15. Gardiner, III, ch. 44; Corish, ‘Ormond’, pp. 320–21.
16. David Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland, 1644–1651 (London, 1977), pp. 54–64.
17. Ibid., pp. 64–72. For the ambiguous relationship between royalism and Presbyterianism see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, ch. 8.
18. Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 57–60, 64–6, 68; Gardiner, III, pp. 126–32; Cust. Charles 1, pp. 412, 423.
19. Gardiner, III, pp. 151–3, 175–7, 178.
20. Gardiner, CD, pp. 306–8, quotations at pp. 306, 307.
21. Quoted in Cust, Charles 1, p. 420.
22. Gardiner, CD, pp. 308–9, 311–16. For the circumstances of his answer in May see above, p. 492.
23. Gardiner, III, pp. 138, 144–5, 178–80, 182–5, 188–9; Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 69, 72–81; Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 349–50.
24. Gardiner, III, pp. 130, 173, 182; Cust, Charles 1, pp. 420–21.
25. Gardiner, III, p. 212.
26. Richard Wiseman, Several Chirurgicall Treatises (London, 1676 edn), p. 245.
27. Stuart Clark, Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe (Oxford, 1997), ch. 44.
28. Wiseman, Chirurgicall Treatises, p. 247. For the effectiveness of the royal touch, see Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century England (Harmondsworth, 1991 edn), pp. 242–4.
29. N. Woolf, ‘The Sovereign Remedy: Touch-Pieces and the King’s Evil’, British Numismatic Journal, 49 (1980 for 1979), 99–121; N. Woolf, ‘The Sovereign Remedy: Touch-Pieces and the King’s Evil, part 2’, British Numismatic Journal, 50 (1981 for 1980), 91–116.
30. Richards and Bloch read the many proclamations regulating the ceremony during the 1630s as evidence of Charles’s withdrawal: Judith Richards, ‘“His nowe Majestie” and the English Monarchy: The Kingship of Charles I before 1640’, PP, 113 (1986), 70–96, esp. pp. 88–93; Marc Bloch, The Royal Touch: Monarchy and Miracles in France and England, trans. J. E. Anderson (New York, 1989), pp. 207–8. Sharpe argues convincingly that this was evidence of his commitment to the practice: Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles 1 (New Haven, Conn., 1992), pp. 217–18, 630–31.
31. It did not, though, incorporate the ceremony into the Book of Common Prayer, as is sometimes suggested: George MacDonald Ross, ‘The Royal Touch and the Book of Common Prayer’, Notes and Queries, 30:5 (1983), 433–5.
32. Sharpe, Personal Rule, pp. 642–3, 782. Charles had also wanted, on his visit to Scotland in 1641, to touch Scottish legislation with his sceptre to symbolize his consent. This was resisted: David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, 1637–44: The Triumph of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, 2003), pp. 233–4.
33. For other references see A Perfect Diurnall (19–26 April 1647), p. 1564 (Holmby); Perfect Occurrences (8–15 October 1647), p. 281; and, possibly, A continuation of certain speciall and Remarkable Passages (28 August-3 September 1647), Saturday, 29 August; A Perfect Diurnall (16–23 August 1647), p. 1702. He also touched at Windsor on the eve of his trial but the practice was halted by his captors: Perfect Occurrences (22–30 December 1648), p. 778. I am grateful to Keith Lindley for these references.
34. Bloch, Royal Touch, pp. 207–10, for a brief narrative. For the origins of the English rite see Frank Barlow, ‘The King’s Evil’, EHR, 95 (1980), 3–27, which corrects most writing subsequent to Bloch. See, in general, Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, pp. 227–35. Much later work is indebted to the labours of Raymond Crawfurd, The King’s Evil (Oxford, 1911). Wiseman traced the power back to Edward the Confessor, as did the petition cited in n. 36 below.
35. J. C. D. Clark, English Society 1688–1832: Ideology, Social Structure and Political Practice during the Ancien Regime (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 160–67, 171; Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic, p. 228.
36. To the Kings most Excellent Majesty. The Humble petition Of divers hundreds of the kings poore Subjects Afflicted with that grievous infirmitie called The Kings Evil (London, 20 February 1643). In fact this petition was making a case for a peace party position: p. 8. Lilly had a number of enquiries about the King’s Evil during the war: e.g. Bod. L, Ashmolean MS 184, fo. 7v, 16r. For post-regicide versions of a similar point, with obvious political implications, see A Miracle of Miracles Wrought by the Blood of King Charles 1 (London, 1649).
37. Gardiner, III, pp. 212–13. For popular royalism see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 205–15.
38. Gardiner, III, p. 242; CJ, v, 151.
39. Gardiner, III, pp. 139, 145, 147; Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Ireland and Scotland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 143–4. For the February ordinance see A&O, I, pp. 913–14. For the case against physical coercion of conscience see, for example, the Leveller argument: ‘that no man for preaching or publishing his opinion in Religion, in a peaceable way, may be punished or persecuted as heretical, by Judges that are not infallible, but may be mistaken as well as other men in their judgments, lest upon pretence of suppressing errors, Sects, or Schisms, the most necessary truths, and sincere professions thereof may be suppressed, as upon like pretence it hath been in all ages’: the Large Petition, reprinted in G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Levellers in the English Revolution (London, 1975), pp. 75–81, quotation at p. 79.
40. Ian Gentles, ‘Political Funerals during the English Revolution’, in Stephen Porter (ed.), London and the Civil War (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 205–24, at pp. 210–17. See also V. F. Snow, Essex the Rebel: The Life of Robert Devereux, the Third Earl of Essex 1591–1646 (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1970), pp. 489–94; Gardiner, III, pp. 147–9; J. S. A. Adamson, ‘Chivalry and Political Culture in Caroline England’, in Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake (eds.), Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England (Basingstoke, 1994), pp. 161–97, esp. pp. 191–3.
41. Snow, Essex, p. 494; Gardiner, III, pp. 149–50; for the political complexion of the mourners see Gentles, New Model Army, p. 143.
42. John Morrill, ‘The Army Revolt of 1647’, reprinted in John Morrill, The Nature of the English Revolution (Harlow, 1993), pp. 307–31; John Morrill, ‘Mutiny and Discontent in English Provincial Armies, 1645–1647’, reprinted in ibid., pp. 332–58; Ashton, Counter-Revolution, ch. 2; for the post-war desire to establish control over the soldiery see Ronan Bennett, ‘War and Disorder: Policing the Soldiery in Civil War Yorkshire’, in Mark Charles Fissel (ed.), War and Government in Britain, 1598–1650 (Manchester, 1991), pp. 248–73.
43. For this campaign see Valerie Pearl, ‘London’s Counter-Revolution’, in G. E. Aylmer (ed.), The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646–1660 (London, 1972), pp. 29–56; Mark A. Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), esp. ch. 6; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, esp. pp. 76–90; Gentles, New Model Army, ch. 6; Michael Mahony, ‘Presbyterianism in the City of London, 1645–7’, HJ, 22 (1979), 93–114; Ann Hughes, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution (Oxford, 2004), ch. 5; Elliot Curt Vernon, ‘The Sion College Conclave and London Presbyterianism during the English Revolution’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge (1999), chs. 2–3. Posterity has generally credited Holles with leadership, perhaps because of the survival of his published memoirs. Juxon referred to this parliamentary interest as the Stapletonian party: Keith Lindley and David Scott (eds.), The Journal of Thomas Juxon, 1644–1647, Camden, 5th ser., 13 (London, 1999), esp. p. 34; Kishlansky notes this too, Rise, pp. 15–16, although his account emphasizes the role of Holles. The New Model was not the only problem – the regional armies were also agitating for arrears: Morrill, ‘Mutiny and Discontent’; Morrill, ‘Army Revolt of 1647’.
44. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 145–7. For the wider context see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, esp. chs. 2, 3, 7.
45. Ibid. For the offer of these terms to the King, and his insincere consideration of them, see Gardiner, III, pp. 213–15.
46. Ronald Hutton, The Rise and Fall of Merry England: The
Ritual Year 1400–1700 (Oxford, 1994), esp. pp. 203–12. See also Morrill, ‘The Church in England’; Christopher Durston, ‘Puritan Rule and the Failure of Cultural Revolution’, in Christopher Durston and Jacqueline Eales (eds.), The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560–1700 (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 210–33; Christopher Durston, ‘“Preaching and sitting still on Sundays”: The Lord’s Day during the English Revolution’, in Christopher Durston and Judith Maltby (eds.), Religion in Revolutionary England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 205–25.
47. For the post-Reformation Protestant calendar, and its politics, see David Cressy, Bonfires and Bells: National Memory and the Protestant Calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England (London, 1989).
48. Michael J. Braddick, ‘Popular Politics and Public Policy: The Excise Riot at Smithfield in February 1647 and Its Aftermath’, HJ, 34 (1991), 597–626, at p. 615. See also Hutton, Merry England, pp. 211–12, and, for the ritual year, ch. 1. For Shrove Tuesday and disorder see Keith Lindley, ‘Riot Prevention and Control in Early Stuart London’, TRHS, 5th ser., 33 (1983), 109–26, esp. pp. 109–10.
49. W. G. Hoskins, ‘Harvest Fluctuations and English Economic History 1620-1759’, Agricultural History Review, 16 (1968), 15–31; Steve Hindle, ‘Dearth and the English Revolution: The Harvest Crisis of 1647–50 Revisited’, EcHR (forthcoming).
50. Braddick, ‘Excise Riot’, p. 611. For grain riots, popular politics and the response of the magistracy see John Walter, Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2006), intr., chs. 1–5; John Walter and Keith Wrightson, ‘Dearth and the Social Order in Early Modern England’, reprinted in Paul Slack (ed.), Rebellion, Popular Protest and the Social Order in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 108–28.
51. Braddick, ‘Excise Riot’, p. 611.
52. Michael J. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation in Seventeenth-Century England: Local Administration and Response (Woordbridge, 1994), pp. 183–4. For the riot at Derby see above, pp. 422–3.
53. For the desire to return to normality see Gardiner, III, ch. 46; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 76–8; Braddick, ‘Excise Riot’, pp. 610–11. Attacks on committee government were also a dimension of ideological battles: Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), ch. 6.
54. Braddick, ‘Excise Riot’, p. 612.
55. Ibid., p. 597.
56. Ibid., pp. 612–14, quotation at p. 614.
57. Gardiner, III, p. 218.
58. Bod. L, Ashmolean MS 185, fo. 211r.
59. Gardiner, III, pp. 216–18; Corish, ‘Ormond’, pp. 322–3.
60. Bennett, ‘War and Disorder’, esp. pp. 260–66; Ann Hughes, ‘Parliamentary Tyranny? Indemnity Proceedings and the Impact of the Civil War: A Case Study from Warwickshire’, Midland History, 11 (1986), 49–78, at p. 58; Gregg, Free-Born John, p. 161. For local studies of tensions between soldier and civilian see A. R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire 1640–1672 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 81–91; Morrill, ‘Army Revolt of 1647’; Morrill, ‘Mutiny and Discontent’. A committee was established with powers to grant indemnity. Two thirds of its business in Gloucestershire was heard prior to 1650: Warmington, Gloucestershire, p. 89. For the committee See also John A. Shedd, ‘Thwarted Victors: Civil and Criminal Prosecution against Parliament’s Officials during the English Civil War and Commonwealth’, JBS, 41 (2002), 139–69.
61. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 140–48.
62. For a more detailed narrative see Joseph Frank, The Levellers: A History of the Writings of Three Seventeenth-Century Social Democrats: John Lilburne, Richard Overton, William Walwyn (Cambridge, Mass., 1955), pp. 77–124, although many of Frank’s judgements now seem anachronistic; Aylmer, The Levellers, pp. 16–22; Andrew Sharp (ed.), The English Levellers (Cambridge, 1998), intr. The Remonstrance is reprinted in ibid., pp. 33–53; the Large Petition is reprinted in Aylmer, The Levellers, pp. 75–81, quotations at pp. 76, 79. For Lilburne’s political thought see Rachel Foxley, ‘Citizenship and the English Nation in Leveller Thought, 1642–1653’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge (2001); Rachel Foxley, ‘John Lilburne and the Citizenship of “free-born Englishmen”’, HJ, 47 (2004), 849–74. For the resonance of the denial to the Lords of a negative voice See also Culpeper Letters, p. 145.
63. For the Levellers and petitioning See also Nigel Smith, Literature and Revolution in England, 1640–1660 (New Haven, Conn., 1994), pp. 138–40. This line of argument is developed interestingly in David Zaret, Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England (Princeton, NJ, 2000), esp. ch. 8.
64. Gardiner, III, pp. 254–7.
65. Aylmer, Levellers, p. 75.
66. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 148–9; Morrill, ‘Army Revolt of 1647’; Morrill, ‘Mutiny and Discontent’; Mark Kishlansky, ‘Ideology and Politics in the Parliamentary Armies, 1645–9’, in John Morrill (ed.), Reactions to the English Civil War 1642–1649 (Basing-stoke, 1982), pp. 163–83. Army activism was potentially in alliance with the Levellers and other London radicals, however, even if it was not a product of these outside agencies.
67. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 31–5; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 150–51. These events are placed in the context of the increasing polarization of politics at Westminster and in the City by Kishlansky, Rise, chs. 5–6. See, here, pp. 157–60.
68. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 35–40; Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 159–60; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 151–2; Gardiner, III, p. 231.
69. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 43–4.
70. The evidence and debate are summarized judiciously in Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 55–65, with full references. See also Gentles: ‘At the time the word “agitator” had none of its modern pejorative ring, and meant simply one who had been empowered to act on behalf of others’, New Model Army, p. 159. A re-reading of key texts has suggested that Edward Sexby was not the central figure that he has subsequently claimed to be, and that the texts may reflect the role of some officers in channelling the army’s grievances into a partisan political campaign, of sponsoring the emergence of the agitators: Michael Norris, ‘Edward Sexby, John Reynolds and Edmund Chillenden: Agitators, “sectarian grandees” and the Relations of the New Model Army with London in the Spring of 1647’, Historical Research, 76 (2003), 30–53.
71. Gentles, New Model Army, p. 152; for a detailed account of these events as a response to the triumph of the Holles-Stapleton group at Westminster, see Kishlansky, Rise, ch. 7, esp., here, pp. 206–9.
72. Gregg, Free-Born John, ch. 17. Lilburne was also close to Sir Lewis Dyve, another incarcerated royalist, and may have had a role in fostering approaches to the King in October. See also Gardiner, III, pp. 309–12.
73. Gardiner, III, pp. 239–40; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 153–4.
74. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 151, 154–7 and, for the comparison with the treatment of the Scots, p. 149.
75. Pearl, ‘London’s Counter-Revolution’, pp. 45–6; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 157–9. For the Presbyterian mobilization in London see Hughes, Gangraena, ch. 5; Vernon, ‘Sion College’, chs. 2–3.
76. For the Book of Declarations see above, pp. 510–11; for Husbands see above, pp. 272–3.
77. Stevenson, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, pp. 82–90.
78. Gardiner, CD, pp. 311–16.
79. Gardiner, III, pp. 251–3.
80. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 71–96; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 161–4; Gardiner, III, pp. 247–9.
81. Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 165–7; Gardiner, III, pp. 254, 256–61, 262.
82. Pearl, ‘London’s Counter-Revolution’, pp. 45–6.
83. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 106–12; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 169–70.
84. Gentles, New Model Army, p. 170.
85. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, p. 112.
86. For a brilliant reading of this exchange see James Hol
stun, Ehud’s Dagger: Class Struggle in the English Revolution (London, 2000), ch. 1. For the view that Joyce was appealing to the shared purpose and interests of the soldiery, not naked force, see Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 107–10, 112.
87. Gardiner, III, p. 277. For his strategy more generally see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, p. 20.
88. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 100–105, 116–20.
89. Gardiner, III, pp. 279–85; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 113–15, 116–20.
90. Gardiner, III, pp. 278, 285–6; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 122–3, 125–6.
91. Braddick, ‘Excise Riot’, p. 615. Gardiner appears to misdate the ordinance to 8 July, although his interpretation of its motivation is the same: III, pp. 324–5. See A&O, I, p. 954; Hutton, Merry England, pp. 211–12.
92. Braddick, ‘Excise Riot?’, pp. 615–16; A&O, III, p. lii.
93. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, p. 125.
94. Gardiner, III, p. 325.
95. Reprinted in part in J. P. Kenyon, The Stuart Constitution, 1603–1688: Documents and Commentary (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 295–301, quotations at pp. 296, 297; Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 126–8.
96. Kishlansky estimated that one third of the senior officers left: Rise, p. 219. Woolrych thought this an over-estimate (Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 133–6), a view confirmed by Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 167–8, 487 n. 218. In general, however, Kishlansky is right to point to a large exodus of officers in June 1647, many of them of relatively high status. For the continuing influence of officers of high status, however, See also Ian Gentles, ‘The New Model Officer Corps in 1647: A Collective Portrait’, Social History, 22 (1997), 127–44.
97. Woolrych, Soldiers and Statesmen, pp. 137–44; Gardiner, III, pp. 305–6. The other eight names were: Sir William Lewis, Sir John Clotworthy, Sir William Waller, Sir John Maynard, John Glyn, Colonel Edward Harley, Walter Long and Anthony Nicholl. For the charges see Kishlansky, Rise, pp. 250–55; Underdown, Pride’s Purge, pp. 81–2.
God’s FURY, England’s FIRE Page 92