDERMAN OS w cO (—*\ oo ^ b b / •=> 5 -— b oo ^ b oo 1 ^ CO V AGE M> -o O o o o O o o O o NULLS (-»• co - 88T -VIII VII M < 3 III H H H GROUP CAJ CTN — - U OQ OO NUMBER ro ^ 2 . <^ Z CA Z ?- to z : ^ 2- z . ^ z: RESLDENGE Ul O in so - p - = CM -P . IN COUNTY CXI O — . O — TOWN RESIDENTS K> — O • — O — OUTSIDERS FAMILY ON -t- OsJ — VISITATION -a ? s ; p ^ CX> OT - t 7 ? N C 5 - O l/J w p - o o o O O O O O O o o o O O O S> .-P- ~ WOO s> o • — sr> m (Ti ^ STATUS 00 S oQ CJ —- O O [O Si O <J-N — _ ON CO ^ 5 5 3 > r> i» a> O C=> 3 = O p J> O R J> — = _Q U p - — U O O Uj O N O o OJ Q o o i n - P O WEALTH MD — O - p — UNIVERSITY o CA - c -n ( A "T? - T | LA -o -n o~s t ) -n 0 0 T ) T T ( O -n ' STUDENT - S>^1 O M O o - o O - o o - - O w o O — Ni ON fvO STATUS 1—^  o ~ o O CAJ H-J INNS OF COURT ro — — —" _ D ' — s o MP o •— o --- SHERIFF I->-— O O O O — ' S> MAYOR Vj\ O 6 o O — H ALDERMAN ON ^ r-> r ~N -E v£x in o £ ^ o v- ° ' o o c-o AGE • ' M --N3 O -— o — Q o • o un NULLS S* CO XJ1 - 681 -


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items