Disaffection and Everyday Life in Interregnum England (Studies in Early Modern Cultural, Political and Social History, 29) 9781783270453, 1783270454

Citation preview

Using a series of case studies from counties, boroughs, and the London metropolis, Boswell argues that factional discourses and shifting power relations complicated traditional patterns of social interaction that supported the social and political orders. Localized disaffection was broadcast beyond communities in newsbooks, pamphlets, and broadsides, shaping political rhetoric that refashioned grassroots grievances to promote royalist desires. By uniting disparate people who were alienated by the policies of interregnum regimes, such literature helped to create the spectre of a unified, royalist commons that materialized in the months leading up to Charles II’s Restoration. Grassroots agitation – from disaffected mutters to ritualistic violence against officials – informed the broad political culture that shaped debates over governance during one of the most volatile decades in British history.

Studies in Early Modern Cultural, Political and Social History Cover image: The Yard of an Inn (oil on canvas), Teniers, David the Younger (1610–90) / Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust, UK Photo © Museums Sheffield / Bridgeman Images. Cover design: riverdesign.co.uk

Caroline Boswell

Caroline Boswell is Associate Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.

Disaffection aND E v e ryday Life I N Interregnum England

How did ordinary English men and women respond to the transformations that accompanied the regicide, the creation of a republic, and the rise of the Cromwellian Protectorate? This book forgoes the hunt for popular political allegiance in favor of recovering grassroots responses to the tangible consequences of revolution. The book delves into the spaces where everyday practices, social interactions, and power struggles intersected with the macro-politics of regime change. Tussles at local alehouses, encounters with excise collectors in the high street, and contests over authority at the marketplace reveal how the sites and scenes of everyday life became places where national politics were felt in the most ordinary of activities.

Disaffection and Everyday L ife in Interregnum England Caroline Boswell

STUDIES IN EARLY MODERN CULTURAL, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL HISTORY Volume 29

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE IN INTERREGNUM ENGLAND

Disaffection.indb 1

19/09/2017 11:25

Studies in Early Modern Cultural, Political and Social History ISSN: 1476–9107 Series editors Tim Harris – Brown University Stephen Taylor – Durham University Andy Wood – Durham University

Previously published titles in the series are listed at the back of this volume

Disaffection.indb 2

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE IN INTERREGNUM ENGLAND

Caroline Boswell

THE BOYDELL PRESS

Disaffection.indb 3

19/09/2017 11:25

© Caroline Boswell 2017 All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner The right of Caroline Boswell to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

First published 2017 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge

ISBN 978-1-78327-045-3

The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620–2731, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library The publisher has no responsibility for the continued existence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate This publication is printed on acid-free paper

Disaffection.indb 4

19/09/2017 11:25

To Mitchell and June

Disaffection.indb 5

19/09/2017 11:25

Disaffection.indb 6

19/09/2017 11:25

Contents

List of Illustrations viii Acknowledgements ix List of Abbreviations xi Introduction 1 Part I Sites of Disaffection 1. Streets and Marketplaces 2. Drink and Disaffection

21 71

Part II Objects of Disaffection 3. Meddling Soldiers 4. The “Unnatural” Excise-man 5. The Rise of the “Fanatic”

123 165 205

Conclusion 237 Bibliography 245 Index275

vii

Disaffection.indb 7

19/09/2017 11:25

List of Illustrations

1. Cheapside and St. Paul’s Cathedral, from Faithorne and Newcourt’s 1658 map of London with annotations by Luke Konkol. 31 2. The Phanaticks Plot Discovered (London, 1660) British Library shelfmark 669.f.25[67]. Image produced by ProQuest as part of Early English Books Online. www.proquest.com. 227

viii

Disaffection.indb 8

19/09/2017 11:25

Acknowledgements

Over the years I delved into this project I have accrued a large number of debts. I would like to begin by thanking Johann Sommerville for introducing this Wisconsinite to the history of the English Revolution back in the 1990s. I owe even greater thanks to Tim Harris, who continues to challenge me to engage in the field deeply and critically as I progress in my career. At the outset of my research I benefited from numerous early conversations with colleagues who offered encouragement and comments that helped shape the book. These include Farid Azfar, Jason White, Kate Worley, Abby Swingen, Rob Hermann, Nicole Greenspan, Amos Tubb, Rachel Weil, Andy Wood, John Walter, David Sacks, Mike Bristol, Jason Peacey and David Cressy. Marjon Ames read several chapters and provided great company and conversation at a series of conferences over the years, and I am very grateful for her friendship and collegiality. Audiences at a series of conferences and workshops offered several useful comments and food for thought. These include the North American Conference on British Studies, the Midwestern, Northeastern and Western Conferences on British Studies, “The People All Changed”: Religion and Society in Britain in the 1650s at the University of Portsmouth, the Institute for Research in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin and the Making Publics in Interregnum England seminar at McGill University. I also wish to thank the book’s anonymous reviewer for raising excellent questions and offering detailed suggestions. Countless archivists and librarians in the U.S. and the U.K. contributed research support to this book. In particular, I wish to express my gratitude to the helpful staff at the Cofrin Library at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. I am grateful for the financial support of the University of Wisconsin System, which made this book possible. Spending a semester as a fellow at the University of Wisconsin, Madison’s Institute for Research in the Humanities brought a much-needed reprieve from teaching and administrative duties. While there I had the pleasure of interacting with numerous thoughtful and supportive colleagues within the System. Another round of thanks goes out to the Research Council at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay, whose Grants-in-Aid of Research allowed me to combine travel courses I instructed in England with short research trips to local archives and repositories. I also ix

Disaffection.indb 9

19/09/2017 11:25

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

wish to express my thanks to the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada for supporting the Making Publics in Early Modern Europe project, which funded multiple opportunities for me to connect with junior and senior scholars involved with the grant. My colleagues and students at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay have deeply influenced this book. I wish to thank fellow historians Heidi Sherman and David Voelker for reading sections of the book and listening to me when I faced roadblocks and challenges along the way. I am grateful for our undergraduate history students, whose genuine engagement with the history of early modern Britain continues to astonish and inspire me. Discussing complex interpretations of the past with first-generation students has transformed me as a writer, and it is my hope that this book will be accessible to any student interested in the fascinating world of Revolutionary England—my introduction to it certainly shaped my life. I also wish to thank the Dean of the College of the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, Scott Furlong, for supporting my research and the humanities generally. I thank Megan Milan with Boydell and Brewer for her availability and general thoughtfulness throughout the publication process. Portions of this book were published as an article, “Popular Grievances and Royalist Propaganda during the Interregnum”, in The Seventeenth Century 27:3 (2012), and I also thank the journal for permission to republish them in this book. My largest debts are owed to my family and close friends. My parents, Peter and Betsy Boswell, and my brothers, Mike and Chuck Boswell, provided encouragement when I needed it most, and I must thank my mother particularly for listening to me speak at length about my research during long commutes. Sheyda Jahanbani and Jonathan Hagel, I thank you for reading drafts, offering keen insights, sharing the ups-and-downs of this profession and always supporting me and my family. My life is richer because of you. Finally, I must thank my patient, witty and encouraging partner and husband, Mitchell Scott, and our daughter, June. Mitchell, thank you for supporting this project and me while I completed it. June, thank you for your patience while “mama work[ed]” on the weekends. You two mean the world to me, and I dedicate this book to you. Caroline Boswell

x

Disaffection.indb 10

19/09/2017 11:25

List of Abbreviations

A & O

Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum. Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–1660, ed. C.H. Firth and R.S. Rait. London, 1911. A & O Online Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–1660, eds C.H. Firth and R.S. Rait. London, 1911. British History Online. BL British Library Journals of the House of Commons, Vols. 6–7. London, CJ 1802. CJ Online Journals of the House of Commons, Vols. 6–7. London, 1802. British History Online. CSPD Calendar of State Papers, Domestic (Interregnum), ed. M.A. Everett Green. 13 vols. London, 1875–1886. CSPD Online Calendar of State Papers, Domestic (Interregnum), ed. M.A. Everett Green. 13 vols. London, 1875–1886. British History Online. CSP Venetian Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, ed. Allen B. Hinds. Vols. 28–32, 1647–1652. London, 1927–31. DHC Devon Heritage Center, Exeter ERO Chelmsford Essex Record Office, Chelmsford ind. Indictment LMA London Metropolitan Archive ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H.C.G. Matthew and Brian Harrison. Oxford, 2004. Online edition. Rugg The Diurnall of Thomas Rugg, 1659–1661, ed. William Sachse. Camden Third Series, XCI. London, 1961. rec. Recognizance xi

Disaffection.indb 11

19/09/2017 11:25

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, ed. Thomas Birch. 7 vols. London, 1742. Thurloe Online A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, ed. Thomas Birch. 7 vols. London, 1742. British History Online. The National Archives, U.K. TNA WYAS Wakefield West Yorkshire Archive Service, Wakefield Headquarters Thurloe

Note: Dates are given in the Old Style, but with the years beginning on 1 January.

xii

Disaffection.indb 12

19/09/2017 11:25

Introduction

As Julianne Mortimore and Cristobel Towill traveled home to Exeter from Newton Abbott market in 1656, Towill took the opportunity afforded by the long journey to bluster about Oliver Cromwell, the Lord Protector of England, Scotland and Ireland. As Mortimore tells it, Towill proudly proclaimed that she would join those eager to “cut” the Protector’s throat should he ever descend on Exeter. Towill desired retribution – she held Cromwell personally responsible for the downfall and execution of King Charles I and his councilors, the Earl of Strafford and Archbishop William Laud. Mortimore chose to overlook her companion’s seditious threat until she overheard an argument between Towill and her husband, William, three weeks later. During this relatively ordinary quarrel between husband and wife, William supposedly told Cristobel that if he “could not live quiet”, he would find himself a horse and “take upp Armes for my Lord Protector”. Horrified by her husband’s profession of loyalty, Cristobel allegedly retorted that if William attempted it, she would “cut” his horse’s “throate”.1 Within this ordinary squabble we can see how the extraordinary transformations that accompanied the regicide of Charles I, the creation of a republic and the rise of the Cromwellian Protectorate infected relations between Julianne Mortimore and Cristobel Towill. Mortimore’s account of Towill’s fractious behavior echoes countless depositions against discordant women who, it was claimed, had a predilection for causing strife, but Towill’s alleged treasonous exclamation placed intense pressure on her relationship with Mortimore. As wives of men in the cloth trade, Towill and Mortimore likely traveled to and from the market regularly. Indeed, Mortimore’s ability to eavesdrop on the couple suggests that the two families interacted frequently. If Cristobel Towill truly uttered the violent threat against Cromwell’s life, Mortimore faced the difficult choice of either upending relations between those who inhabited her everyday life or risking her own reputation and safety by failing to report the dangerous words of a known acquaintance – especially in “godly” Exeter. Conversely, if Mortimore wished to disrupt her association with the Towills or cause discord in Cristobel’s family, the Protectorate’s 1 

DHC, ECA, Book 64, fol. 320, 17 Jul. 1656.

Disaffection.indb 1

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

treason laws – combined with the divided loyalties of the Towills – provided Mortimore an ideal opportunity. The politics of civil war and revolution also produced new tensions between Cristobel Towill and her husband. Mortimore’s narrative suggests that William Towill, an Exeter fuller, struggled to live peaceably amongst his neighbors due to his wife’s contentious temperament. Though grumblings about Cromwell were not exceptional – especially during the “Rule of his Major-Generals” – Cristobel’s alleged violent threat to kill Cromwell and any horse that ushered her husband to the Protector’s troops certainly defied normative gender and social hierarchies that were already strained by revolution.2 Cristobel’s espoused hatred for the Lord Protector seemingly provoked Towill’s pledge to take up arms for Cromwell’s army if he “could not live quiet[ly]” within his community. After the stresses of civil war and an unsteady cloth trade, William Towill may have been desperate for an escape from the perils of a life marred by unexpected and unwelcome conflict.3 Though many political historians deem such interpersonal disputes of little interest, clashes such as these provide insight into how the politics of everyday life intersected with the politics of civil war and revolution in interregnum England. Despite numerable advances in the study of popular politics and the “new” political history, we still know little about how people such as Julianne Mortimore and the Towills negotiated the social, cultural, religious and political changes wrought by a devastating civil war and the execution of their king. This book aims to locate the intersections of the politics of the nation with the micro-politics of everyday life within a revolutionary context. How did the extraordinary consequences of civil war and revolution change ordinary, quotidian politics? How did the larger transformations that accompanied revolution interact with and alter performances of individual and communal agency? Tracing the impact of revolution on quotidian experiences poses complex challenges, and the importance of individuality and local custom problematize any theory professing to explain the relationship between the politics of everyday life, disaffection and political revolution. Despite these difficulties, this book seeks to answer these questions by delving into sites and moments where ordinary practices, social interactions and power struggles clashed with the macro-politics of regime change during the interregnum. The chapters that follow argue that popular disaffection – from cynical mutterings to ritualistic violence – formed an essential part of the vibrant and varied political culture that shaped communal, regional and national discourses of governance, authority and loyalty during one of the most unpredictable decades in British history. Garthine Walker, Crime, Gender and Social Order in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2003), p. 99; Ann Hughes, Gender and the English Revolution (New York, 2012), pp. 16–20. 3  For evidence of disruptions to the cloth trade in Devon, see Stephen K. Roberts, Recovery and Restoration in an English County: Devon Local Administration 1646–1670 (Exeter, 1985), p. xvi. 2 

2

Disaffection.indb 2

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

Although most English men and women did not believe the Revolution wrought a fundamental split from the past, all members of English society grappled with the effects of civil war and the significant transformations in church and state that accompanied it. Following the execution of Charles I on a cold winter’s day in January 1649, England’s regime changed no fewer than five times with several minor revolutions within each settlement prior to the Restoration of Charles II in 1660.4 These developments, though occurring within the realm of “high politics”, were hardly isolated from the public. The “print revolution” that began in 1641 mingled with rumor, news and libel to foster an expansive political culture that engaged individuals across the social spectrum. Government officials and their propagandists ensured that the people were readily notified of political policies and regime changes. The early modern state historically proclaimed its policies through formal declarations at market crosses and in parish churches. Such rituals were greatly expanded during the civil wars and interregnum when officials had proclamations printed and posted, and journalists frequently published acts and ordinances to their eager audiences. Official and unofficial publications of policies, news and rumors not only informed (and, at times, misinformed) people of new directives, but they also provoked public debate over the effectiveness and legitimacy of state and local policies.5 During the interregnum, the Commonwealth and Protectorate attempted to control the production of news and rumor through increased regulation of print and speech with varying degrees of success. Without a professional police force, interregnum regimes continued to rely heavily on local office-holders and the courts – with occasional help from the army – to enforce and implement its policies. This system of governance also depended on “honest” men and, occasionally, women to use the courts to enforce social norms and arbitrate grievances.6 Consequently, a large section of English society was well versed in the law, which informed resistance to policies that infringed upon customary practices, rights and privileges.7 When Richard Leigh of Birkett refused to pay his parish dues in March 1654, the 4  For detailed narratives of these events, see, for example, Ivan Roots, Commonwealth and Protectorate: the English Civil War and its Aftermath (New York, 1966); Blair Worden, The English Civil Wars, 1640–1660 (London, 2010); Worden, The Rump Parliament (Cambridge, 1974); Austin Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate (Oxford, 1982); C.H. Firth, The Last Years of the Protectorate, 1656–1658 (New York, 1964). 5  Jason Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda During the English Civil Wars and Interregnum (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 36–8; Peacey, Print and Public Politics in the English Revolution (Cambridge, 2013), pp. 11–14. 6  Keith Wrightson, “Two Concepts of Order: Justices, Constables and Jurymen in Seventeenth Century England”, in An Ungovernable People, ed. John Brewer and John Styles (London, 1980), pp. 29–33; Steve Hindle, The State and Social Change in Early Modern England, c.1550–1640 (New York, 2000), p. 18. 7  John Walter, “The English People and the English Revolution Revisited”, History Workshop Journal, 61:1 (2006), 174.

3

Disaffection.indb 3

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

local churchwarden, John Day, simply told Birkett that as long as “God did blesse the Lord Protector, and the lawes of this nation did stand”, Leigh would have to pay his share. Leigh allegedly responded, “Is Cromwell gott to be Lord Protector? If he be my Lord Protector hee will sell us all, as the Scotts sould the King for silver, hee having been always a soldier of fortune”.8 This interaction reflects far more than the average political and legal knowledge of ordinary English men (and women) – it also reveals the readiness with which people quibbled over “concepts of order” as civil war divides had further complicated perceptions of what made for an “honest” or loyal man.9 Though a strict reading of Leigh’s alleged retort would conclude he was oblivious to Cromwell’s rise as Protector, he may well have feigned ignorance of the Protectorate so that he could mock the churchwarden’s deference to the latest regime more thoroughly. Moreover, even Day’s language suggests that he lacked confidence in the permanence of the Protectorate, while Leigh’s response questioned its credibility, likening Cromwell to Judas. The exchange between Day and Leigh represents one of countless interactions that expose how the politics of revolution permeated people’s everyday lives in ways that could spur new tensions, redefine old conflicts and provoke anti-state sentiments. General engagement with a vibrant and diverse popular political culture certainly helped to create an informed public, but the tangible effects of transformative legislation also brought the Revolution into people’s everyday lives. As the civil wars raged, the Long Parliament – which sat from 1641 to 1648 – enacted changes that undermined the Church of England. It eradicated episcopacy, outlawed the Book of Common Prayer and prohibited the celebration of “popish” holidays such as Christmas. The rise of Independents such as Cromwell quashed earlier attempts to implement Presbyterianism as the state religion and consequently allowed for the growth of radical sectarianism. The “Rump” Parliament – those members who remained in the House of Commons after its purge in December 1648 – further fractured the parish community through its abolition of the Act of Uniformity, which had made attendance at the parish church compulsory. Out of the ashes of religious uniformity emerged a “religious marketplace” where preachers and practitioners competed for followers in the everyday spaces of English communities.10 Liberty of conscience did not extend to Catholics or Episcopalians, or to those whose beliefs encouraged them to violate social norms. The drive to reform manners – well under way in certain localities across the nation – also gained new zealous advocates and increased central support.11 At points Depositions from the Castle of York, Relating to Offences Committed in the Northern Counties in the Seventeenth Century, ed. James Raine, vol. 40 (London, 1861), p. 65. 9  Wrightson, “Two Concepts of Order”. 10  Bernard Capp, “The Religious Marketplace: Public Disputations in Civil War and Interregnum England”, English Historical Review, 129 (2014), 47–78. 11  Capp, England’s Culture Wars: Puritan Reformation and its Enemies in the Interregnum, 1649–1660 (Oxford, 2012), pp. 34–44, 152, 258–61. 8 

4

Disaffection.indb 4

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

throughout the 1650s, interregnum governments relied on local collaborators to use their influence and authority to assist in the creation of a godly society. The Commonwealth sought to root out contrarian beliefs and behaviors through its Blasphemy and Adultery Acts, and the Protectorate strengthened the state’s ability to prosecute those who “openly reviled” the ministry.12 “Scandalous” and “malignant” parish ministers were ejected from their livings, often to be replaced by those appointed by county and state committees, army officers, or even Cromwell himself. Religious sectaries, already on the rise, continued to grow, and the nascent Quaker movement, which had begun to spread into communities, provoked fears that these men and women might undermine “true Protestant religion” and the social order. All members of English society were also affected by the material consequences of the bloody and long-fought civil wars and the maintenance of a powerful standing army. Many grieving families faced uncertain futures following the loss of fathers and sons to battle, and infectious diseases preyed upon communities encountering marching and garrisoned troops.13 Though free quarter was largely (albeit irregularly) abolished after the war’s end in England, taxation remained at unprecedented levels throughout the interregnum. The regimes continued to collect the loathed monthly assessment and the excise – new taxes that had a much further reach than their pre-war predecessors. The persistence of a standing army well after the end of the war in England not only required the continuance of these resented exactions, but also provided local assessors and tax collectors located near garrisons or in the path of the marching army an armed force to support their charge. In the late 1640s, radical members of the parliamentarian army were among those who attacked these taxes as “illegal”. These so-called “Levellers” railed against a political settlement that ignored the demands and needs of those who had spilled blood to uphold ancient rights and liberties. Fellow troopers under the direction of Lord General Cromwell quashed the Leveller movement, leaving it all but dead in May 1649. Army officers and soldiers remained actively involved in the affairs of state and key localities throughout the 1650s. When Lord Protector Cromwell briefly installed his major-generals in the provinces to assist local authorities in the maintenance of order and moral reform in the mid-1650s, he institutionalized common practices that had taken root years before. The collapse of the Protectorate, the return of the Rump Parliament, and the instability that followed led to an increased military presence in several communities across the nation, and popular hostility toward the army intensified when leading officers formed the army-controlled Committee of Safety in the fall of 1659.14

A & O, II, pp. 387–9; 409–12. Henry Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, 1649–1660 (Oxford, 2013), pp. 7, 96–116. 14  Ibid., pp. 9–11. 12  13 

5

Disaffection.indb 5

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

Though these and other transformations that accompanied the civil wars may not have resulted in massive structural changes we associate with modern revolutions, the English Revolution touched the vast majority of English men and women. How did individuals and communities who encountered various unwelcome consequences of civil war and revolution grapple with the effects or manifest their grievances? This book aims to answer this question by exploring key sites where the expression and formation of disaffection complicated, altered and empowered everyday politics. It also examines the creation of objects of disaffection – those groups and figures associated with the troublesome repercussions of the Revolution that could foment disaffection and provide the disaffected a target for their animosity toward interregnum policies. In its approach, the book joins the ranks of other histories of the English Revolution that eschew problematic divides between political, social and cultural history. It draws on the vibrant fields of popular politics, the social history of politics and the new political history in its exploration of the manifest ways in which ordinary people experienced and confronted change during the interregnum. There are surprisingly few works on popular politics during the interregnum period. For decades the field was largely bound by two related pursuits: unearthing popular “radicalism” and deciphering “popular allegiances”. Debates among historians of the civil wars have operated within a paradigm that categorizes popular alienation from the Commonwealth or Protectorate as either a symptom of radicalism or indicative of the people’s “traditionalism”, which is often equated with royalism.15 These categories mirror nineteenth-century concepts of conservatism and progressivism in their description of grassroots action. Christopher Hill’s groundbreaking work The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution delves into the world of religious and political radicals. Hill argued that the lower orders were largely receptive to the republican regimes, but they gradually became disillusioned by the Commonwealth and Protectorate’s rejection of iconoclastic radicalism. While Hill’s work uncovers a rich history of progressive religious and political thought amongst the lower orders, revisionist historians attacked his representation of popular radicalism and parliamentarianism as teleological and overly deterministic.16 Although the work of Hill and other scholars of radicalism brought untold histories from below to light, their scholarship focuses on the flowering of radical ideas that failed to influence a majority of Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution (New York, 1972); David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660 (New York, 1985). 16  For a general overview of this argument and its critics, see Mike Braddick, “Introduction: Christopher Hill’s The World Turned Upside Down, Revisited”, Prose Studies, 36:3 (2014), 176–7; Glenn Burgess, “On Revisionism: An Analysis of Early Stuart Historiography in the 1970s and 1980s”, Historical Journal, 33:3 (1990), 609–27. 15 

6

Disaffection.indb 6

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

common people and, thus, leaves important gaps in our understanding of the revolutionary experience.17 Despite these limitations, Hill’s magisterial work transformed how historians envision the contributions of ordinary men and women to the revolutionary changes of this era. The invaluable research of David Underdown also vastly increased our understanding of the forms and functions of popular politics and political culture during the civil wars and revolution. His pioneering study Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660 challenged revisionist scholarship that analyzed people’s political allegiance based on deference, neutralism and class. Underdown famously argued that allegiance had a “regional basis” that was “related to local differences in social structure, economic development and culture”.18 Though historians question Underdown’s assertions – particularly his association of partisanship with distinct ecological patterns – regional studies such as Underdown’s reveal that considerable ideological divides existed and that popular allegiances were not merely aligned with the interests of the local gentry.19 Local studies such as Underdown’s – often caught up in a larger critique of revisionist historiography that claims early seventeenth-century England was a society dedicated to loyalty and deference – frequently discuss allegiances in polarities that tend to deemphasize the large spectrum of popular responses to civil war and revolution.20 The same historiographical tensions often encourage historians to place greater value on studies that trace the formation of popular allegiances during the 1640s than those that cover the interregnum. Though best known for his research on popular politics and political culture prior to the interregnum, David Underdown’s work on the 1650s uncovered evidence of continued popular observance of traditional cultural pastimes, nostalgia for paternalistic policies and the practice of normative methods of dissent. In this work, Underdown often labeled popular politics and people’s adherence to customs as “conservative”, which he ultimately associated with royalist sympathies.21 See for example, Frances Dow, Radicalism in the English Revolution, 1640–1660 (Oxford, 1985); A.L. Morton, The World of the Ranters: Religious Radicalism in the English Revolution (London, 1970); P.G. Rogers, The Fifth Monarchy Men (London, 1966); J.F. McGregor and Barry Reay, eds, Radical Religion in the English Revolution (New York, 1984); Barry Reay, The Quakers and the English Revolution (New York, 1985). 18  Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, p. 4. 19  John Morrill, “The Ecology of Allegiance in the English Revolution”, Journal of British Studies, 26 (1987), 451–67. 20  See, for example, Mark Stoyle, Loyalty and Locality: Popular Allegiance in Devon during the English Civil War (Exeter, 1994); Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987); David Underdown, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973). 21  Underdown, Revel, Riot, and Rebellion, p. 220. See also Walter, “The English People and the English Revolution”, p. 175; Lloyd Bowen, “David Underdown, Royalist Conspirators and the Character of English Politics”, History Compass, 11:5 (2013), 341–51. 17 

7

Disaffection.indb 7

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

Building on these findings, recent work questions traditional, limited definitions of allegiance or loyalty. Whereas many studies of popular royalism tackle popular anti-puritanism in the same breath, Bernard Capp’s excellent England’s Culture Wars takes a different approach in its examination of cultural divides. Rather than equate popular resistance to reform with royalism, Capp considers varieties of opposition to reformist programs – from subterfuge to violence – and describes how royalist authors and their pro-state counterparts fashioned polemic that used “reform” as a rhetorical tool with which they could damage their opponents. By focusing his gaze on rifts in culture, however, Capp’s study necessarily prioritizes evidence of popular distaste for zealous reform over other grievances born from encroaching state and local policies.22 Recent scholarship critical of traditional views of allegiance emphasizes its fluidity and the complexity of changing sides as people responded to distinct “mobilizations” and shifts in political circumstances.23 A resurgence of royalist studies has led scholars to reconceive loyalism as a “spectrum” or a “rainbow coalition” that included various cultural, religious and political hues.24 Nevertheless, these new studies – many of which focus on elites – often prioritize parsing the varieties of allegiance over broader considerations, including questions of how royalism, among other ideologies, operated differently in the micro-politics of everyday life than they did in the politics of the state.25 An increasing number of scholars of political culture have problematized studies that divorce discussions of political allegiance from the larger social and cultural contexts in which identities are constructed. While supporting the study of allegiance as a historical category, historians such as Ann Hughes and Rachel Weil caution against separating “politics from the rest of life” and assuming that the outward performance of allegiance reflected internal beliefs.26 Hughes encourages historians to think beyond the binaries of Capp, England’s Culture Wars: Puritan Reformation and its Enemies in the Interregnum, 1649–1660 (Oxford, 2012). 23  Mike Braddick, God’s Fury, England’s Fire: A New History of the English Civil Wars (New York, 2008), p. 233; Andrew Hopper, Turncoats and Renegades: Changing Sides during the English Civil Wars (Oxford, 2012). 24  Jason McElligott and David L. Smith, “Introduction: Rethinking Royalists and Royalism”, in Royalists and Royalism during the English Civil Wars, ed. McElligott and Smith (Cambridge, 2007), p. 12; Barbara Donagan, “Varieties of Royalism”, in Royalists and Royalism during the English Civil Wars, pp. 68–71; McElligott, Royalism, Print and Censorship in Revolutionary England (Woodbridge, 2007), p. 95. 25  Notable exceptions to the general focus on elite royalists include work by Lloyd Bowen, Fiona McCall and Angela McShane. See, for example, Bowen, “Seditious Speech and Popular Royalism 1649–60”, in Royalists and Royalism during the Interregnum, ed. McElligott and Smith (Manchester, 2010); McCall, Baal’s Priests: The Loyalist Clergy and the English Revolution (Farnham, 2013); McShane, “Subjects and Objects: Material Expressions of Love and Loyalty”, Journal of British Studies, 48:4 (2009), 871–86. 26  Weil, “Thinking about Allegiance”, p. 190. 22 

8

Disaffection.indb 8

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

allegiance – to consider how revolution and civil war divides transformed social structures that defined “the personalities and political identities of individuals” and to bear in mind that “political obligation” was “negotiated and constructed” through practices that “involved questions of interest and passion, of imagination and emotion”.27 Exciting new studies of material culture similarly explore the complexities of allegiance by contemplating how inexpensive political paraphernalia informed outward expressions of love and loyalty, while research into gestural politics and the potency of the subversive gesture further unsettle arguments that claim the politics of allegiance formed a subsection of the politics of “deference and obedience”.28 Thanks to these contributions, historians now recognize the multiple contexts through which loyalty and disloyalty were fashioned, transformed and expressed. Collectively these studies call for new approaches to popular politics during the civil wars and interregnum. Each reflects the growing influence of the “social history of politics”, which introduced a refreshingly broad redefinition of “politics” and an appreciation of the central relationship between the micro-politics of everyday life and the construction of early modern power relations. Drawing on theories of social anthropology, socio-linguistics and sociology, scholars of popular politics as well as those of state formation have forged connections between everyday politics and the construction of power.29 The primacy afforded to the “politics of the parish” has led historians of popular politics to problematize approaches that emphasize “deference and confrontation” in studies of dominant and subordinate groups. Influenced by the theorist James C. Scott among others, historians such as Mike Braddick and John Walter warn that the conflation of crowd action with popular politics has brought about new limitations to the field. After all, people rarely expressed divergent views through rioting, which could provoke severe retribution. Though scholars have questioned Scott’s strict distinction between the dominant and subordinate as well as the amount of agency he afforded to the weak, most agree that the absence of crowd action falsely suggests that

Ann Hughes, “A ‘lunatick revolter from loyalty’: the Death of Rowland Wilson and the English Revolution”, History Workshop Journal, 60:1 (2006), 197, 201; Ann Hughes, Gender and the English Revolution (London, 2012), p. 92. 28  McShane, “Subjects and Objects: Material Expressions of Love and Loyalty”; McShane, “Material Culture and ‘Political Drinking’ in Seventeenth-Century England”, Past and Present, 222, suppl. 9 (2014), 247–76; Walter, “The English People and the English Revolution”, pp. 174–8. 29  Paul Griffiths, Adam Fox and Steve Hindle, eds, The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England (New York, 1996); Andy Wood, The Politics of Social Conflict: The Peak Country, 1520–1770 (Cambridge, 1999); Hindle, The State and Social Change; Michael Braddick, State Formation in Early Modern England, c.1550–1700 (Cambridge, 2000). 27 

9

Disaffection.indb 9

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

subordinate people concurred with the status quo.30 These historians seek out the expression of “divergent views” within “political spaces where the risk of retribution is largely absent”.31 Several studies of popular politics – influenced by the linguistic turn of the 1980s and 1990s – have engaged with scholarship on speech, silence and gesture.32 Granting the speech acts of subordinate members of society a degree of agency, these scholars contend that early modern men and women could negotiate their power and place in society by adopting normative languages of “respectability” or “godliness” or employing the legitimating discourse of customary law and right. Through language and gesture, subordinates could shape dynamics between landlord, tenant and laborer.33 Defiant manipulations of the language and gestures of deference constituted an important form of political action, and question revisionist claims that early modern society was, in fact, deferential.34 James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance, Hidden Transcripts (New Haven, CT, 1990); Mike Braddick and John Walter, “Grids of Power: Order, Hierarchy and Subordination”, in Negotiating Power in Early Modern Society, ed. Braddick and Walter (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 5–8; Tim Harris, “Introduction”, in The Politics of the Excluded, ed. Tim Harris (Basingstoke, 2001); Andy Wood, “Fear, Hatred and the Hidden Injuries of Class in Early Modern England”, Journal of Social History, 39 (2006), 803–26; Andy Wood, “Subordination, Solidary and the Limits of Popular Agency in a Yorkshire Valley, c.1596–1615”, Past and Present, 193 (2006), 41–72. 31  Braddick and Walter, “Grids of Power”, pp. 6–7. 32  For the theory behind “speech acts”, see, for example, J.L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Cambridge, MA, 1962); John Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge, 1969); Bach and Harnish, Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts (Cambridge, MA, 1979); Judith Butler, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative (New York, 1997); Pierre Bourdieu, Language and Symbolic Power, trans. Gino Raymond, ed. Matthew Adamson (Cambridge, MA, 1991). For the influence of speech act theory on the social history of politics, see, for example, Braddick and Walter, Negotiating Power in Early Modern England; Braddick, “Introduction: The Politics of Gesture”, Past and Present, 203, suppl. 4 (2009), 9–35; Cressy, Dangerous Talk: Scandalous, Seditious and Treasonable Speech in Pre-Modern England (Oxford, 2010); Walter, “Gesturing at Authority: Deciphering the Gestural Code of Early Modern England”, Past and Present, 203, suppl. 4 (2009), 96–127; Walter, “‘The Pooremans Joy and the Gentlemans Plague’: A Lincolnshire Libel and the Politics of Sedition in Early Modern England”, Past and Present, 203:1 (2009), 29–67; Wood, The 1549 Rebellions and the Making of Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2007); David Rollison, A Commonwealth of the People: Popular Politics and England’s Long Social Revolution, 1066–1649 (Cambridge, 2010); Dagmar Freist, Governed by Opinion: Politics, Religion and the Dynamics of Communication in Stuart London, 1637–1645 (London, 1997). 33  Braddick and Walter, “Introduction: Grids of Power”, pp. 1–5, 7–8. See also Keith Wrightson, “The Politics of the Parish in Early Modern England”, in The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England, pp. 10–46; Andy Wood, “The Place of Custom in Plebian Political Culture: England, 1550–1800”, Social History, 22:1 (1997), 46–60; David Rollison, A Commonwealth of the People; See also E.P. Thompson, Customs in Common (New York, 1991), especially chaps. 1 and 3; Walter, “The English People and the English Revolution”, p. 175. 34  Braddick, “Introduction: The Politics of Gesture”, pp. 9–35; Walter, “Gesturing at Authority”, pp. 101–8; Wood, The 1549 Rebellions, pp. 108–11; 119–22. 30 

10

Disaffection.indb 10

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

The revolution’s assault on patriarchy and its reconceptualization of obedience, loyalty and affection further disrupted traditional hierarchies already rife with contradictions. Civil war divides which forced parliamentarians and royalists to vie for allegiance ushered in a new era for popular political participation. Mass petitioning and oath-taking campaigns encouraged the active involvement of subordinate men and, on occasion, women.35 Age-old fissures in the social order were brought into sharp relief as apprentices, laborers, wives and mothers, female preachers and rank-and-file soldiers acted to inform and reform interregnum policies and politics. Though often these groups adopted normative language that recognized their subordinate status, such appeals allowed them to promote their vision of proper governance and to assert their claim to authority on issues that affected them. Ann Hughes notes that women often acted against policies or practices that allegedly impeded their ability to maintain an orderly household, while apprentices claimed political agency due to their position as future householders without conceding power to women.36 As the tensions between Towills and Julianne Mortimore suggest, the politics of disaffection provided new and worn tools to those striving to negotiate power in their everyday lives, but it also revealed strains within gender and social relations that provoked genuine concern over a world turned upside down. By exploring disaffection and everyday life, this book builds on advances in the social history of politics and the “new” political history that question rough demarcations between personal and political identities. It adopts a broad definition of “politics” that considers the moments in which larger social, cultural and political forces collided with interpersonal politics and expressions of individual agency.37 Drawing upon everyday life studies, it attempts to balance our desire to isolate commonalities with the reality that the experience of the everyday – a murky concept itself – is fundamentally unique.38 To navigate the methodological problems that arise when studying isolated incidents within the context of revolution, the book sets out to investigate how the politics of civil war, allegiance and revolution charged Walter, “The English People and the English Revolution”, p. 176; Hughes, Gender and the English Revolution, pp. 108–9. 36  Hughes, Gender and the English Revolution, pp. 84, 109–11. 37  Patrick Collinson, Elizabethan Essays (London, 1994), p. 11; Keith Wrightson, “The Politics of the Parish in Early Modern England”, in The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England, pp. 10–46; Walter, “The English People and the English Revolution”, p. 171. 38  Ben Highmore, “Introduction: Questioning Everyday Life”, in The Everyday Life Reader, ed. Highmore (New York, 2002), pp. 3–4; See, for example, Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven F. Randall (Berkeley, CA, 1984); Pierre Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, trans. R. Nice (London, 1992); Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Cambridge, MA, 1991); Erving Goffman, “The Interaction Order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address”, American Sociological Review, 48:1 (1983), 1–17. 35 

11

Disaffection.indb 11

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

and transformed historic social conflicts, complicated interpersonal relations and provoked clashes between those who rejected interfering policies and those who upheld them or represented their dangerous consequences. It challenges the view that seventeenth-century “radical” political action required a distinct break from the normative past by complicating the idea that popular exploitation of the structures of paternalism, patriarchy or even the adherence to monarchy was necessarily an expression of traditionalism or royalism. Similarly, it questions the premise that the politics of custom should be classified as either apolitical or traditional, and, therefore, conservative. By reorienting the study of popular politics around a number of wide-ranging occurrences of grassroots agitation, this book delves into the lived experience of interregnum England, revealing how the Revolution wrought new tensions and spawned divisive dynamics within interpersonal relationships, communal sociability and the practices of everyday life. Beyond evaluating the acts and mutterings of disaffected crowds, tipplers, churchgoers, taxpayers and market attendees, this book also asks how print created and enhanced connections between everyday grievances and national discourses of political legitimacy.39 Several studies of the lively news culture that developed during the post-reformation era emphasize the interplay between rumor, news and print. Underground verse, libels, broadsides, ballads, rumors and grumblings all contributed to this burgeoning political culture that increasingly spread beyond the metropolis and muddied boundaries between “elite” and “popular” audiences.40 Several historians see these transformations as evidence of the emergence of a “public sphere” in late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England, and David Zaret has argued that the “print revolution” of the 1640s led to the invention of public opinion as a “political force”.41 By “turning from ideas” of authors to Boswell, “Popular Grievances and Royalist Propaganda during the Interregnum”, The Seventeenth Century, 27:3 (2012), 314–15; Peacey, Print and Public Politics, p. 9. 40  Thomas Cogswell, “Underground Verse and the Transformation of Early Stuart Political Culture”, in Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England, ed. Susan Amussen and Mark Kishlansky (Manchester, 1995); Alastair Bellany, “‘Raylinge Rymes and Vaunting Verse’: Libellous Politics in Early Stuart England”, in Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England, ed. Kevin Shape and Peter Lake (London, 1994), pp. 285–310; Richard Cust, “News and Politics in Early-Seventeenth-Century England”, Past and Present, 113 (1986), 60–90; Cogswell and Bellany, The Murder of King James I (New Haven, CT, 2015); Adam Fox, Oral and Literate Culture (Oxford, 2000); Freist, Governed by Opinion; Hughes, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution; Tim Harris, “Propaganda and Public Opinion in Seventeenth Century-England”, in Media and Revolution: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Jeremy Popkin (Lexington, MA, 1994), pp. 49–73. 41  David Zaret, The Origins of Democratic Culture, Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England (Princeton, NJ, 2000), p. 6. For discussions on the rise of the public sphere, see, for example, Jürgen Häbermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, trans. Thomas Burger (Cambridge, MA, 1989); Peter Lake and Steve Pincus, “Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England”, The Journal of British Studies, 45:2 (2006), 270–92; Pincus, “‘Coffee Politician Does Create’: Coffeehouses and 39 

12

Disaffection.indb 12

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

“their practices”, scholars such as Jason Peacey and Ann Hughes have transcended debates over the origins of the “public sphere” and the transformative agency of political rhetoric.42 In his exploration of “common politics”, Peacey encourages scholars “to recognize that texts were used to participate in political processes” during the civil wars and interregnum.43 Bridging these approaches to print and its relationship to popular political culture, this book will argue that the production, dissemination and consumption of cheap print worked in concert with other forms of popular political culture to forge connections among a range of individuals, communities and localities loosely united through shared experiences and a sense of political alienation. The intermingling of rumors and printed relations of grassroots grievances blurred the lines between reality and rhetoric and softened distinctions between disaffected sentiments formed through individual experience and those informed by political discourse. Partisan authors and publishers attempted to create real and “imagined” communities through political rhetoric that refashioned grassroots grievances to promote individual, local or factional desires.44 Throughout its pages, this book considers how the acts and grievances of the commonality interplayed with political discourses that spanned various genres and audiences. In particular, this study will consider how royalists publicized the ill effects of republican rule in their graphic renderings of the sufferings England’s laboring families experienced under the state’s “new” policies. Strands of anti-state and royalist writings bemoaned the plight of the “industrious” poor under “arbitrary” programs such as the excise tax, militant social reform or the self-aggrandizing acts of top Commonwealth and Protectorate officials. Lamenting the weakening and taxing of ale and beer through direct regulations or the excise, royalist pamphleteers described the state as out of touch with the needs and wants of the industrious commons. Reports of real and Restoration Political Culture”, The Journal of Modern History, 67:4 (1995), 807–34; Zaret, “Religion, Science, and Printing in the Public Spheres in Seventeenth-Century England”, in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig Calhoun (Cambridge, MA, 1992); Bellany, The Politics of Court Scandal in Early Modern England: News, Culture and the Overbury Affair, 1603–1660 (Cambridge, 2002), p. 23; Zaret, “Petitioning Places and the Credibility of Opinion in the Public Sphere in Seventeenth-Century England”, in Political Space in Pre-Industrial Europe, ed. Beat Kümin (Burlington, VT, 2009), pp. 175–96; Peacey, Print and Public Politics, pp. 12–14. 42  Peacey, “Reviving the Radicals: Clement Writer and the Historiography of the English Revolution”, Prose Studies, 36:3 (2014), 244; Peacey, Print and Public Politics, pp. 15–16; Ann Hughes, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution (Oxford, 2004), pp. 12–18; 409–15. 43  Peacey, Print and Public Politics, pp. 15–16; Peacey, “Reviving the Radicals: Clement Writer and the Historiography of the English Revolution”, Prose Studies, 36:3 (2014), 244. 44  Benedict Anderson famously proposed the idea of “imagined communities” in his investigation of the rise of nationalism and the nation-state. For the most recent edition, see Anderson, Imagined Communities (New York, 2006). See also Peacey, Print and Public Politics, p. 21. 13

Disaffection.indb 13

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

fictional grassroots resistance to tyrannical tax collectors, mercenary soldiers or meddlesome religious radicals questioned the authority of a state whose legitimacy rested on the support and will of the commonality. Propagandists painted state officials and soldiers as arbitrary interlocutors whose passion for reform and power violated customs of local and individual autonomy. Whether paternalistic in its tone or radical in its implications of popular sovereignty, cheap print that detailed popular resistance to policies that unsettled customs of sociability, caused economic hardships or infringed on personal and communal agency emphasized the potency of grassroots political action during the 1650s. The power ascribed to the English commons within political discourse ensured that the struggles, customs and beliefs of the commonality would remain central in political contestations during the interregnum. Furthermore, by uniting disparate individuals and groups who were alienated by the policies and politics of interregnum regimes, such literature helped create the specter of a unified, royalist commons that emerged in late 1659 and early 1660. To chip away at the enormous question of how everyday life became mired in the politics of revolution, this book examines a series of case studies that emerge out of specific contexts in which the two often intersected. Given that any study of the everyday may only offer select snapshots, this book is divided into two parts that allow readers to consider some of the shared experiences of the revolution while appreciating the differences inherent in each.45 The first part, “Sites of Disaffection”, delves into key sites where economic, political and social forces converged to fuel and intensify ordinary and extraordinary contests for power. The second, “Objects of Disaffection”, examines the construction of popular figures who provoked the formation, reformation and expression of disaffection. Collectively the two parts aim to capture popular experiences and their relationship to the larger political forces and discourses that historians tend to privilege. As any history that explores the relationship between political, social, economic, cultural and religious change is necessarily partial, this study is limited to a few crucial sites and objects.46 Urban experiences emerge from a variety of cities and boroughs, but particularly Exeter, Colchester and the London metropolis. The cloth centers of West Yorkshire feature along with other county towns and villages, while rural experiences often enter the book through national records such as the State Papers and the courts of the Upper Bench and Assizes. Close readings of printed pamphlets and broadsides will unearth shared discourses of disaffection that served to undermine the legitimacy of the interregnum experiment. Overall the book aims to provide a bird’s-eye view of disaffection

Ben Highmore, “Introduction: Questioning Everyday Life”, p. 3. Ann Hughes makes a similar point regarding the difficulties of writing “new” political histories in “A ‘lunatick revolter from loyalty’”, p. 199.

45  46 

14

Disaffection.indb 14

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

and everyday life that remains sensitive to the diversity and peculiarities of regional, local and personal experiences. The first part, “Sites of Disaffection”, peers into high streets, bustling markets, makeshift alehouses and popular inns that were connected by trade routes, networks of communications and shared social and cultural practices. New policies such as the excise, strict enforcement of regulations policing sociability and the intrusion of unfamiliar state agents brought the Revolution into these spaces’ of everyday life. Through its exploration of everyday spaces where commerce met culture and state policies interfered with quotidian politics, this section engages with recent scholarship on the social history of politics and the “spatial turn”.47 By emphasizing the term “site”, this book avoids language that, for many readers, appears to emphasize physical place over the lived, transient and relational experience of space. While the book will examine “social space”, it attempts to capture sites where political and social power were contested through singular experiences informed by larger fields-of-force that intersected within the spaces of everyday life.48 This conception of “site” also allows for a broader comparison of sites of power connected to authoritative structures that exist within social space – such as the market cross or the pillory – as well as print, whose influence was also highly dependent on relational experiences of reading, dissemination and interpretation. The first chapter takes us into the streets and marketplaces of interregnum England, which housed a series of mundane and momentous interactions and exchanges. As economic nerve centers of most communities, high streets offered sites where anyone from herb sellers to prominent officials could vie for social and political capital within the community. In the streets and marketplaces of interregnum England, communities and individuals encountered new tax policies and collectors, local and state officials enforcing social and political reform and radical sectarians who disrupted social and religious practices with “blasphemous”, offensive expressions. This chapter explores the interactions For overviews of the “spatial turn”, see Ralph Kingston, “Mind Over Matter? History and the Spatial Turn”, Cultural and Social History, 7:1 (2010), 111–21; Fiona Williamson, “The Spatial Turn of Social and Cultural History: A Review of the Current Field”, European History Quarterly 44:4 (2014), 703–17; Beat Kümin and Cornelie Usborne, “At Home and in the Workplace: A Historical Introduction to the ‘Spatial Turn’”, History and Theory, 52 (Oct. 2013), 305–18. For examples of its use in the field, see Political Space in Pre-Industrial Europe, ed. Beat Kümin (Burlington, VT, 2009); Fiona Williamson, ed., Locating Agency: Space, Power and Popular Politics (Newcastle, 2010); Andy Wood, The Memory of the People: Custom and Popular Sense of the Past in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 2013). 48  Though attempts have been made, currently there is no agreed upon standard definitions for “place”, “space”, and “site” within historiography. Whereas most scholars prefer to use “social space” and “place” depending on the context of their analysis (in part due to the influence of theorists Henri Lefebvre and Pierre Bourdieu), I consciously use “site” as well as “social space” in an attempt to navigate readers unfamiliar with academic prose through these complex theories. See Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice; Lefebvre, The Production of Space. 47 

15

Disaffection.indb 15

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

between state and society in detail, focusing particularly on how individuals and communities responded to obtrusive policies, persons or practices that they perceived to be a consequence of revolution or regime change. It also examines popular responses to officials’ proclamations announcing new regimes and programs, and considers how disaffected people might refuse to play the passive role of dutiful subjects and test the success of the interregnum experiment through speech, ritualistic violence, silence and suggestive gestures. Whether considering costermongers protesting the relocation of a produce market in Cheapside or disaffected individuals who secretly posted anti-state broadsides on the market cross, this chapter reveals how individuals and communities subtly and not-so-subtly used the street and marketplace to negotiate the new social and political dynamics brought on by regime change. In defiance of the pretenses of interregnum regimes, such actions publicized the state’s failure to maintain physical, discursive and ideological control over society. The second chapter, “Drink and Disaffection”, not only examines how alehouses provided the disaffected a place to voice their grievances, but also how “drink” itself was a site where economic, religious, social and political interests clashed. Though the regulation of alehouses and drunkenness had a long history in England, the practice of social drinking ran counter to the reformist agenda of interregnum regimes that colluded with zealous moralists to unleash directives and vilify public drinking. Communal bonds forged, contested and reinforced at the local drinking house were threatened by rhetoric and policies that condemned health-drinking. Similarly, the excise placed on ale and beer – daily necessities that fueled England’s agricultural economy – further politicized drink and drinking houses across the country.49 Such policies ensured that grumblings at the alehouse were not limited to royalist professions of loyalty, but also provoked agitation with state policies or officials who many viewed as out of touch with the plight of the industrious poor. Though the clientele of drinking houses varied greatly in social standing and political views, royalist authors consistently associated social drinking with disaffection in cheap print. Alongside royalist writings that demeaned ale and beer as best suited for the lowly “mechanic” rulers of the interregnum, other strands of rhetoric aligned the monarchy with “native” English ale and the vibrant culture centered at the alehouse. The culture, economics and politics of drinking made “drink” and victualing houses sites of contestation where local interests, personal convictions and factional politics clashed with state policies. The second part of the book, “Objects of Disaffection”, explores how disgruntled men and women rejected initiatives that endangered their economic profitability, autonomy or tested social bonds forged in centers of communal sociability. Each of its three chapters examines a meddlesome For the idea that beer was part of the “fuel” that powered the agricultural economy, see Craig Muldrew, Food, Energy and the Creation of Industriousness (Cambridge, 2011), pp. 65–7.

49 

16

Disaffection.indb 16

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

group or figure whose presence in communities offered disgruntled individuals a target for their aggravation with interregnum policies. Chapter 3, “Meddling Soldiers”, tackles the difficult question of how the persistence of a standing army – novel to England during the interregnum – interfered with an individual’s or a community’s ability to negotiate power and unpopular policies. Beyond arguing that soldiers were loud, brutal and costly, this chapter looks at how certain persons or localities rejected the presence of soldiers who represented the long reach of the interregnum state. Communities near garrisons encountered rank-and-file soldiers on ale benches, at weekly markets and country fairs and in the shops and doorways of their communities. Under the watchful eye of these soldiers, locals who failed to curb their discussions of rumors or to censor disaffected grumblings risked being hauled before the local justice or commanding officers. Furthermore, the presence of soldiers and officers limited the ability of inhabitants and local authorities to implement social policies according to the customs and values of their communities. The army’s notorious involvement in national and local politics could produce an atmosphere of hostility and distrust towards officers and soldiers even in areas that experienced little interaction with troops. Several royalist authors capitalized on these grievances in their propaganda, claiming clashes between communities and soldiers exemplified the erosion of popular liberties. Though much royalist rhetoric was paternalistic in its language, several royalist authors deliberately employed discourses of popular sovereignty, which raised the implication that the commonality could – or should – influence policy formation. Chapter 4, “‘Unnatural’ Excise-men”, explores how the divisive figure of the excise collector united a loosely connected group of individuals and communities alienated by the state’s novel exaction. Though scholars have discussed widespread resentment of the excise and its collectors, many argue that popular resistance to the tax eased following the large-scale riots of the late 1640s. Regimes consistently reorganized the tax to increase revenue and avoid resistance or evasion, but the pervasive hatred of the tax and its collectors – the infamous “excise-men” – continued throughout the 1650s. Though impromptu risings at the marketplace were less frequent due to changes in the site of collection, orchestrated confrontations against the excise-men broke out periodically throughout the interregnum. Often hostility emerged from groups who paid the levy directly, such as brewers and victuallers. Displays of grassroots resentment interacted with unflattering representations of excisemen in cheap print, refracting local confrontations and concerns across the networks of communication and commerce throughout the country. Authors consistently depicted excise-men as greedy outsiders whose tyrannical powers bled local trades and communities dry. Having nearly achieved folk-devil status, the “unnatural” excise-men faced hostile receptions within local inns and taverns. The persistent hostility towards the tax and its collectors that permeated the 1640s and 1650s came to a head during the economic downturn of 1659, when real and fictional excise-men provided disaffected 17

Disaffection.indb 17

19/09/2017 11:25

INTRODUCTION

individuals and communities with a potent symbol of the many failures of interregnum policy. Chapter 5, “The Rise of the ‘Fanatic’”, investigates how widespread anxieties and resentment over the abrasive actions and unorthodox beliefs the religious “Other” converged on the ill-defined figure of the “fanatic” in 1659–60. During the 1640s and 1650s, the flowering of rival faiths and religious practices produced conflicting definitions of religious deviance. Factors ranging from locality, personal belief and temporality influenced a range of views on the dangers of religious pluralism. Quakers’ defiant gestures and speeches at the market cross, the sexual promiscuity of antinomians and the over-zealousness of Independents and Presbyterians all led to accusations of blasphemy or excessive and destructive enthusiasm. Furthermore, the radicals who blatantly departed from the oratorical and expressive order that upheld local social and gender relations troubled individuals and communities unsure of how to police such subversive disruptions. Though a wide variety of religious communities debated, discussed and denounced scandalous beliefs and acts during the interregnum, the adoption of the term “fanatic” transformed this discourse in the winter of 1659–60. By creating the “fanatic” as the ultimate example of religious, social and political transgression, royalist authors fashioned a character whose faults and offenses represented the rich panoply of anxieties that surrounded the growth in heterodoxy in interregnum England. In the winter of 1659–60, royalist print launched this derogatory term into everyday vernacular to unite fractured groups and individuals contemplating a return to monarchy. By employing “fanatic” as a vague and flexible umbrella term, royalists sought to shore up popular support by tapping into pervasive anxieties over irreligion, unorthodoxy, over-zealousness and subversive behavior that were far from uniform in origin. Each chapter of the book considers the relationship between grassroots disaffection, destabilized social relations and anti-state polemic. While disaffection cannot be equated with royalism, several royalist pamphleteers held, shared and fictionalized widespread grievances to rally support to the cause of the Stuarts. Royalist rhetoric that championed traditional culture became a fleeting reality during festivals honoring Charles II’s return to the throne. Just at the moment when people’s desires seemed to be realized, the threads connecting popular disaffection and the Stuart monarchy loosened as Charles’s duplicity slowly came to light. This book aims to get at the heart of popular experiences of revolution by considering the place of disaffection in everyday politics. It does not detail or debate the rise of the public sphere or the formation of popular allegiances during the English Revolution. Rather, this book shows that grassroots responses to intrusive policies and practices associated with the Revolution informed political debates over legitimacy and the origins of power. It offers a new framework for uncovering popular attitudes and weighing their worth. To understand the politics of disaffection we must consider how disaffection transformed – and was transformed by – the politics of everyday life. 18

Disaffection.indb 18

19/09/2017 11:25

Part I Sites of Disaffection

Disaffection.indb 19

19/09/2017 11:25

Disaffection.indb 20

19/09/2017 11:25

1

Streets and Marketplaces

As dust settled over the marketplace at New Malton, Yorkshire, artisans and grocers began the usual practice of shutting up their shops and stalls while a group of boys gathered to play in the shadows of the market cross. The predictable hustle-and-bustle of the end of the day was interrupted when a group of four royalists allegedly stumbled – wanded bottle in hand – through the marketplace.1 As they approached the cross, the fellows – Christopher Nendike, Captain John Denton, Richard Montaigne and one unknown man – allegedly drank to the health of Charles Stuart, the son and heir of the executed Charles I. Following this bold utterance, the four elites proceeded to draw their swords and, according to witnesses, loudly proclaim Charles II “King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland”. Following this performance, the company of drinkers left the cross “singing” and ventured into John Williamson’s tavern, where, swords still drawn, they supposedly called for more “wyne” and pestered other drinkers who refused to kiss a sword.2 To appreciate the significance of this treasonous proclamation performed in New Malton’s marketplace, we must consider the prior use of that cross for the Commonwealth’s official declaration of the act forbidding the proclamation of any person as monarch. On the very same day that the axe fell on Charles I in January 1649, Parliament released an act that prohibited proclaiming any person king – particularly the elusive Prince Charles. Two months later in March, the Commons confirmed an act abolishing the monarchy, which they ordered to be ceremoniously read in the “Market Towns” throughout the nation.3 Despite these interdictions, the four gentlemen in New Malton   TNA, ASSI 45/4/1 fol. 40. According to Paul Hanrahan, there were two types of French wanded bottles in use in the seventeenth century. One was a long-necked bottle made from fragile glass and covered in wicker; the other was a long, flat bottle, also covered in wicker, the shape of which he describes as a “flattened gourd or tennis racket”. See Hanrahan, “Bottles in the Palace Royal Collection”, Material Culture Review / Revue de la culture matérielle [Online], 6 (1978). 2  TNA, ASSI 45/4/1 fol. 40. 3  “January 1649: An Act prohibiting the proclaiming any person to be King England or Ireland, or the Dominions thereof”, A & O Online, 1263–64; A & O, II, p. 20; The Impartiall Intelligencer, no. 4 (21–28 Mar. 1649). 1

Disaffection.indb 21

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

chose to reject these acts through a performance that emulated the very same rites of power and legitimacy practiced by Commonwealth officials. Indeed, witness testimonies suggest that the official and illegal proclamations concerning the monarchy performed at the market cross were connected in the memory of a few deponents. While some witnesses claimed the four men gathered in the marketplace “two years” before in March 1649 – around the time of the official proclamation – many others claimed the scene occurred “a twelvemonth ago”, or around March 1650. Time, space and opinion were blurred in social memory, which suggests that the men’s proclamation at New Malton’s marketplace was intimately linked to the official proclamation abolishing the monarchy in the minds of many locals. Interestingly, evidence suggests that the community – though perhaps annoyed by the behavior of the four men – found it unnecessary to prosecute them without pressure from above.4 One of the accused, Captain John Denton, was simultaneously facing charges of piracy, which provoked the Council of State to pursue his prosecution across the north. In the winter and spring of 1650–51, the Council ordered that Denton be sent to the Castle of York to await trial while Yorkshire magistrates examined witnesses in preparation for the case. Records from the assizes suggest that it was only as officials sought evidence against Denton’s piracy that the treason case against him and his fellow royalists emerged. The long silence of the New Malton community is conspicuous – what the four royalists acted before the market cross was clearly treasonous, and the town could have faced retribution from the state for failing to report the incident.5 The North Riding of York was a royalist stronghold, and the Council wished to quell any possible threats against its authority in the region. How might we interpret and understand the community’s original silence? In New Malton’s marketplace, the extraordinary experience of civil war and revolution intersected with the quotidian concerns and experiences of the community. The usual activities of a spring evening – boys playing football, local neighbors and artisans meeting at Williamson’s tavern – were abruptly transformed and complicated by the actions of the four men. When the boys, artisans and tavern patrons looked up at the market cross in the days, weeks and months following this event, what did they see? Did this episode unsettle the normative power structures that governed their community? How can historians relate such seemingly singular occurrences, caught in a specific moment and place, to the larger transformations associated with revolution? Rituals such as this treasonable royalist proclamation, however clumsily done, informed how society defined these sites of power, just as the spatial contexts of official performances of authority formed part of their

  TNA, ASSI 45/4/1 fols. 41–3.   A & O, II, pp. 193–4; Alan Orr, Treason and the State: Law, Politics, and Ideology in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 18–19; Cressy, Dangerous Words, pp. 49–54. 4 5

22

Disaffection.indb 22

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

overall meaning.6 Rather than view the marketplace or its cross as a mere “backdrop” to events, geographers such as Edward Soja urge scholars to see space as “a complex social formation”.7 By emphasizing the relational experience of space, many everyday life theories of social space seek to link episodes – such as that fateful spring evening in New Malton – with grander political transformations. Larger fields-of-force are not “immune” from the effects of local incidents and momentary reactions to “ruptures” in established structures.8 Indeed, for the majority of poorer and middling English men and women, politics were decidedly local, and national events or transformations were viewed through the lens of local custom and personal experience.9 As Edward Ayers has argued, “episodes demonstrate how people enact the dramas of their society in places large and small, confronting common challenges and opportunities, each episode unique and yet part of larger patterns … at base, history is where singular events and larger patterns intersect”.10 Reflecting both the local, quotidian concerns of ordinary people and the power struggles of elites, the streets and marketplaces of interregnum England became sites where people challenged and negotiated the shape of revolution. Historic struggles or contests over rights and customary practices became inflected with the concerns and consequences of civil war and revolution. To consider the relationship between local experiences, larger transformations and national discourses over governance and legitimate authority, this chapter will delve into a series of ordinary and extraordinary clashes over unwelcome policies and practices associated with revolutionary change. In streets and marketplaces across the nation, English men and women negotiated law and order through disputes and overt confrontations within these sites of authority. A struggle over a London vegetable market reveals how authorities’ anxiety over order could clash with people’s practical uses of streets and marketplaces. When city authorities ordered the removal of the disorderly and “noxious” produce market from Cheapside into a stratified one within the churchyard at St. Paul’s Cathedral, several hundred street peddlers rallied in protest. Despite the city’s concessions to facilitate the transfer of the market, the unequal distribution of space within the churchyard led several peddlers and costermongers to remain in their prime positions – free of strict   V.N. Volosinov, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, trans. Ladislaw Matejka and I.R. Titunik (Cambridge, 1986), p. 100. Volonsinov terms what I have called “overall meaning” as a “theme”. 7  Edward Soja, “In Different Spaces: Interpreting the Spatial Organization of Societies”, in Proceedings: 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium (2001), s1.4; Edward Ayers, “Towards Place, Space and Time”, in The Spatial Humanities: GIS and the Future of Humanities Scholarship, ed. D. Bodenhamer, J. Corrigan and T.M. Harris (Bloomington, IN, 2010), p. 1. 8  William H. Sewell, Jr., Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation (Chicago, IL, 2005), pp. 227–28; Ayers, “Towards Place, Space, and Time”, p. 6. 9  For a similar point, see Wood, The Memory of the People, p. 12. 10  Ayers, “Towards Place, Space, and Time”, p. 8. 6

23

Disaffection.indb 23

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

regulations and high costs – on the west end of Cheapside. Influenced by customary conceptions of one’s right to shared social space, these peddlers actively resisted officious regulations that altered traditional access to, and uses of, the streets of London.11 Royalist and disaffected authors took up their pens to rail against civic officials, whose relocation of the odorous market not only desecrated the churchyard, but also signaled their lack of compassion for the industrious poor of the metropolis. The clashing definitions of Cheapside and St. Paul’s yard represent how fear of disorder – pervasive during this time of political uncertainty – came into conflict with the everyday practices of ordinary people and informed larger debates over legitimate governance. Far north of the congested streets of London, a struggle for control of a Northumberland estate erupted in a rural high street and market grounds. Unable to maintain his dubious hold on lands formerly in the possession of the Collingwood family, the prominent parliamentarian Sir Arthur Hesilrige explored extra-legal methods in his quest to obtain authority over the contested estate. After attempting to terrorize tenants and magnates into submission, Hesilrige found himself the victim of popular justice when a crowd assaulted him and his associate in Eslington High Street. Failing to assert his dominance, Hesilrige later sought to legitimate his claim by performing a symbolic act of power: the ritualistic proclamation of the annual fair in Whittingham’s marketplace. Beyond the high street and the market grounds, the contention over this estate was also acted out in printed debates as pamphleteers and political dissenters portrayed Hesilrige’s tyranny in Northumberland as a local manifestation of Parliamentary oppression. As the treasonous proclamation at New Malton reveals, disaffected persons also imitated and manipulated rituals of power performed within the streets and marketplace to contest the legitimacy of an interregnum regime while fabricating their own. During the volatile months that followed Charles I’s execution, the new Commonwealth faced expressions of resistance and disobedience within the very spaces in which it attempted to legitimate its rule. The symbolic silence in the streets following the state’s failure to proclaim the abolition of the monarchy was replaced with voices of dissent from royalists, and, more significantly, radicals within Parliament’s own army. Similarly, the confusion following the army’s dissolution of the Rump Parliament in October 1659 resulted in protests against the military’s control over the fledgling interregnum state, once again filling the streets and marketplaces with symbolic manifestations of popular discontent. The spatial appropriation of authority offered the alienated opportunities to manipulate the rituals traditionally performed within these sites without resorting to violence or rebellion. At times when the political instability of the nation was palpable, people contested ordinary and extraordinary power structures within the streets and marketplaces of England, vying for legitimacy within these spaces of everyday life.   LMA, CLA/047/LJ/01/0141; TNA, KB 9/ 875, fol. 239.

11

24

Disaffection.indb 24

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

The Extraordinary in the Everyday The voices of haggling merchants, shouts of energetic youths, rumble of carts and boisterous official proclamations made streets and marketplaces noisy places in early modern society. Taverns, inns and alehouses edged high streets and marketplaces, ensuring these establishments served as spaces of social gathering as much as economic centers. Despite the singularities of each, the main thoroughfares and marketplaces of England formed a rich network that linked the country. Those who traversed the streets and marketplaces participated in a series of interactions and exchanges that united distant spaces through shared experience.12 Within these spaces of everyday life, traveling merchants spread news, hawkers swindled naïve shoppers, couples planned illicit encounters, neighbors mingled and warring parties engaged in public brawls. All members of society – from the king to the costermonger – could negotiate their power within the streets and marketplaces of their community. State, civic and local officials often articulated their authority to citizens and subjects in the country’s populous marketplaces, which drew more individuals than Sunday services on many occasions. More than stately architecture or elaborate civic processions, it was the daily interactions of the various individuals and groups traversing these sites that charged them with social and political authority. The predictive rhythm of monotonous, quotidian exchanges within England’s streets and marketplaces guaranteed officials an audience for the production of legitimacy. The social geographies of streets and marketplaces fueled everyday articulations of social power, which inextricably linked the power of disruptive speech acts to stately declarations of authority. During the interregnum, ordinary struggles for social authority intersected with the extraordinary tensions produced by civil war and revolution in streets and marketplaces across the country. Everyday contests for power performed in these sites informed and engaged with larger discourses of customary right, which in turn fueled rhetorical assaults on the “oppressive” politics of Commonwealth and Protectorate officials. The legitimacy historically granted to the grievances of the “commonality” continued to present disaffected authors with a discourse they could manipulate to serve their immediate needs.13 Produce, Protest, and Partisan Politics: The Cheapside Riot of 1657 After decades of complaining about the “noxious” and “officious” fruit and vegetable market located in Cheapside, the goldsmiths’ petition requesting the   David Rollison argues that England was not an imagined community, but was truly connected through its series of markets and highways that were traversable in one lifetime. See Rollison, The Commonwealth of the People, p. 1. 13  For example, royalists and Levellers drew upon the language of a united commonalty in their rhetoric. See Andy Wood, Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 2002), p. 171. 12

25

Disaffection.indb 25

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

removal of the market off the heavily trafficked thoroughfare gained traction in 1657. Similarly concerned by the “unwholesome smells and stenches” that emanated from the market as well as the “manifold” risks its presence posed to travelers, London’s Court of Alderman ordered the market’s removal to the west end of St. Paul’s churchyard. This seemingly innocuous decree incited a major protest by gardeners and costermongers as well as a debate on the purpose of social space within the city. By defending what they viewed as their customary right, the Cheapside gardeners, fruiterers and costermongers consistently rejected the creation of a highly regulated market in the lesstrafficked churchyard. Although civic officials were able to establish the new market shortly after the large protest on Cheapside was quelled, resistance continued until the Restoration. In the slew of royalist tracts unleashed in the months surrounding Charles II’s return, pamphleteers questioned whether the “risks” posed by the offensive market in the bustling street justified its transplantation to the “sacred” grounds of the churchyard. During the last months of the interregnum and the first of the Restoration era, the controversial vegetable market at St. Paul’s provided fodder for anti-state literature, in which authors refashioned the discord between gardeners, costermongers, goldsmiths and London authorities into a condemnation of the policies and methods of arbitrary, irreligious interregnum officials. The struggle over the organization, use and regulation of Cheapside in the growing metropolis reveals how a seemingly mundane conflict became infused with larger partisan debates that permeated interregnum political culture. It may be tempting to label the contest over Cheapside’s fruit and vegetable market as mere squabbling, but civic, national and everyday politics intersected in this vital thoroughfare. Whether they sold luxuries in prominent shops or peddled herbs from baskets, those who traded on Cheapside relied on the bustling artery to make their living. The public street markets of London offered traders certain unusual freedoms. People came from throughout the city and country to vend their goods from baskets, carts or temporary stalls. Unlike those confined to London’s stratified markets, street sellers had the advantage of being mobile, making it easier to circumvent market regulations. Women as well as men hawked their wares within London’s street markets, yet the prevailing stereotype of female hucksters as disorderly consequently made them easy targets for officials. Female sellers were frequently charged with thievery, selling unwholesome and smelly food, blocking streets and passages, and, of course, sexual deviance. Despite these hindrances, women as well as men could travel the streets unaccompanied to sell or purchase goods with relative ease.14 Indeed, the freedom of the streets brought many travelers and Londoners to Cheapside. Streets such as Cheapside could serve as

14  Laura Gowing, “‘The Freedom of the Streets’: Women and Social Space, 1560–1640”, in Londinopolis: Essays in the Cultural and Social History of Early Modern London, ed. Mark S. Jenner and Paul Griffiths (Manchester, 2000), pp. 131, 142.

26

Disaffection.indb 26

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

football grounds, theatrical stages or even a meeting place for illicit encounters.15 Furthermore, hucksters frequently shared rumors of current events with their customers and neighboring sellers within the streets. The presence of shops, street markets, ale benches, tavern doorways and the stream of traffic going in and out of the city offered people a mixture of public and semiprivate spaces, and, thus, either an audience or virtual anonymity.16 Easy publicity and basic convenience made humming streets and marketplaces ideal sites for the expression, rejection or contestation of social power. Historians of slander have argued that insult language provided early modern women and men with a potent mechanism for establishing, policing and creating alternative social and gender norms.17 Those who pursued interpersonal tensions in the streets and marketplaces relied on the transformative potential of verbal and non-verbal acts, and their use of speech, gesture or interpersonal violence reveals contradictions within patriarchal codes of conduct. Rachel Lockier accused Ursella Lockier, a fellow mariner’s wife, of “assaulting her in the street, spitting at hir and calling hir whore”. Through the use of insult language and gestures, Rachel’s jeer could irreparably damage reputations and interfere with a person’s ability to carry out the tasks of everyday life. After Mary Weeks provoked Lucretia White with urging words, White claimed that she could no longer “goe peaceably about hir lawful occations in the streets”. Captain Edward Waterman also alleged he could not “quietly pass in the streete” ever since Frances Gage “causelessly” railed against him. Interpersonal conflicts battled in the streets also risked inciting unrest. The hackney coachmen Thurstone Thornbury of Clement Danes was charged with “uttering reproachfull and abusive speeches in the streets” that hazarded a “tumult”.18 Agnes Seare, who was charged with defaming Alice Leiland on   Rugg, p. 13.   Gowing, “Freedom of the Streets”, p. 137; Fiona Williamson, Social Relations and Urban Space: Norwich, 1600–1700 (Woodbridge, 2014), pp. 127–32. 17  See, for example, Susan Dwyer Amussen, An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England (Oxford, 1988); Fay Bound, “‘An Angry and Malicious Mind’? Narratives of Slander at the Church Courts of York, c.1660–c.1760”, History Workshop Journal, 56:1 (2003), 59–77; Bernard Capp, When Gossips Meet: Women, Family and Neighborhood in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2004); Faramerz Dabhoiwala, “The Pattern of Sexual Immorality in Seventeenth-and-Eighteenth-Century London”, in Londinopolis, pp. 86–106; Laura Gowing, Domestic Dangers: Women Words, and Sex in Early Modern London (Oxford, 1998); Martin Ingram, “Law, Litigants, and the Construction of “Honour”: Slander Suits in Early Modern England”, in The Moral World of the Law, ed. Peter Coss (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 134–60; Craig Muldrew, The Economy of Obligations: The Culture of Credit and Social Relations in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 1998); A. Sharpe, Defamation and Sexual Slander in Early Modern England: the Church Courts at York, Borthwick Papers, no. 58 (York, 1980); Alexandra Shepard, “Manhood, Credit and Patriarchy in Early Modern England, c.1580–1640”, Past & Present, 167:1 (2000), 75–106; Walker, Crime, Gender and Social Order. 18  LMA, MJ/SR/1134 rec. 44, 19 Jan. 1654/5; MJ/SR/1129 rec. 148, 18 Sep. 1654; MJ/ SR/1145 rec. 81, 26 Dec. 1655. 15 16

27

Disaffection.indb 27

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

sundry occasions, defended her slanders in Leadenhall Market after receiving a summons to court. Rather than deny the charges, Agnes confirmed her opinions and further alleged that Alice was a “harlot” who had managed to get up to £40 of favors out of her husband. She ended her speech triumphantly, when she stated “I have called her … whore any time theise 5 years, and yet I will stand to it”.19 If the jury had found Seare guilty before an ecclesiastical court, she may have found herself before other market-goers in a much more humiliating position, as the marketplace was also a common site for public penance. Officials’ relationship to Cheapside differed from that of the average costermonger. These spaces brought the state revenue and prestige, and they furthered England’s economic status in the growing world economy – all of which added to a regime’s legitimacy. Historically, civic and state officials had exploited Cheapside as a primary public site within London. The large width given to this “Greate Streete” in contemporary maps demonstrates its significance as a major London artery. Cheapside offered a wide-open space. Vanessa Harding claims it ran roughly 400 yards long and 50–60 yards wide.20 The traditional occupation of the goldsmiths and mercers on Cheapside lent greatly to the grandeur of the street, and at one time it had been called “the starr and jewell of the land”.21Along with the help of the goldsmiths, the City actively pursued the revitalization of Goldsmiths Row to its former glory during the first half of the seventeenth century. Echoing the sentiments of civic leaders, James and Charles I presumed that, through careful construction and the use of well-planned architecture in public spaces, they could inspire awe at England’s power.22 Cheapside served as a key site for the performance of rituals of authority. Royal and civic processions, celebrations, proclamations and public punishments were performed in Cheapside. The centrality of the thoroughfare, its provision of everyday and luxury goods and its proximity to Guildhall and St. Paul’s – symbols of civic and ecclesiastical authority – marked it as an ideal site for the promulgation of power. The Standard, which survived the assault on Cheapside Cross in 1643, was a historic site of executions and other violent forms of official retribution.23 Civic, martial and central officials sentenced those who uttered dangerous words – from seditious murmurs to blasphemous rants – to bouts in Cheapside’s pillory and, at times, to earborings and brandings. During the interregnum such was the fate of the Ranter and soldier Jacob Bauthumley, who was court-martialed for his blasphemous   Quoted in Gowing, Domestic Dangers, p. 93.   Paul Griffiths, “Politics Made Visible: Order, Residence and Uniformity in Cheapside, 1600–45”, in Londinopolis, p. 176; Vanessa Harding, “Cheapside: Commerce and Commemoration”, Huntington Library Quarterly 71:1 (2008), 78, 83–5. 21  Griffiths, “Politics Made Visible”, p. 176. 22  Ibid., p. 176. 23  Harding, “Cheapside”, p. 80. 19 20

28

Disaffection.indb 28

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

opinions in 1650 and sentenced to have his ears bored and his book burnt by the common hangman.24 Try though they might, officials did not have a monopoly over justice in Cheapside. The thoroughfare was also a historic site of protest and violent retribution against those who threatened the welfare of the commonality. During the Peasants’ Revolt, rebels executed Lord Saye and Sele at the Standard in a public act and demonstration of popular justice. Officials’ manipulation of sites such as Cheapside to promote authority necessarily risked its appropriation by those others claiming power through custom or popular notions of justice.25 While the architecture of Cheapside lent legitimacy to civic and state power, so too did its clean and orderly appearance. Punishments were not reserved for violent criminals or sowers of sedition. Cheapside’s markets required constant regulation to ensure fair practices. Vanessa Harding notes that offenses against the market faced immediate, public punishment in the street to curb reoccurrences.26 The appearance of the herb, fruit and vegetable market itself was cause of great concern amongst city officials and the rich merchants whose shops lined Cheapside. The City of London had long wished to reorganize the produce market located in West Cheap. As London grew over the course of the sixteenth century, Cheapside became increasingly congested with smelly baskets, overflowing stalls, hackney coaches and human traffic. Hucksters spilled out of the common markets and continued to peddle fruits, herbs, flowers and more after market hours. Tensions between the desires of the costermongers, shopkeepers and city officials intensified and led to several failed attempts to constrain and delimit the herb, fruit and vegetable market.27 In a recommendation that echoed the concerns of luxury traders, a group of alderman suggested the City separate the flower-sellers from the herb-women in 1588. One group was to be relegated to the north and the other to the south side of West Cheap. Further, these aldermen recommended the City limit the number of baskets and tables per seller to three, prohibit the use of pails, stools and tubs and proscribe any washing of the noxious “roots and herbs”. Despite these concerns, the market continued to expand across the thoroughfare.28 One concerned city dweller, Hugh Alley, went so far as to draw up a document suggesting needed changes to the markets. Without completely overhauling their structure, Alley’s suggestions offered designs of orderly, organized and controlled markets.29 Any experimentation with his designs was short-lived, and London officials continued   The Man in the Moon, no. 48 (13–20 Mar. 1650), p. 373. A Perfect Diurnall, no. 14 (11–18 Mar. 1650), p. 125; Nigel Smith, “Bothumley, Jacob (1613–1692)”, ODNB. 25  Harding, “Cheapside”, p. 94. 26  Ibid., p. 78. 27  Ibid., p. 87. 28  Ibid., pp. 87–8. 29  Ibid., p. 89; Ian Archer, Caroline B. Barron and Vanessa Harding, Hugh Alley’s Caveat: The Markets of London in 1598 (London, 1998). 24

29

Disaffection.indb 29

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

to consider restructuring Cheapside’s overcrowded markets to limit the filth, grime and noise that dirtied London’s center of luxury, power and authority. The general desire of local authorities and wealthier residents to regulate streets, markets and highways persisted throughout the early modern period, yet the reason behind these concerns and officials’ ability to resolve them shifted with the advent of civil war and political revolution. During the 1640s and 1650s, officials continued to cleanse and control London’s overcrowded and increasingly unregulated markets. In the City’s 1646 act dictating laws of the markets, the Common Council forced butchers out of the streets and into enclosed markets that were contained and controlled by the City with the exception of those vending “white” (versus “red”) meat. Apparently, the act failed to alleviate the problem. In January 1657 the Company of Butchers presented a petition to the Council bemoaning the continued sale of beef on London’s streets by their unincorporated counterparts.30 The following July, the Council officially ordered all hawkers selling meat – including those in Cheapside – to conduct their business inside the designated markets in order to clear the streets. Despite this mandate, several men and women continued to sell meat along London’s streets. Thus far, civic officials had failed to reorganize Cheapside and achieve their vision of an orderly, prestigious urban center.31 That same year the Court of Aldermen returned its gaze to the fruit, vegetable and plant market on the west end of Cheapside. Just a few decades earlier, in 1632, the Common Council had again articulated its desire to rid Cheapside of “herb women” who sold fruits and vegetables, but it was during the interregnum that the Court was able to construct a new home for the market. In April 1657 the Court determined that the Lord Mayor and Sheriff should meet with the Common Council to discuss “the removall of the Hearbweomen and others sitting in Cheapside” on the west end near St. Paul’s churchyard.32 The dismantling of the Church of England offered civic leaders a new opportunity to recreate St. Paul’s churchyard as a stratified, controlled market in which it could impose order upon this group of disorderly people, namely unmonitored “women” and others who produced “filth” and unpleasant odors. At roughly the same time that the Court devised this plan, it received the petition from the goldsmiths and other residents on Cheapside desiring the ejection of people selling fruit, herbs, plants and other goods in the street near St. Paul’s. According to their petition, the market produced “unwholesome smells and stenches” and filth that “Corrupt[ed] that principall Streete and passage”.33 The united interests of the Court, wealthier residents and tradesmen and the Protectorate – coupled with what   LMA, COL/CA/01/01/069, fol. 41.   Ibid., COL/CC/01/01/042, fols. 156, 157b and 158. The order for the Committee was made on 2 June 1657, while the actual order for the market’s removal came on 8 July 1657. 32  Ibid., COL/CA/01/01/069, fol. 96. 33  Ibid., fol. 128. 30 31

30

Disaffection.indb 30

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

1  Cheapside and St. Paul’s Cathedral, from Faithorne and Newcourt’s 1658 map of London with annotations by Luke Konkol. In 1657, the Court of Aldermen ordered the “ancient” fruit and vegetable market in west Cheapside to the west-end of Paul’s churchyard.

some would consider the “desacralization” of St. Paul’s churchyard – provided city officials an opportunity to remove the Cheapside costermongers to a newly constructed market under its control once and for all.34 Removing the “hearbwoemen” and their fellow male peddlers to the churchyard asserted control over those whose freedom clashed with normative concepts of order that the revolution strained. In the Court’s original order for the new market, the aldermen addressed the grievances that arose from having these sellers on Cheapside. Besides the smell, the Court noted that “travellers” experienced “manifold” risks and “dangers” due to the street market. The order also remarked on the hindrances the sellers caused the residents of Cheapside, clearly taking the goldsmiths’ petition into account. Ultimately the Court called for a complete removal of all men, women and children who sold garden victuals from Cheapside to the new market in the churchyard by 6 August 1657. The order remarked that civic leaders had never intended for West Cheap to hold such a market. This action would not only remove the “noxious” peddlers from one of the major entryways into London, but also it would place them more firmly under civic surveillance. 34  See p. 33 below for royalist assaults on the removal of the herb market to St. Paul’s churchyard.

31

Disaffection.indb 31

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

But the new stratified market in the churchyard reflected one of several possible conceptions of Cheapside as shared social space and a site of authority. For hundreds of peddlers and fellow Londoners, the removal of the market from Cheapside threatened to transform their everyday lives fundamentally. Rejecting the Court and the goldsmiths’ vision of Cheapside, hundreds of gardeners and costermongers waged a large protest against their removal from the street market the day following the act’s implementation. On 7 August 1657, six gardeners allegedly met with “five hundred persons att the least” on the “Greate Street” and began a “riot”. When the Lord Mayor, the Sheriff and other officers arrived on the scene, the protesters physically opposed them and continued to instigate and provoke further disorder for over an hour. On 12 August, the six gardeners were charged with “raysing a tumult and commiting a Ryott” as well as “misbehaving themselves” against the Lord Mayor, Robert Tichborne, to the great “Subversion of the Government”.35 All of the indicted peddlers were men, but undoubtedly women made up some of the crowd. Common law made it far easier to charge men with the crime of rioting, yet the sex of the defendants suggests that the officials’ and residents’ gendering of the offensive costermongers as female may well have been scapegoating.36 Certainly women sold “noxious” herbs and plants on Cheapside, but so did men. The gardeners, herbwives, fruiterers and others who protested against the removal of the market not only exploited the fear of disorder prevalent in London throughout the 1650s, but also informed the production and definition of the spaces in which they inhabited. Despite the Court’s orders, those who rioted on Cheapside and ultimately opposed Tichborne – a highly controversial figure – continued the tradition of upholding fairness and justice in the market by punishing offenders. Following the unrest, the gardeners, fruiterers and other costermongers resorted to a less violent means of resistance – a petition to London’s Common Council. Indeed, the Council only became actively involved in the transportation of the market after the riot. In their petition, the produce sellers reminded the Common Council of a 1345 statute that had forbidden gardeners to sell in the same location of the churchyard that the Court now wished them to use. Thus, while the Council declared support for the Court’s original order, it also assigned a committee to consider “how farr [the statute] concerns the prohibiting of the fruite and herbe markett in the void place on the northside of Paules Church”.37 The Council further asserted that the sellers should remain in the churchyard, but  LMA, CLA/047/LJ/01/0141; TNA, KB 9/875, fol. 239.   John Walter, “Grain Riots and Popular Attitudes to the Law: Maldon and the Crisis of 1629”, in Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 40–1. 37  LMA, COL/CC/01/01/042, fol. 161b. Apparently, the Council approved the Court of Aldermen’s decision to remove the plant and fruit market into the stipulated churchyard, albeit temporarily. 35 36

32

Disaffection.indb 32

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

only until “a fitter place be appointed”.38 The introduction of the Council into the struggle for Cheapside brought yet another interest into the already dense power dynamics clashing over this space. Using the medieval statue and the power of custom, the gardeners fought to maintain their prime selling location on Cheapside near St. Paul’s. As a primary conduit leading in and out of the City, the gardeners and other peddlers likely favored the crowded nature of the thoroughfare as it helped to attract customers. Furthermore, Cheapside provided more freedom than the enclosed and closely controlled churchyard market, and many sellers chose to remain on the major street when civic officials reasserted their order for the transportation of the market into the churchyard that September. One man continued to set up his goods along the thoroughfare despite the fact the City charged him four days in a row for having “fower great basketts” in the street.39 Throughout August and September 1657, officials prosecuted several men and women – whether gardeners, fruiterers, butchers or other costermongers – for selling their commodities along Cheapside.40 The problem of the Cheapside market remained unresolved for several years. In January 1659, the Court of Aldermen was still paying the market’s moderator for dealing with “the diverse refractory Costermongers who opposed the settling of the said Market”.41 Exploiting this situation, the Company of Gardeners tried to get the city to enroll their Charter – something that they had desired for several years. The Court eventually agreed, with the stipulation that the Company would not be granted voting privileges, and, further, that the Company take on the onerous duty of keeping Cheapside and Gracechurch Street clear of costermongers. In addition, the city officially made the market’s fee collector a constable to facilitate the arresting of sellers who failed to cooperate.42 Once again, two different power brokers worked in collusion to implement their version of proper order. The costermongers would never regain official sanction to return to Cheapside, but their plight would work its way into royalist rhetoric denigrating the oppressive rule of city and state officials. While London officials, the Company of Gardeners and the costermongers continued to negotiate the sites of fruit and vegetable sales into 1659, royalist pamphleteers began to exploit the struggle over Cheapside to denigrate the arbitrary, profane policies of interregnum officials. The Cheapside scuffle easily supported two themes within rhetoric blasting the infamous London mayor and regicide Robert Tichborne, who arranged the new market along with the Aldermen in 1656. First, they alleged that Tichborne, like most interregnum statesmen, was an irreligious hypocrite. Second, which is really an extension   Ibid., fol. 160b.  LMA, CLA/047/LJ/01/0141. 40 Ibid. 41  Ibid., COL/CA/01/01/070, fol. 182 42  Ibid., fols. 277, 281–2. 38 39

33

Disaffection.indb 33

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

of the first, the royalist authors claimed Tichborne had consistently supported policies that hurt the poorest members of the London community, including the poor “herb women” of Cheapside. The very title of one such printed satire of Tichborne connects his evil dealings with the downfall of English society: The Two City Iuglers, Tichborn, and Ireton: Being a Dialogue wherein, Their Rebellions, Treacheries, Treasons, and Cheats, are fully discovered and brought to light: With some particular Demonstrations of adhering to the Rump, and Committee of Safty, to the Ruine as they intended both of Monarchy, City and Country. In this mock dialogue, Tichborne and fellow mayor John Ireton discuss policies that oppressed the industrious inhabitants of the city. In one exchange, Ireton demands of Tichborne what motivated his removal of the market to the churchyard. Tichborne notes that, throughout his mayoralty, he considered himself to be one of Cromwell’s – or as, he called him, “old NOL[’s]” – “most able instruments”.43 Thus, Tichborne continued, “knowing” Cromwell “had no great esteem of the Church, after he had made Pauls a Den of Theeves and a Stable for his Rebellious Jades, I brought the Market out of Cheapside into Pauls Church-yard, where they now buy and sell as they in Jerusalem did in the ancient time”. In this line, the author alludes to the army’s use of St. Paul’s as quarters and makeshift stables. Ireton suggests to Tichborne that his contribution more “defac[ed] the place of Gods worship”. But, Tichborne showed no remorse, stating that this maneuver gained him Cromwell’s respect. Finally, Tichborne is asked what he truly gained by removing the market to St. Paul’s, Tichborne confesses he did not benefit “much”, yet, he continued, “I did shew my dislike of the Churches power and the government thereof, but the scent and colour of those wares which are there sold, might have given some correction unto the noisome smell of the Augean stables, but though the Commodities were sweet yet that Act made me stink ever since in the Nostrils of the people”.44 In this clever twist of phrase, the anonymous author castigated Tichborne for his noxious assault on religion and his treatment of the poorer people of London. Ultimately it was Tichborne’s policies mistreating the poorer members of London’s community that polluted London’s streets. This pamphlet was not the first written polemic to question the use of St. Paul’s sacred grounds for such a purpose. Earlier in 1659 a libel scattered about London’s streets declared “unhappy heads might (surely) have found out some fitter place for a Market-House then St. Pauls Churchyard”.45 In another satirical pamphlet – this time a dialogue between Tichborne and Henry Marten while imprisoned – once again the transportation of the produce market   The Two City Iuglers, Tichborn, and Ireton: Being a Dialogue wherein, Their Rebellions, Treacheries, Treasons, and Cheats, are Fully Discovered and Brought to Light (London, 1660), p. 6. 44  Ibid., p. 7. 45  To the Inhabitants and Souldiery of the City of London, “Scattered in the streets” in March 1659. 43

34

Disaffection.indb 34

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

to St. Paul’s became ripe for royalist derision. In a verbal battle over whose practices damaged the Commonwealth the most, Marten claims Tichborne’s zealous policies enforcing regulations and social order punished some of the most vulnerable members of the city. He charges Tichborne with employing “Red-Coats … against all that would not obey your commands”, and points particularly to his harsh punishment of London’s alehouse keepers. Next, Marten addresses the poor “Herb women” who “formerly sate in Cheapside”, and were forced into a “New market place”. In the very same speech, Marten states that it’s clear Tichborne would be willing to “Cutt of the King’s Head againe”, connecting Tichborne’s seemingly minor policies as Mayor with his ultimate crime: the regicide. In the mock dialogue, Tichborne expresses remorse over his former conduct by noting “the remembrance of each of these particulars Cuts a new Wound”. 46 City officials such as Tichborne – along with prosperous Cheapside residents and gardeners – desired the removal of people who they identified with disorder, but their attempts to implement control over social space resulted in unrest. The City’s actions, performed without consulting many of those whom they directly affected, disrupted the delicate balance of authority and liberty established over centuries of negotiation between those who daily inhabited Cheapside. Its simplified definitions of Cheapside failed to incorporate the perceptions and experiences of others.47 The changes that accompanied the civil war and revolution altered the negotiations between those who inhabited and controlled these spaces of everyday life. And, conversely, these ordinary contests over customary right and ancient practices informed disaffected rhetoric that challenged the legitimacy of a state whose officials allegedly oppressed, rather than protected, the Commonwealth. The multi-year struggle between civic authorities, residents and fruit and vegetable sellers would continue into the Restoration.48 Performing Legitimacy: Sir Arthur Hesilrige’s Quest for Eslington Manor Far north of London’s congested Cheapside, a rural high street and “marketplace” were the scenes of a struggle over a manor in Northumberland.49 During the 1640s and 50s, Sir Arthur Heslirige vigorously pursued his claim   The Pretended Saint and the Prophane Libertine. Well met in Prison. Or a Dialogue between Robert Tichburne and Henry marten, Chamber-Fellowes in Newgate (London, 1660), pp. 5–6. 47  James C. Scott, “State Simplification, Nature, Space and People”, in Political Order, ed. Ian Shapiro and Russell Herndon (New York, 1996), pp. 55–7. 48  Unable to keep the market at St. Paul’s but unwilling to return it to Cheapside, the city moved the produce market to Aldersgate Street in 1661 much to the chagrin of the gardeners as well as the recalcitrant costermongers. See Betty Rowena Masters, The Public Markets of the City of London Surveyed by William Leybourn in 1677 (London, 1974), p. 15. 49  The anonymous manuscript account refers to the fairgrounds at Whittingham as the “marketplace”, but Whittingham had no official weekly market. See British Library, MS Sloane 972, fols. 23–4. 46

35

Disaffection.indb 35

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

to Eslington, lands long in the possession of the Collingwood family prior to the civil wars. Though Hesilrige is best known for his role as a republican leader in the Rump Parliament, at the time he also gained notoriety for exploiting his political power to amass a large fortune in the north-east of England. Having failed to maintain the rights to Eslington in the courts, Hesilrige forcibly occupied the manor and terrorized local tenants who refused to recognize him as lord. Hesilrige’s bid to obtain manorial authority by forcing tenants to perform deference and subordination backfired when a crowd assaulted him and his associate in Eslington high street and challenged his right to perform the ritual opening of Whittingham’s fair. Extending the tussle outside of Northumberland, pamphleteers wove the narrative of this northern dispute into larger national discourses of tyranny, oppression and ancient rights. The everyday politics of domination, deference and subordination performed in the high street and market of this Northumberland manor intersected with the extraordinary circumstances wrought by civil war. The controversy first arose in 1640s when Sir Arthur Hesilrige attempted to claim Eslington manor based on his family’s previous ownership of the land. According to an anonymous “short relacon” of the conflict over Eslington that was clearly hostile to Hesilrige, marriage alliances and land transactions had connected the Collingwood and Hesilrige families during the reign of Henry VII. In 1542, Robert Collingwood purchased Eslington and Whittingham from Bertram Hesilrige. Sir Arthur’s father, Sir Thomas Hesilrige, allegedly renounced any right to these lands in the Court of Wards.50 After he achieved dominance in Northumberland while governor of Newcastle in the 1640s, Sir Arthur quickly convened a court to try his claim to part of the Collingwood manor. Hesilrige exploited the delinquency of Collingwood, who claimed he was unable to obtain counsel or evidence expediently in order to defend his right to the manor.51 The verdict granted Hesilrige the messuage and five acres of land, but, due to Collingwood’s delinquent status, the manor had to be sequestered and the ruling was given a writ of error.52 Frustrated by these circumstances, Hesilrige used his power within Parliament to establish a committee in order to retry the case to his own advantage. According to the “relacon”, rather than secure the original verdict of five acres, the committee granted Hesilrige “possession of the wholle Estate”, which was over a thousand acres and worth in excess of £500 per annum.53 At one point Collingwood was listed in an act for the sale of delinquents’ estates, and it is

  BL, MS Sloane 972, fols. 23–4.   Collingwood was ruled a delinquent by Parliament, a label that incorporated those who aided the Stuarts whether by force, money, or service from 1642 to 1660. 52  A messuage is “a portion of land occupied, or intended to be occupied, as the site for a dwelling house and its appurtenances”. See “messuage, n”. The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989) OED Online (Oxford, 1989). 53  BL, MS Sloane 972, fol. 23. 50 51

36

Disaffection.indb 36

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

possible that Hesilrige used his influence to slip Collingwood’s name into the act in order to evade the Committee for Compounding. This was precisely what the Leveller leader John Lilburne, a former lieutenant-colonel in the New Model Army, argued in his polemics against Hesilrige.54 While extensive battles waged in court over this estate in the late 1640s and early 1650s, Lilburne and John Musgrave published several pamphlets that protested against Hesilrige’s unabated power in the north. According to these men, Hesilrige’s seizure of Eslington was just one example of his many illegal and corrupt practices as governor of Newcastle. Musgrave, who exploited print skillfully to influence parliamentary politics, wrote a pamphlet to expose the “great and heavy Pressure and grievances” that oppress the “Well affected” of the northern counties due to “Sir Arthur Haslerig’s misgovernment”.55 Lilburne likewise masterfully manipulated the press to his political advantage. While in the tower in 1649 Lilburne crafted the pamphlet A Preparative To An Hue and Cry After Sir Arthur Haslerig, in which he also accused Hesilrige of tyrannical abuses of power for personal gain. According to Lilburne, Hesilrige “Feloniously and trayterously seised” men’s estates, “meerly by his own will”. Describing Hesilrige’s rule in the north as “the original Chaos of confusion”, Lilburne further asserted that Hesilrige upheld his power “by force of the sword and other tyrannicall Priviledges”.56 Despite the pretense of legality provided by court rulings in Hesilrige’s favor, Lilburne argued that he “hath in law and reason more deserved to dye then the Earl of Strafford did”.57 For Lilburne, Hesilrige’s arbitrary proceedings were fundamentally illegal and illegitimate. In a pamphlet devised to demonstrate Hesilrige’s arbitrary use of power in the north, Lilburne used the Collingwood manor as a specific example of Sir Arthur’s corruption. Among the many accusations Lilburne launched in his Iust Reproof to Haberdashers-Hall, he stated that the Commissioners of the Committee for Compounding were mere slaves to Hesilrige’s will. Further, Lilburne charged Hesilrige with having wrongfully usurped Lilburne’s brother Robert’s rightful place as governor of Newcastle in 1647 as well as lands from his uncle, George Lilburne.58 According to Lilburne, Hesilrige’s desire for the governorship grew from his intention to seize “some poor Ahab’s vineyard” since he could not obtain it “by Law nor equity”. It was here that Lilburne referenced “poor Mr. Collingwoods case”. Lilburne claimed that Hesilrige’s new   For more on the Levellers, see below, p. 57.   John Musgrave, A true and exact Relation of the great and heavy Pressure and grievances of the Well affected of the Northern bordering Counties lye under, by Sir Arthur Haslerig’s misgovernment, and placing in Authority there for JPs, Commissioners of Militia, Ministry and Sequestrations, Malignants and Men disaffected to the present Government… (London, 1650); Peacey, Print and Public Politics, pp. 289; 296. 56  John Lilburne, A Preparative To An Hue and Cry After Sir Arthur Haslerig… (London, 13 September 1649), 4, p. 15. 57  Ibid., p. 4. 58 Lilburne, Iust Reproof to Haberdashers-Hall… (London, 30 July 1651), pp. 4–5. 54 55

37

Disaffection.indb 37

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

office gave him the ability to “sit as Judge and party in his case”, and provided him with “Soldiers” to overawe those against him. He charged Hesilrige with having placed George Collingwood “into the Act for sale of Delinquents estates” in order to ensure Collingwood’s descendants would never be able to “recover their Inheritance again”.59 In January 1652, Parliament declared Lilburne’s allegations to be false and traitorous. Parliament risked damaging its legitimacy if it permitted Lilburne to accuse leading members of exercising tyranny with more zeal than the late king and his councilors. Consequently, Parliament ordered the pamphlet to be burnt and banished Lilburne from Britain.60 Protectorate officials re-evaluated Hesilrige’s claim to Eslington and its environs following his descent from power in 1653. According to the anonymous anti-Hesilrige “relacon”, a Mr. Overton discovered that Hesilrige had withheld the title to the Collingwood land, which was actually in the name of the Trustees for the Sale of Delinquent Estates. The Commissioners of Obstructions ordered a new trial to rule on the issue. The trial took place in Northumberland, and a jury, which the chronicler claimed was “of Sir Arthurs owne naminge”, gave a verdict in favor of the Collingwoods’ claim to the estate. Since the Collingwood estate had been confiscated for delinquency, the state’s trustees sold the land to one Robert Stapleton, a friend to the Collingwood family.61 After Cromwell’s expulsion of Parliament and Hesilrige’s denunciation of the Protectorate, several of Hesilrige’s political connections dissolved. His questionable claim to Eslington could no longer readily contend with the state’s own interest in Collingwood’s land. Having lost the legal rights to the manor, Hesilrige chose to seize it by force. With the assistance of Thomas Ogle, Hesilrige did his utmost to obstruct Stapleton’s purchase and possession of the Collingwood estate. Sir Arthur and his accomplices forcibly ejected Stapleton from the manor house. In response, Stapleton supposedly applied to the Lord Protector, requesting his interference in the matter. According to the anonymous chronicler, a committee called by Cromwell would judge that “the matter … tendeth much to the preiudice of Mr. Stapleton’s interest”.62 The relation of the various interests contending for control of the estate serves as an essential backdrop for the expansion of this struggle from courts, committees and pamphlets to local customary sites of authority. Though the order of the events leading up to the “unparralled riots” in Eslington and Whittingham remains murky, the surviving records all describe a series clashes – often violent – fought through the performance or non-performance   Ibid., p. 3; J. Crawford Hodgson, “On the Medieval and Later Owners of Eslington”, in Archaeologia Aeliana, Third Series, vi (1910), 29 fn. 99. 60  “House of Commons Journal Volume 7: 16 January 1652”, CJ Online, p. 73. 61  The sale of a delinquent’s lands to allies of the original owner was a frequent practice during the interregnum. 62  BL, MS Sloane 972, fol. 23b. 59

38

Disaffection.indb 38

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

of customary tenant–landlord relations. After Hesilrige lost legal support for his claims, he began to assume authority through his treatment of its tenants in earnest. Once he seized the messuage from Stapleton, Hesilrige and his agents regularly impounded the livestock of tenants who refused to pay him rent. In a direct rejection of Hesilrige’s claims, several tenants stormed the contested lands and forcibly rescued their property.63 Eventually both sides would take the conflict to key sites of social and economic exchange in the community. Unable to enforce the ruling against Hesilrige’s claim, a large crowd of Stapleton’s supporters allegedly accosted Sir Arthur Hesilrige and his accomplice, Thomas Ogle, in Eslington high street in early August 1657. Stapleton’s lawyer William Clennell, John and Robert Collingwood, roughly forty “yeomen” with a few of their “wives” and “diverse others” were charged in the Upper Bench with assaulting Hesilrige and Ogle in the street, beating and wounding the two so “that they were in dispaire of their lives”.64 The “yeoman” and “divers others” who joined the Stapleton–Collingwood supporters may well have included the tenants and laborers of the estate who Hesilrige had allegedly bullied into recognizing him as their landlord. The author of the anonymous “relacon” wrote a detailed description of Hesilrige’s behavior, which stated that Hesilrige threatened tenants “with killinge their cattle and burninge theire houses unles they would acknowledge him for Landlord”. One of the tenants who allegedly confronted Hesilrige declared that “they were honest” people and noted that if Hesilrige carried out his threats, the tenant “would begg to my Lord Protector on his knees for law against him” – a reflection of this tenant’s understanding of the law and Hesilrige’s violation of it. Hesilrige allegedly retorted, “My Lord Protector My Lord Kisse my arse” and impounded livestock from Stapleton’s tenants who would not acquiesce.65 The tenants who supported Stapleton over Hesilrige in the high street exercised popular justice within one of the community’s sites of authority. The record of the “assault” in the high street differs starkly from another report of an encounter between Hesilrige and the lawyer William Clennell. The anonymous “relacon” described a scene where Clennell approached Hesilrige “in a peaceful manner” in response to Hesilrige’s restraining of several tenants’ livestock. In response to Clennell’s questions, Hesilrige brandished a “double pistol” and asked for Collingwood since he wanted “the blood of gentlemen for the blood of gentlemen”, insinuating that Clennell’s accusations warranted a duel between the two factions. Clennell allegedly replied that he did not wish to fight, but that he must protect the “Common Wealth[’s]” interest in the estate, to which Hesilrige purportedly retorted “that those Trustees would sell any mans estate but neither warrant title nor   TNA, KB 9/876 fol. 141; KB 9/877 fol. 197; BL, MS Sloane 972, fol. 23b.   TNA, KB 9/876 fol. 135; KB 9/877 fol. 198. 65 Ibid. 63 64

39

Disaffection.indb 39

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

given possession”.66 Behind the apparent bias of the sources lies evidence of each side’s use not only of the courts, but also manorial sites of authority to affirm rival claims to Eslington and the Collingwood estate. Political uncertainty, arbitrary court proceedings and disregarded verdicts created a climate in which any legitimate claim to this estate became inextricably linked to the public performance of domination in the spaces of everyday life. Hesilrige’s endeavor to compel the estate’s inhabitants to recognize him as landlord reveals the power of these tenants to either enhance or damage Hesilrige’s claim through their refusal to submit to his will and perform deference. When supporters of Stapleton’s claim took to the high street to stage their rejection of Hesilrige’s authority, they exposed the significance of tenant allegiance and deference for the maintenance of legitimacy. In response to Hesilrige’s tyrannical actions, local inhabitants sought to legitimate their grievances through a public ritual of retribution against an arbitrary landlord. Confronting Hesilrige in the high street formed a part of this strategic act of popular justice. After failing to coerce the tenants into compliance Hesilrige resorted to garnering legitimacy by performing the role of manorial lord at Whittingham’s annual fair. Roughly three weeks following the “assault” in the high street, Hesilrige attempted to proclaim the fair’s opening according to “Ancient Custome”.67 Since approximately the thirteenth century, monarchs had granted lords the rights to fairs and markets, initially because they came with financial incentives. Long after many of the fiscal benefits of market rights had deteriorated, local lords continued to cling to these rights as symbols of their authority.68 Along with the original rights to the market, lords had obtained the right to ceremoniously “ride the fair”, a practice in which the lord of the manor or a representative processed with tenants through the village into the open market to inaugurate its opening.69 According to the author of the “relation”, Stapleton had demonstrated his rights to the fair the previous year when either he (or his agents) had “ridd and proclaymed the sayd fair”. The “relacon” further reported that prior to the 1657 fair, Hesilrige demanded of Stapleton’s lawyer if he intended again to “proclaime the fayre at Whittingham”. When the lawyer Clennell replied in the affirmative,   BL, MS Sloane 972, fol. 23b. The anonymous chronicler claims this confrontation happened on 17 August, so it is possible that this was a separate event that followed the riot dated 7 August in the records of the Upper Bench. 67  The court record from King’s Bench dates the high street assault on 7 August 1657, and Whittingham Fair traditionally began on 24 August, on St. Bartholomew’s Day. See KB 9/876 fol. 135, KB 9/877 fol. 198 and “The Village of Whittingham”, The Monthly Chronicle of North-Country Lore and Legend, 48 (1891), 80; Samantha Letters, Online Gazetteer of Markets and Fairs in England Wales to 1516. 68 James Masschaele, “The Public Space of the Marketplace in Medieval England”, Speculum, 77 (2002), 390–9, 413–14. 69  The anonymous narration of these events claims the fair took place in Whittingham’s marketplace, but it’s unclear whether or not a weekly market continued in the grounds in front of the parish church in the mid-seventeenth century. 66

40

Disaffection.indb 40

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

Hesilrige pronounced “in a most passionate manner” his own intention to “ryde the fayre or leave . . . blood upon the place”.70 Hesilrige’s determination to maintain the rights of the fair indicates he understood the importance of this symbolic display of power in the market grounds. The act of riding the fair had the potential to make Hesilrige the rightful manorial lord in the eyes of the community. Certain speech acts had the power to shift one’s position in society, and their successful performance enabled individuals to negotiate their social and political capital.71 As Andy Wood has argued, “who speaks, and who is listened to, is an indicator of who holds status and power in any given society”.72 Even for powerful men such as Sir Arthur Hesilrige, the temptation to manipulate power relations through speech and custom was hard to resist. Yet the success of Hesilrige’s attempt to “ryde the fair” hinged on the reception of the teams of tenants, farmers, wholesalers and other travelers attending the fair. For Hesilrige’s bid for power in Whittingham’s marketplace to succeed, his social inferiors would have to follow the “oratorical rules” and perform the deferential gestures that signified their subservience to his authority.73 In order to ensure his triumph, Hesilrige organized what the anonymous “relacon” termed a small “militia”. Hesilrige allegedly gathered men from the whole region, including some of his own tenants in Durham, as well as those of relatives and friends. Some members of his band, such as Captain Henry Ogle, were tried soldiers who had fought for Parliament in the 1640s. This reality is reflected in the “relacon”, which describes Hesilrige’s preparations as if he were waging war. The author claimed Hesilrige had weapons brought to him “in the night time” to arm “200 or thereabouts”, including “several officers of the Garisons of Barwicke” and further compared Hesilrige’s “Truncheon” to that of a general. According to the chronicler, as Hesilrige’s “troops” stood in the “marketplace” at dawn on the fair day, they were arranged “in a fighting posture”, which was revealed by “their Cloakes being tyed cross their shoulders”.74 Stapleton’s agents engaged tenants and neighbors to protest against Hesilrige’s attempted coup. Despite this resistance, Hesilrige refused to quit the “marketplace” until two local justices arrived and read the proclamation themselves, ordering anyone who came with the intent to “ryde” the fair to leave.75 This witness describes the scene as a battlefield rather than a market, yet this highlights how the fair was a figurative battlefield – not only for the struggle between Hesilrige and Stapleton, but also for the contest between Hesilrige and the tenants of this manor.   BL, MS Sloane 972, fol. 23.  Austin, How to Do Things with Words, p. 12. 72 Wood, The Memory of the People, p. 178. 73 Wood, The 1549 Rebellions, pp. 108–11, 119–22; Braddick, “Introduction: The Politics of Gesture”, pp. 9–35; Walter, “Gesturing at Authority”, pp. 101–8. 74  BL, MS Sloane 972, fol. 23. 75 Ibid. 70 71

41

Disaffection.indb 41

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Hesilrige’s portrayal of manorial lord at the fair starkly contrasted with his harassment of the tenantry. In the end, riding the fair at Whittingham marketplace alone could not affirm Hesilrige’s legitimacy. His pursuit of power through force violated established relations of domination and subordination, which irrevocably damaged his positions amongst the tenants.76 Those “honest” farmers who refused to recognize his claim did so in accordance with the law, yet Hesilrige continued to enforce it through the seizure of goods and threats of violence. Bound by the interaction order through which he claimed lordship, Hesilrige damaged his legitimacy when he ignored the customs and habits that shaped social relations in the manor and its environs.77 Following the fair, the contest for control of the manor remained unresolved. Hesilrige and his army of men did not have the authority to dictate which of the “Ancient” customs of the manor had political force and which could be readily ignored. Though the struggle for the manor had serious implications for its tenants, the contest over “riding the fair” questioned the relevance of this manorial custom in the connected economies of England’s markets and fairs.78 Most of the “country people” traveling to Whittingham relied on the annual fair to conduct the business of everyday life and to engage in the general merriment and opportunities to socialize such events offered.79 Buyers and sellers would travel vast distances to attend northern fairs – some over 70 miles – and local farmers organized their yearly calendars around such events.80 The justices’ banishment of those who gathered to ride the fair after two hours of confusion allowed the true business of fair to begin in earnest without the interference of either Hesilrige or Stapleton. Nevertheless, the scene brought the struggle for the estate before a much wider audience. Though Hesilrige’s efforts to dominate the fair proved futile, the struggle for the manor continued. Both the “relacon” and the records in the Upper Bench reveal that there were further episodes involving the impounding and rescuing of livestock.81 Clearly the court was unable to enforce Stapleton’s claim, yet Hesilrige was also unable to subdue the tenants who refused his demands for rent as well as deference. In reaction to their obstinacy in Whittingham, Hesilrige had over eighty of the tenants charged with riot and assault. In June 1658, the title to the manor was yet again debated in the Common Pleas. The case warranted mention in Marchamont Nedham’s Mercurius Politicus, which noted that this was the second verdict against   Braddick and Walker, “Introduction: Grids of Power”, p. 10.   Goffman, “The Interaction Order”; R.W. Bushway, “Rite, Legitimation and Community in Southern England, 1700–1850: the Ideology of Custom”, in Conflict and Community in Southern England: Essays in the Social History of Rural and Urban Labour from Medieval to Modern Times, ed. Barry Stapleton (New York, 1992), p. 115. 78  For more information on regional specialization of agriculture and agricultural fairs, see Everitt, “The Marketing of Agricultural Produce”, pp. 531–43. 79  Fernand Braudel, The Wheels of Commerce, tr. Sian Reynolds (New York, 1982), pp. 85, 90. 80  Everitt, “The Marketing of Agricultural Produce”, p. 539. 81  Ibid., ff. 23b–4; KB 9/876 fol. 149. 76 77

42

Disaffection.indb 42

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

Hesilrige’s claim. It is likely that the contest for control only ended after the Restoration. Indeed, the Commons’ journal states that there was a special “proviso” that declared part of Hesilrige’s estate forfeit on behalf of Cuthbert and George Collingwood in 1661.82 The battles waged outside of the courtroom demonstrate that popular conceptions of legality and legitimacy were also intimately linked to the performance of domination within communal and national sites of authority. Political uncertainty, arbitrary court proceedings, and disregarded verdicts created a climate in which the production of a legitimate claim to this estate required more than a jury’s ruling. Hesilrige’s endeavor to force the tenants of Eslington and Whittingham to acknowledge him as their landlord illustrates not only the tenants’ ability to contest his claims, but also their role in the creation of legitimacy. The exploitation of the high street of Eslington and the Whittingham market grounds to impose or contest authority over the Collingwood estate reveals the integral role of space for the expression and acquisition of power. Though at first glance the struggle over Eslington may appear to be a minor, localized conflict of relatively little significance, disaffected authors continued to use it as a representation of larger national problems pervading interregnum England. The rekindling of printed criticisms of Hesilrige following his return to power in the spring of 1659 illustrates his lingering unpopularity despite a respite in printed attacks after his fall from prominence earlier in the decade. Pamphleteers capitalized on Hesilrige’s reputation for tyranny in their satirical criticisms of the Rump Parliament, and molded him into a detestable character that encapsulated the failure of parliamentary rule. Lilburne’s diatribes, printed nearly a decade before, provided fodder for royalist and other disaffected authors who desired to demonstrate Hesilrige’s greed and abuse of power. In the new pamphlets, Hesilrige’s arbitrary policies in the north were again placed into a wider critique of the Rump Parliament. His character was repeatedly refashioned in political satire to suit the objectives of different pamphleteers, including their attempts to rewrite history by placing Hesilrige at the center of the regicide. These circumstances, coupled with Hesilrige’s notoriety, facilitated the construction of Hesilrige as a symbol of parliamentary tyranny and corruption. A major theme in anti-Hesilrige and anti-Rump political satire was Hesilrige’s unquenchable thirst for land and revenue. The author of the ballad Chipps of the Old Block chastised Hesilrige for his corruption: That Mine of fraud Sir Artur [sic] His Soul for Lands will barter; And if you ride to Hell in a Wayn, he’s fit to make your Carter.83   Mercurius Politicus (10–17 Jun. 1658), p. 602; CJ, vol. VIII, pp. 302–3; Roger Howell, Newcastle upon Tyne and the Puritan Revolution (Oxford, 1967), p. 192. 83  Alexander Brome, Chipps of the Old Block; or Hercules Cleansing the Augean Stable. To the Tune of, The Sword, in Ratts Rhimed to Death (London, 1659), p. 49. The ballad was also printed as a white-letter broadside in 1660. 82

43

Disaffection.indb 43

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Even use of the word “mine” is a direct reference to Hesilrige’s arbitrary behavior in the north as he had been accused of illegally confiscating coalmines in Durham.84 Using the popular literary genre of the mock dialogue, another anonymous author popularized the theme of Hesilrige as a gluttonous land robber. In this pamphlet written as a fictitious conversation between Hesilrige and Sir Henry Vane in the Tower, Hesilrige admitted to Vane that over the years “in Fraud, Deceit and Perjury” the two had acted together in “spreading our Vines and Clawes on any good and honest mans estate”. While contemplating their fate, Vane asked Hesilrige if he would consider ransoming his estate for his freedom, to which Hesilrige replied, “No, no Sir Henry I had rather give my life for my estate first”.85 Another pamphleteer who printed a mock dialogue between Hesilrige and the executioner Esquire Dun also made reference to Hesilrige’s insatiable desire for land. In a play on the word Commonwealth, Dun charged Hesilrige with having “made every ones wealth common to yourself”. Hesilrige retorted that he “could not help it”, stating that he “could have swallowed Mountains, for England was too little for my horses”.86 Once again Hesilrige’s usurpation of the Collingwood estate served as a definitive example of Hesilrige’s greed and corruption. According to several pamphleteers, Hesilrige’s struggle for domination of this estate evinced his abuse of power, his disregard for the rule of law and his tendency to behave tyrannically. These crimes are outlined in Sir Arthur Hasilrig’s Mediations, a broadside written from Hesilrige’s perspective. The author has Hesilrige refer his readers “to Mr. Collingwood’s case” for evidence of his lust for land. Hesilrige declares that he “ruined” Collingwood despite both “Olivers Nose” and the fact that there had been “Verdict upon Verdict” against him. Another pamphleteer wrote as Hesilrige in Sir Arthur Hesilrigs Lamentation, and Confession. The author directs his audience to Hesilrige’s appropriation of Collingwood’s estate, and has Hesilrige divulge his reasons for his deep hatred of Collingwood: I confess that I hated that man worse then the devil himself, because he made resistance against me, and would not let me take his Estate from him calmly and patiently, as a good Christian ought to have done.87

A different pamphlet that also alludes to the contest for this Northumberland estate further details Hesilrige’s violent and vindictive behavior. In Sir Arthur Haselrig’s Last Will and Testament, Hesilrige refers to his behavior towards an  See John Hedworth, The Oppressed Man’s Out-Cry… (London, 1651); Howell, Newcastle upon Tyne, p. 193. 85 T.H., Haslerig & Vain, Or, A Dialogue Between them at their severall Conference in the Tower of London… (London, July 1660), pp. 4, 7. 86  The Hang-mans Lamentation For the Losse of Sir Arthur Haslerig Being a Dialogue between Esquire Dun, and Sir Arthur Haslerig… (London, 1660), p. 7. 87  Sir Arthur Hesilrigs Lamentation, and Confession: Upon his being Voted from Sitting in this Long-expected Parliament, Feb. 21. 1660 (London, 1660). 84

44

Disaffection.indb 44

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

adversary whom Hesilrige has kept in the courts for so long that “the recovery of his Estate will scarcely countervaile the expensive charge of his Suit”. Hesilrige continued, declaring “my resolution was not onely to crush him with my purse, who I could not conquer by the equitable Rule of Law: But out of my vindicative spirit … I publickly vowed to intail that Suit upon my Heir forever”. The author also refers to Hesilrige’s “oppression of Tenants”, which has aided in making him “odious to all”. 88 All of these writers employed the dispute over the Collingwood estate as a prime example of Hesilrige’s use of tyranny, violence and intimidation and his violation of the rule of law to satisfy his desire for wealth and power. Moreover, these pamphlets exposed the impotency of the Commonwealth and Protectorate courts of law when power was in the hands of arbitrary rulers. The conflict between Sir Arthur Hesilrige, the Collingwood faction and the tenants of the disputed manor uncovers several dimensions of the contestation over social and political power during the interregnum. First, Hesilrige’s arbitrary exploitation of the legal system, as well as the failure of the courts to enforce their verdict, illustrates not only that legality was contested, but also that it did not necessarily provide legitimacy to one’s claims. As a result, the courts alone could not lend legitimacy to one’s authority, and thus Hesilrige, the tenants, and the rival landowners all sought to legitimate their demands within the street and marketplace – sites traditionally associated with the manifestation of power. Finally, the case reveals how a localized, seemingly insignificant contest over authority garnered broader significance once it became a part of national dialogue. The interplay between these local conflicts and their representations in print constantly reaffirmed popular criticisms, and the refocusing of popular grievances onto Hesilrige’s infamous character fostered the transmission of localized discontent into national political discourse. The Everyday in the Extraordinary: Proclaiming Authority As Sir Arthur Hesilrige and the London costermongers knew well, the use of streets and marketplaces to negotiate or contest power relations was steeped in history.89 During the high Middle Ages, English monarchs increasingly made use of the marketplace and major thoroughfares to proclaim new policies and initiatives. At rural and urban markets across the kingdom, mayors and sheriffs solemnly read proclamations that were designed to court public opinion as well as to inform the populace of important events or political initiatives.90 By the early modern period, the ceremonious reading of proclamations on market days had become customary. In cities across the   Sir Arthur Haselrig’s Last Will and Testament… (London, 1661), pp. 4–5.   Masschaele, “The Public Space of the Marketplace”, pp. 385–8. 90  Ibid., p. 388. 88 89

45

Disaffection.indb 45

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

country, mayors and aldermen would don their regalia and solemnly march through the streets to the market cross at the height of a market day, where they chanted proclamations before their diverse audience. Official views of the custom dictated a passive role for spectators, but this silence formed a part of the burgeoning state-building edifice. Not only did the early modern state use streets and marketplaces to communicate policies to the public, but it also used them as sites through which it might legitimate decrees in order to ensure participation in their implementation and enforcement at the local level. Without a professional police force, it was far simpler for officials to govern through consent and cooperation. Throughout the interregnum, Commonwealth and Protectorate officials emulated customary rites of power in the streets and marketplaces to attain legitimacy.91 As each successive regime struggled to assert its dominance through rituals of authority such as ceremonial proclamations, processions and public punishments it risked rejection or even imitation in the streets and marketplaces of England. Unable to control spaces that were defined by countless individual acts and experiences, the Commonwealth and Protectorate struggled to exert their political will. In their bids for authority, several policies and practices of interregnum officials endeavored to contain and control discourse in the spaces of everyday life – to regulate and eliminate speech acts that threatened to undermine the order upon which their newfound legitimacy rested. As Peter Lake and Michael Questier argue in their examination of the Elizabethan state’s public execution of Catholics, the spectators of these performances of authority “were often more or less free to play their parts according to their own reading of the script”.92 The actions of individuals and factions who manipulated the government’s customary use of space and ritual eroded the symbolic dominance of local and state officials. As a result, no one power could effectively present itself as absolute within these spaces. Those who questioned the legitimacy of the Commonwealth,

  For an analysis of use of ritual and symbols during the interregnum, see Kevin Sharpe, Image Wars: Promoting Kings and Commonwealth, 1603–1660 (New Haven, CT, 2010); Sean Kelsey, Inventing a Republic: The Political Culture of the English Commonwealth 1649– 1653 (Stanford, CA, 1997). 92  Peter Lake and Michael Questier, Anti-Christ’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists, and Players in Post-Reformation England (New Haven, CT, 2002), p. 274. See also Lake and Questier, “Agency, Appropriation and Rhetoric under the Gallows: Puritans, Romanists and the State in Early Modern England”, Past and Present, 153:1 (1996), 64–107 and “Puritans, Papists, and the ‘Public Sphere’ in Early Modern England: The Edmund Campion Affair in Context”, The Journal of Modern History, 72:3 (2000), 587–627; Thomas W. Laqueur, “Crowds, Carnival and the State in English Executions, 1604–1688”, in The First Modern Society, ed. A.L. Beier, David Cannadine and James M. Rosenheim (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 305–55; J.A. Sharpe, “‘Last Dying Speeches’: Religion, Ideology and Public Execution in Seventeenth-Century England”, Past and Present, 107:1 (1985), 144–67; Harding, “Cheapside, Commerce, and Commemoration”, p. 77. 91

46

Disaffection.indb 46

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

Protectorate and Committee of Safety threatened to undermine the force of official proclamations in these spaces of everyday life.93 What was the relationship between state performance of power and the subtle acts of defiance within the streets and marketplaces of interregnum England? This final section considers how the Commonwealth, Protectorate and Committee of Safety’s extraordinary claims to power enacted in these sites clashed with subversive speech acts, that – however subtle, fleeting or local – unearthed the fragility of regimes whose pretense to power emanated from the will of the commonality. By delving into extraordinary moments that transformed everyday interactions between the state and society it investigates the extent to which people exploited the social and political authority embedded in these sites in order to legitimate their grievances. Ordinary and extraordinary expressions of disaffection exposed the state’s inability to maintain physical, discursive and ideological control in the spaces of everyday life. During periods of intense political instability, performances of resistance crippled the reputation of the state, provoked further alienation and amalgamated multiple layers of disaffection. These public acts of discontent unsettled the prevailing power relations within these everyday spaces – actions that at times, as in 1660, facilitated major political transformation. Proclaiming the Commonwealth The problems inherent in creating legitimacy through proclamation did go not unnoticed by Commonwealth authorities following the execution of Charles I in January 1649. On the very same day as Charles’s execution, Parliament put out an act prohibiting anyone from proclaiming Prince Charles – or anyone else – king of England, Scotland or Ireland.94 Retaining control over proclamations was central to the immediate success of the Commonwealth, and anyone who dared deny Parliament’s authority by violating the act would be judged a traitor. The state provided instructions to provincial and civic authorities that detailed its expectations for the act’s proclamation and posting within England’s communities. The moment of its utterance was a symbolic moment as well as one rife with possibilities of failure. As local officials diligently approached the market cross with the proclamation in hand, the new Commonwealth was staking its claim to rule. By mimicking the rituals of power recognizable to the English people – using the language, 93 According to certain socio-linguistic theories “performative utterances” must be performed successfully to acquire force. See, for example, Bach and Harnish on J.L. Austin’s and John Searle’s conceptions of performativity and illocutionary speech acts. Austin, How to Do Things with Words; John Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge, MA, 1969); Bach and Harnish, Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts (Cambridge, MA, 1979). See also Judith Butler, Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative (New York, 1997). 94  A & O, I, pp. 1263–4.

47

Disaffection.indb 47

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

gesture and sites associated with authority – civic and local officials imbued the act with a semblance of legitimacy. Assessing the public’s response to the proclamation is difficult to gauge. Reports of its reception in the market towns across the country are scarce. Authorities in Ludlow dutifully recorded the proclamation of the act without reference to the town’s response.95 No large-scale revolts appear to have been initiated, and the new Commonwealth did not face organized, armed resistance. Nevertheless, some individuals chose to deny or even defy Parliament’s proclamation of the act despite the threat of prosecution. In light of the risks involved for those who chose outright defiance as their method of dissent, it is important that we look closely at their acts of resistance to see how those with little power or agency attempted to assert their position. In communities across England the market cross was a site of power within the everyday space of the marketplace. The cross was far more than a religious symbol – it represented the intersections between local, regional and national economic and political power. Proclamations, the performance of penance and postings on the cross itself signified the shared experience of authority in communities across the nation.96 According to one pamphleteer, when news of the king’s death reached Bristol some “discontented” people grumbled that they would “proclaim the Prince”, but once the act prohibiting such an utterance was read at the market cross “they forbare to act any thing further”.97 York’s Court of Alderman directed its sergeants to enforce the act prohibiting the proclaiming of a king, but the order was subsequently “scribbled out”.98 When the very same act against proclaiming a king reached Exeter, it was also dutifully read with little to no resistance – at first. Officials then posted the printed act on the market cross to ensure the entire city encountered and observed the revolutionary legislation.99 According to The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, the following evening several people returned to the site and tore it down, and they replaced the act with “a Libell inveighing much against the proceeds of the Army and the Parliament”. The libel allegedly concluded by stating “God save King Charles the Second” in direct rejection of the state’s act.100 The fact that this deed was done in the “dead” of night demonstrates officials’ ability to curb dangerous speech within the marketplace; however, the public nature of this protest, though done in some secrecy, reveals the limits of their power. At Durham in January 1650, a newsbook recounted a similar posting of a declaration of Charles as king on the cross during a market day. Further,  Peacey, Print and Public Politics, p. 82.   Postles, “The Marketplace as Space”, pp. 41–3; Fiona Williamson, Social Relations and Urban Space: Norwich, 1600–1700 (Woodbridge, 2014), p. 195. 97  The Kingdomes Faithfull and Impartiall Scout, no. 2 (2–9 Feb. 1649), p. 13. 98  Phil Withington, “Urban Citizens and England’s Civil Wars”, in The Oxford Handbook of the English Revolution, ed. Mike Braddick (Oxford, 2015), p. 323. 99 Peacey, Print and Public Politics, pp. 82–3. 100  The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer (6–13 Feb. 1649), p. 1251. 95 96

48

Disaffection.indb 48

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

the counter-proclamation also contained a threat against anyone who dared “to oppose himself against his Sacred Majesty”.101 While the Commonwealth’s proclamation proved the more potent speech act, the disaffected persons who affixed libels on the market crosses at Exeter and Durham appropriated the same customary rituals, forms and sites to legitimate their counter-proclamation. Those who stealthily posted anonymous libels often eluded authorities and escaped retributive punishment, and the practice became increasingly prevalent during the 1640s and 1650s.102 Textual proclamations of Charles II affixed to the market cross manipulated official language and practices to project authority despite the very limited amount of power their authors possessed. Representations of defiant counterproclamations within newsbooks, whether grounded in rumor or reality, could offer comfort and community to loyalist readers and provoke concern in the Commonwealth’s faithful supporters. By relating tales of these individualized acts of dissent, royalist authors attempted to craft a united, royalist public that was both real and imaginary. The Council of State and local authorities recognized the potency of such performances when it ordered local and army officials to suppress any signs of opposition to this and other vital proclamations. According to a royalist newsbook, the town of Preston, Lancashire, remained under government surveillance after Colonel Walton and several men proclaimed Charles king of England “with much joy, and no opposition” within the marketplace in July 1649.103 In March 1650 the Council of State wrote to the assize judges demanding that they prosecute those who resisted “the Sheriffe and his Officers in the proclamation of some late Acts of Parliament”. The letter described such actions as “of a very high nature of very ill Example and a dangerous tendency”. In response, the Council required Colonel Birch to imprison the offenders and the judges to proceed “effectually” against them.104 Other local authorities were pressed to root out royalist opposition, as was the case in January 1650 at Blandford, Somerset, when several men who proclaimed Charles II were taken into custody.105 Ministers and officials from Exeter similarly provoked authorities when they refused to proclaim the act for the observance of a fast day. In response, army officers from the garrison forced the crier to read the act publicly in the marketplace.106 The case of the four men who stumbled before the market cross in New Malton presents another example of the existence and importance of proclamations on behalf   A Perfect Diurnall of Some Passages and Proceedings of, and in Relation to, the Armies in England and Ireland (14–21 Jan. 1650), p. 48. 102 Peacey, Print and Public Politics, p. 87; E.P. Thompson, “The Crime of Anonymity”, in Albion’s Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England, ed. D. Hay, P. Linebaugh, J. Rule, E.P. Thompson and C. Winslow (New York, 1975), p. 225. 103  Mercurius Carolinus, no. 1 (19–26 Jul. 1649). 104  TNA, SP 25/95 fol. 41. 105 Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, p. 263. 106  A Perfect Diurnall, no. 28 (17–24 Jun. 1650). 101

49

Disaffection.indb 49

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

of Charles II. Little was done to the offenders until local and national authorities became directly involved.107 Communities that refused to declare state acts, punish those who disrespected these rituals and report those who defied them risked losing local power to both the state and its army.108 State authorities attempted to fabricate a sense of unity and complicity by using state and local forces to root out the creation of an alienated or disaffected public centered at the market cross. The nascent Commonwealth highly valued and protected the connections between language, ritual, space and legitimacy. Consider the case of the proclamation of the abolition of the monarchy in London. Though the Commonwealth immediately released an act forbidding the proclamation of a monarch following the execution of Charles I, it was almost two months after the regicide before the Commons confirmed the act abolishing the monarchy on 17 March 1649.109 As usual, the Commons ordered this act to be proclaimed in London at the “Places where Proclamations are usually made” as well as in all “Market Towns” throughout the nation.110 Through these conduits of information this momentous act would be promulgated across the nation in what was designed to be a shared experience of revolution within England’s market communities. Parliament commanded Abraham Reynardson, the Lord Mayor of London, to be present at the proclamation in the city, and asked him to provide them an “Account” of the “proceedings”.111 Following protocol, Parliament desired to use the Mayor as its mouthpiece for the act within London as it would demonstrate the city’s adherence to the new Commonwealth imbue the proclamation with legitimacy. The act’s declaration in London became problematic immediately. After Reynardson failed to proclaim the act in a timely fashion, Parliament summoned him to the House. Standing before the Commons, Reynardson claimed that he could not publish the act abolishing the monarchy in good conscience due to the oaths he had taken when he entered the Mayoralty, in which he pledged his allegiance to the king.112 In response, Reynardson was removed from office, heavily fined and committed to the Tower. The controversy was published in several newsweeklies, and those with royalist sympathies derided civic officials for supporting a government that had usurped their power.113 Reynardson justified his stance in a short pamphlet, The   TNA, ASSI 45/4/1 fol. 40.   For a similar, though more extreme, example of the coercion of local society following the burning of the 1681 Test Act in Lanark, Scotland, see Tim Harris, Restoration: Charles II and His Kingdoms, 1660–1685 (London, 2005), pp. 361–3. 109  A & O, II, p. 20. 110  The Impartiall Intelligencer, no. 4 (21–28 Mar. 1649). 111  CJ, vol. VI, pp. 176–7; A Perfect Summary of Exact Passages of Parliament, no. 9 (20–27 Mar. 1649). 112  For example, the Oath of Supremacy and the Oath of Allegiance to the King. 113 See The Impartiall Intelligencer, no. 4 (21–28 Mar. 1649); A Perfect Summary of and exact Dyarie of some passages of Parliament, no. 10 (26 Mar.–2 Apr. 1649). 107 108

50

Disaffection.indb 50

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

Vindication of Abraham Reinaldson, in which he claimed the act abolishing the monarchy was contrary to law.114 The oratorical void left by the unperformed ritual, despite the availability of the proclamation in print, allowed publishers and authors to fill the streets with contrary noise and murmurs about the state of the new Commonwealth. The Commonwealth’s failure to proclaim publicly the abolition of the monarchy in London at the sites of authority signifies the competing interests and lack of ideological unification that plagued the first months of the republic. The largest threat posed to the new Commonwealth came not from plotting royalists, but rather its own ranks. The execution of Charles had not been popular with the Presbyterian faction and even amongst certain Independent parliamentarian leaders. Moreover, the Levellers, who had supported the creation of a republic, had become alienated from the new Commonwealth. The Levellers, a varied and informal group of radicals, argued for liberty of conscience, popular sovereignty, an expanded franchise and individual rights such as freedom of the press and equality before the law.115 In their stance against the Commonwealth, the Levellers and their leaders consistently took to the streets and marketplaces to criticize the new regime’s authoritarianism and violation of rights and liberties such as due process. Long before the revolution the Leveller leader John Lilburne, the same man who wrote against Hesilrige’s tyranny, used the power of print and its strategic dissemination within sites of authority to garner support. Back in 1637, Parliament accused Lilburne of assisting in the sale and dissemination of slanderous, puritan books and tried him in the highly unpopular Court of the Star Chamber. The court found Lilburne guilty and sentenced him to be stripped to the waist and whipped from the Fleet to Westminster. During his procession, Lilburne obtained public support for his cause due to widespread dislike of the Star Chamber. Crowds gathered throughout Lilburne’s painful march, shouting words of comfort and support. One account claims that Lilburne seized this opportunity to pronounce his innocence and condemn those that had charged him.116 After Lilburne reached the Palace Yard at Westminster, he had to face standing in the pillory. Defying this punishment by using the Yard as sound stage to preach his plight to spectators, Lilburne criticized the Star Chamber as well as the existence of bishops before he was gagged. Even after being silenced, Lilburne allegedly shoved his hands into his pockets and pulled out pamphlets that he tossed into the crowd.117 Not 114  Abraham Reynardson, The Vindication of Abraham Reinaldson, the Late Mayor of the City of London (London, 1649), p. 2; Sharpe, Image Wars, p. 457. 115  For a thorough discussion of the Levellers’ political ideology, see Rachel Foxley, The Levellers: Radical Political Thought in the English Revolution (Manchester, 2013); Hill, The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution (London, 1972), chapters 3 and 7. 116  John Lilburne, The Christian Mans Triall… (London, 1641). 117  Pauline Gregg, Free-Born John, A Biography of John Lilburne, 2nd ed. (London, 2001), p. 66.

51

Disaffection.indb 51

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

only did Lilburne’s rejection of the role of the penitent deviant alter the meaning of the state’s ritual, but also the audience’s acceptance of Lilburne’s performance interfered with the state’s efforts to legitimate its authority over the press, and more significantly, religious ideology.118 By the time the Commonwealth ordered the proclamation of the act abolishing the monarchy, the Levellers had already engaged in a largescale public campaign to support their vision for the new republic. They became quickly disillusioned with the Commonwealth once it was clear the Commons would not act upon many of the constitutional changes the Levellers proposed. In the winter and spring of 1649, Lilburne and several other Levellers turned to the press and to the streets and marketplaces to articulate their grievances with the Commonwealth. In February, The Moderate printed a petition from a group of “well-affected Officers and Souldiers” that demanded changes, such as law reform and the abolition of tithes, for which they had risked their lives. They also protested against their role as a policing agency charged with enforcing press censorship.119 At the end of February, John Lilburne presented Parliament with his latest pamphlet and petition, Englands New Chains Discovered. As the title suggests, this treatise condemned the new government’s failure to embrace many of the Levellers’ doctrines articulated in The Agreement of the People.120 In Englands New Chains, Lilburne demanded a guarantee that the monarchy and the House of Lords would never be re-established. He railed against the recently constituted High Court of Justice, the impressment of seamen, and the fact that the new Council of State held supreme power over the nation. Lilburne also called for the elimination of tithes, the excise and customs and for the loosening of censorship. Many of Lilburne’s criticisms were articulated in the streets and marketplaces of England by followers who pushed his ideas to extreme conclusions. In a petition to the Commons that wrongly was referred to as “Lieut. Col. John Lilburns”, troopers radicalized Lilburne’s message in Englands New Chaines, using the Leveller leader as a legitimating symbol in their attempts to foment rebellion. Multiple newsbooks claimed several Levellers north of London entered Hitchin on 8 March and placed their petitions “upon posts, and reading them at the market places, making speeches to the people exhorting them to joyne with them, disswading them from paying excise before the faces of those that appeared to receive them”.121 The royalist newsbook Mercurius 118  For a similar argument about the Elizabethan state’s treatment of Catholics, see Lake and Questier, “Puritans, Papists, and the ‘Public Sphere’”, p. 590. 119  The Moderate, no. 33 (20–27 Feb. 1649), pp. 322–3. 120  John Lilburne, Englands New Chaines Discovered (London, 1649); An Agreement of the People for a firme and present Peace, upon grounds of common right and freedome… (London, 1647); An Agreement of the People of England, and the places therewith incorporated, for a secure and present peace, upon grounds of common right, freedom and safety (London, 1649). 121  The Moderate Intelligencer, no. 208 (8–15 Mar. 1649), p. 1935; The Kingdoms Faithful and Impartiall Scout, no. 7 (9–16 Mar. 1649), p. 48.

52

Disaffection.indb 52

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

Pragmaticus also remarked that Lilburne had sent “some pockey Saints” to post and proclaim his “Addresses” in the market towns within Berkshire and Hampshire as well as Hertfordshire.122 Though these accounts took place outside of London, the newsbooks detailing the events would have circulated through London’s streets, markets and victualing houses. In an attempt to prevent troopers from crafting public petitions critical of the Commonwealth, the Council of the Army declared that officers alone were allowed to present petitions. Further, when a small group of soldiers protested against this order, the Council punished these malcontents in a public display just outside of London as an example to other troopers. According to The Moderate, the Council sentenced “four of them . . . to ride the Horse, with their faces to the Tayl, and their swords to be broke over their heads, and to be cashiered from the Army”.123 Using customary official rites of power, this punishment, which was carried out in the Palace Yard at Westminster, was the Council’s attempt to reassert its control and dominance over the army, both physically and ideologically. Just as the Commons produced its new act abolishing the monarchy the legitimacy of the Commonwealth’s proceedings was once again under public scrutiny following the publication of two Leveller tracts: The Hunting of the Foxes from New-Market and Tripole Heaths to Whitehall and, more significantly, The Second Part of Englands New Chaines. Much like Englands New Chains, both pamphlets were crafted to garner support from the rank-andfile within the army and the public – particularly the middling sort. In The Second Part of Englands New Chaines Lilburne and his co-authors launched a determined attack on the Council of the Army in addition to reiterating the grievances outlined in his earlier version. On Sunday 24 March, Lilburne read this new tract before a crowd outside his Southwark home and then proceeded to march his petition through the streets to Whitehall – actions and gestures which guaranteed a large, engaged audience.124 Parliament immediately declared the tract to be “false, scandalous, and reproachful” as well as “highly seditious, and destructive to the present Government”.125 The pamphlet received in-depth coverage in The Moderate, as did the government’s reactions. The Council of the State published a declaration against the “scandalous book” and its treasonous authors and ordered the sergeantin-arms to proclaim this statement in Cheapside, at the New Exchange, in Southwark and at the Spittle in an attempt to neutralize its impact. The Council further ordered Sergeant Dendy to search that night’s post for any

  Mercurius Pragmaticus, no. 46 (13–20 Mar. 1649), p. 4.   The Moderate, no. 34 (27 Feb.–6 Mar. 1649), p. 346; Perfect Occurrences of Every Daies Journall, no. 114 (2–9 Mar. 1649), p. 861. 124 Gregg, Free-Born John, pp. 268–9; Peacey, Print and Public Politics, p. 78. 125  CJ, vol. vi, pp. 174–5. 122 123

53

Disaffection.indb 53

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

copies.126 As Londoners awaited the proclamation abolishing the monarchy, they instead encountered the ongoing struggles between the nascent republic and its former allies and public critics, the Levellers. Indeed, it was the very same week Parliament grappled with Mayor Abraham Reynardson’s refusal to read its declaration abolishing the monarchy that the Council of State imprisoned the Leveller leaders.127 As the city arose early in the morning on 28 March, soldiers went to the home of Leveller leaders Lilburne, Richard Overton, Thomas Prince and William Walwyn and brought them through the streets to Whitehall for suspicion of having authored The Second Part of Englands New Chaines. The men would be imprisoned shortly after the Council examined them, but even from the Tower Leveller leaders would publish a scathing indictment of this latest violation of their rights in The Picture of the Council of State, Held Forth to the Free People of England.128 The Baptist William Kiffin retaliated by attacking Leveller ideology through an assault on William Walwyn’s character. Kiffin used sexual slander to undermine Walwyn’s legitimacy – accusing him, amongst other things, of adultery – but Kiffin also criticized Walwyn for “blowing up [the] spirits” of the “indigent and poorer sort of men” by giving “dayly discourses of the pressures, burthens, rates, and taxes, of the poor people of this Nation”.129 Lilburne, Prince, Overton and Walwyn acted to fill the oratorical void left by the yet undeclared proclamation abolishing the monarchy with their own petitions, pamphlets and declarations that decried the arbitrary actions of the Commonwealth and its Army Council. Though the imprisonment of these leaders was a major blow to the movement, Levellers continued to take their grievances to the streets and marketplaces of London in defiance of Parliament, the Council of State and the Army Council. On 14 April, the four prisoners released A Manifestation as refutation of their enemies’ charges and a vindication of their positions.130 The violent seizure of the Leveller leaders also provoked outrage amongst many quarters, including Leveller women who famously petitioned Parliament for their release. The outset of their petition explains why, despite social conventions, the women were “no longer” willing “to sit in silence” while their   A declaration of the Commons assembled in Parliament against a scandalous book entituled, The second part of Englands new chains discovered (London, March 1649); “Volume 1: March 1649”, in CSPD Online, 24–65. 127  CJ, vol. vi, pp. 177–8. 128  The Picture of the Councel of State, Held Forth to the Free People of England by Lievt. Col. John Lilburn, Mr Thomas Prince, and Mr Richard Overton, Now Prisoners in the Tower of London (London, 1649). 129 William Kiffin, Walwins Wiles: or the Manifestators Manifested viz. Liev. Col. John Lilburn, Mr Will. Walwin, Mr Richard Overton, and Mr Tho. Prince… (London, 1649), p. 15; Hughes, Gender and the English Revolution, p. 106. 130 William Walwyn, A Manifestation from Lieutenant Col. John Lilburn, Mr. William Walwyn, Mr. Thomas Prince, and Mr. Richard Overton (now Prisioners [sic] in the Tower of London) and Others, Commonly (Though Unjustly) Styled Levellers (London, April 1649). 126

54

Disaffection.indb 54

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

“children hang upon [them], and cry out for bread”.131 The women claimed an “equal share and interest” in the fate of “the Commonwealth”, but their rhetoric claimed it was their inability to perform normative roles as wives and mothers in “honest households” that motivated them to petition Parliament. The petitioners’ sufferings derived not only from the persecution of their men, but also from the decay in trade, the spread of famine, the burdens of tithes and the excise and the continuation of monopolies. Though the women framed their petition within language that modeled their adherence to traditional gender roles, their more radical claims for participatory rights – including the right to petition – broke from the patriarchal code governing women’s conduct. 132 The Commons scoffed at the women’s petition and asked them to return to housewifery, but rather than obey the women crafted a second petition that denounced the arbitrary practices of the current regime that impinged on their ability to conduct the business of everyday life. The women described with horror the experience of having soldiers invade one’s home and forcibly drag their husbands from their beds while their wives and children looked on in fright. The oppressive acts of the Commonwealth made their homes “worse than Prisons” and their “Lives worse than death”, for the women feared that their “children and families” might face the very same “unjust cruelties” as the Leveller leaders.133 Though the women’s petitions were the most controversial, other supporters also printed petitions on behalf of the four prisoners that circulated around London and elsewhere. According to The Moderate – a pro-Leveller newsbook – one petition received 10,000 signatures. In a printed petition purported to be from “divers youth” and “apprentices” around London, the supplicants decried the arbitrary use of soldiers to imprison the Leveller leaders and demanded that the prisoners be tried according to the laws of England without any further violation of their rights and privileges.134 The petitioning campaign was not the only Leveller agitation to permeate London’s streets in April. A small munity broke out at the Bull Inn in Bishopsgate when a regiment of troop refused to march from the city to be sent to Ireland without being paid their arrears. Though six soldiers were condemned to death, Cromwell obtained pardons for all except Robert Lockier, a former Agitator and known Leveller.135 The mutiny and Lockier’s   To the Supream Authority of this Nation, the Commons Assembled in Parliament: The Humble Petition of Divers Wel-affected Women Inhabiting the Cities of London, Westminster, the Borough of Southwark, Hamblets, and Places Adjacent (London, 1649), p. 3. 132  Ibid., pp. 4–6; Hughes, Gender and the English Revolution, pp. 57–60. 133  To the Supream Authority of England The Commons Assembled in Parliament, The Humble Petition of Divers Wel-affected WEOMEN (London, 1649). 134  To the Supreme Authority of the Nation, the Commons of England, Assembled in Parliament, In behalf of Lieut. Coll. John Lilburn (London, 1649); The Moderate, no. 40 (10–17 April 1649), p. 424. 135 Agitators represented rank-and-file soldiers during the debates of the New Model Army. 131

55

Disaffection.indb 55

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

execution at St. Paul’s churchyard were two other contested public spectacles quickly exploited by the Levellers, who staged an elaborate funeral procession in the streets of London on 27 April.136 Lockier posthumously gained fame for condemning the court-martial as illegal and tyrannical in a time of peace. His speeches were printed in a short pamphlet comparable to those narrating the last dying speeches of royalists who had been executed.137 Lockier’s funeral was far more lavish than the usual ceremony for a soldier of his low rank. According to two separate newsbooks, over 2,000 troops and citizens attended the procession, while the pro-Leveller intelligencer The Moderate placed the number at roughly 4,000.138 Following regal tradition trumpets announced the funeral procession as men and women advanced to the new churchyard at St. Paul’s where others had already gathered to mourn Lockier. The formation of the funeral march was also customary, with the female mourners stationed at the rear of the procession as the Levellers continued to use the rituals of public display to lend the procession legitimacy. This performance positioned the Levellers in opposition to the state’s arbitrary policies while tying the soldiers’ grievances to their cause. Several Leveller sympathizers, keen to elicit memories of the Leveller leader Colonel Rainsborough’s funeral a year before, adorned themselves with green ribbons in order “to be distinguished from common mourners”.139 By designing this elaborate funeral for a soldier of low rank within the streets of London, these Levellers’ usurped rituals of authority to criticize the state. The intended subversion was not lost on many spectators, one of whom, according to The Moderate, stated that the funeral “was a high Affront to Parliament and Army”.140 The Council of the Army’s decision to execute Lockier had only served to provoke the already agitated soldiers. Before this most recent act of perceived tyranny, many troopers in Somerset had harbored grievances over lack of pay and the continued imprisonment of Lilburne and his fellow Levellers.141 The Leveller soldier William Thompson composed a declaration that presented a combination of various growing complaints within the rank and file. In Englands Standard Advanced, Thompson railed against the present Parliament and declared that the Council of State and the High Court of Justice were tyrannical bodies that had usurped Parliament’s rightful power. Englands Standard claimed that these authorities “oppresse, torment and vex the   The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, no. 309 (24 Apr.–1 May 1649), pp. 1342–3; Ian Gentles, “Political Funerals during the English Revolution”, in London and the Civil War, ed. Stephen Porter (New York, 1996), pp. 218–20. 137  Gentles, “Political Funerals”, p. 220. 138  The Moderate, no. 42 (24 Apr.–1 May 1649), p. 438; The Impartiall Intelligencer, no. 9 (25 Apr.–1 May 1649), p. 72. Perfect Occurrences of Every Daies Iournall, no. 122 (27 Apr.–3 May 1649), p. 1006; Gentles, “Political Funerals”, p. 218. 139  The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, no. 309 (24 Apr.–1 May 1649), p. 1344. 140 Ibid.; The Moderate, no. 42 (24 Apr.–1 May 1649); Gentles, “Political Funerals”, p. 220. 141  The Moderate Intelligencer, no. 214 (19–26 Apr. 1649), p. 2001. 136

56

Disaffection.indb 56

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

People, whereby all the lives, liberties, and estates are subdued to the Wills of those men”.142 This document channeled the most recent version of the Agreement of the People, which Lilburne and his fellow prisoners had released on 1 May 1649. In this third and final version of the Agreement, Lilburne and his comrades declared that Parliament had failed to implement the several changes, such as law reform and eradication of unjust taxes, for which soldiers had risked life and limb. Days after its release and a week after Lockier’s funeral, disaffected soldiers employed the Agreement as a legitimating text in their public displays of dissent. On 6 May, several soldiers posted Englands Standard at Banbury, demonstrating their adherence to its ideals and their rejection of the authority of the new regime.143 The end of Englands Standard read “For a New Parliament, By the Agreement of the People”, and at least one account reported that soldiers at Banbury placed papers imprinted with this demand in their hats, proclaiming to all observers the objectives of their resistance.144 Once again Lilburne’s beliefs, though removed from their original context, were disseminated through the streets.145 As Cromwell and the army battled the Leveller mutiny in Buford, unrest continued in the streets of London. Parliament made bold moves to reign in the flurry of “dangerous” and “disaffected” opinions that filled the streets of London while the act abolishing the monarchy remained undeclared. In early May, the Council of State urged Parliament to remove Gilbert Mabbot – a radical journalist and publisher – from the position of licenser with the Stationers Company in an attempt to quash troubling publications such as The Moderate.146 A week later, Parliament released a new act relating what offenses it deemed treasonous, which included expressions undermining the legitimacy of the Commonwealth, and, on 22 May, it followed through on the removal of Mabbot.147 Despite all of these moves to control political discourse, Parliament’s inability to proclaim the act abolishing the monarchy in London in a timely fashion enabled disaffected persons to exploit this silence by making their own declarations. While the new Lord Mayor, Thomas Andrewes, and the Alderman met to negotiate the act’s proclamation, rumors of a prophecy divining the rise of Charles II spread across the city. Two newsbooks recounted the reading at the Exchange of Paulus Grebnerus’ prediction regarding the future of England’s political settlement. Allegedly the German prophet had accurately predicted the Civil Wars, including the roles of Manchester and Cromwell. A broadside that detailed this prophecy further corroborates this report. According to the newsbook The Kingdomes   William Thompson, Englands Standard Advanced… (London, 1649).   England’s Moderate Messenger, no. 3 (7–14 May 1649), p. 21. 144 Thompson, Englands Standard Advanced, p. 3. 145  England’s Moderate Messenger, no. 3, p. 24. 146  “Volume 1: May 1649”, in CSPD Online, 117–69; CJ, vol. vi, pp. 213–14. 147  A & O, II, pp. 120–1; D. Alan Orr, Treason and the State: Law, Politics, and Ideology in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 18–19; Cressy, Dangerous Words, pp. 49–54. 142 143

57

Disaffection.indb 57

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Faithfull and Impartial Scout, Grebnerus foretold “Charles, descended from Charles the I . . . shall rule and govern all his Subjects in great peace and happinesse”.148 The people who recited and debated the prophecy at the Exchange exploited the discursive void left by the absence of the public proclamation of the monarchy’s abolition. A week prior to the public declaration the act abolishing the monarchy in London, the Scout further reported that people had gathered in Cornhill in anticipation of its announcement. It claimed that “some malignants there were so bould, as to fasten Paper, with soft Wax, upon other mens garments; wherein it was written, GOD SAVE KING CHARLES THE SECOND”.149 In his description of a “Worri’d Ox” that made his way through this crowd, the author mocks the confusion expressed in the streets. A week prior to the proclamation, Mercurius Brittanicus claimed that the House was troubled by “the many disaffected people” who walked “daily upon the Exchange, Westminster Hall, and other places in the City of London, and the late line of Communication”.150 Both newsbooks crafted an image of streets and sites such as the Exchange as uncontrolled, and the city on the verge of unrest as it awaited not only the proclamation abolishing the monarchy, but also the recent act declaring the Commonwealth a “Free State”.151 Months after Parliament devised the original act, but just weeks following the Leveller mutiny, the abolition of the monarchy was finally ceremoniously proclaimed in London on 30 May. Soldiers accompanied the new Lord Mayor, Thomas Andrewes, to the Exchange to ensure order during the civic performance. According to news sources, the soldiers’ role that day was more than symbolic. Two accounts indicated that people began to “sow seditious words” following the Lord Mayor’s reading of the act until “a party of horse” suppressed the dissenters.152 Despite the presence of soldiers and city officials, a few individuals protested the proclamation. One newsbook reported that “A woman prayed God blesse King Charles the second”, while The Moderate claimed that “One Pryor, who gave out some Speeches concerning the Prince” was “referred to the examination of a Committee”.153 Substantiating the printed reports of dissent, three individuals were prosecuted for causing a disturbance at the proclamation at the Exchange in the London courts. John   The Kingdomes Faithfull and Impartial Scout, no. 16 (11–18 May 1649), p. 124; England’s Moderate Messenger, no. 4 (14–21 May 1649), p. 31; The Prophecie of Paulus Grebnerus Concerning These Times (London, 1649). The prophecy was also converted into a royalist ballad. See BL, MS Harley 2127, fol. 4. 149  The Kingdomes Faithfull and Impartiall Scout, no. 17 (18–25 May 1649), p. 136. 150  Mercurius Brittanicus, Communicating Intelligence from All Parts, no. 5 (22–29 May 1649), p. 39. 151  A & O, II, p. 122. 152  Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, no. 314 (29 May–5 Jun. 1649), pp. 1381–2; A Perfect Diurnal, no. 305 (28 May–4 Jun. 1649), pp. 2552–3. 153  A Perfect Summary, no. 20 (28 May–4 Jun. 1649), p. 199; The Moderate, no. 47 (29 May–5 Jun. 1649), pp. 533–4. 148

58

Disaffection.indb 58

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

Shenton and Faith Bates were charged with abusing Alderman Atkins while Margaret Hill was arrested “for speakeing words at the proclamacon”.154 Authorities may have singled out Bates and Hill for prosecution as their assertive presence at the Exchange – a male-dominated space – transgressed social and cultural conventions. Exploiting the defiance of Faith Bates, the author of the royalist newsbook Mercurius Pragmaticus narrated a version of her encounter with Alderman Atkins, mockingly writing that, after Atkins arrived at the Exchange, “it was his unfortunate chance to meete with Faith, a virtue which few Parliament men are endowed withall”. The newsbook records that Faith was selling illegal pamphlets at the time of the declaration, which further highlighted her subversive behavior.155 By embellishing this account in his newsbook, Pragmaticus commends Bates’s actions while he ridicules the Commonwealth’s ineptitude, its lack of authority and its inability to maintain the social order in the wake of the regicide. The contradictions inherent in Pragmaticus’ depiction of Bates – at once celebratory and scornful – reflect the conflicting views of women’s political engagement during the revolution.156 Royalist newsbooks frequently narrated scenes in which social or gender roles were subverted to emphasize the chaos on the streets at the time of the proclamation. The Man on the Moon offered an account of the scene at the Exchange in which a boy tossed “rotten egges” in the faces of the City’s officials, taunting them with cheers of “perjur’d Traytors, perjur’d Traytors”. He also referred to an “old woman” who cried out God save the King. This version of events, if reliable, indicates that the government was unable to command the respect of members of society whose roles were supposed to be ones of subordination. The author, John Crouch, accentuated the disorder brought about by both the proclamation and the abolition of the monarchy. He also satirized the new government’s dependence on soldiers to maintain dominance over space and nation. After the “old” woman’s outburst, hollering boys scared a herd of cattle, which “turn’d head, and run up Cheapside like so many mad Oxen … and had not a Guard stood accidently at Newgate, ’tis thought they had run as far as my Lord Maiors Banqueting-house, if not beyond”. The “mad” cattle represented the chaos in the streets that could only be curbed by a standing army.157 More striking than the accounts recounting grumblings at the London proclamation is the absence of celebrations in all retellings. One of the most positive accounts of the proclamation summed it up in one sentence: This day the L. Mayor and 15 Aldermen of the City of London proclaimed the Act for abolishing Kingly government at full Exchange time, after which the people gave a great shout.158  LMA, CLA/047/LJ/01/0106.   Mercurius Pragmaticus (For King Charls II), no. 9 (5–12 Jun. 1649). 156 Hughes, Gender and the English Revolution, p. 39. 157  The Man in the Moon, no. 8 (28 May–5 Jun. 1649), p. 70. 158  The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, no. 314 (29 May–5 Jun. 1649), pp. 1381–2. 154 155

59

Disaffection.indb 59

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Two pages later, the same newsbook devotes an entire paragraph to the charges against the London Alderman who failed to attend the proclamation ceremony. This notable absence of acclamation suggests that many Londoners refused to perform the gestures of deference that state ceremonies and proclamations required. Crouch’s Man in the Moon enthusiastically jeered at the absence of traditional celebrations associated with the inauguration of a new regime. In reflection of the days’ activities, the newsbook mocked that the inept new regime had failed to exploit the Exchange and the streets as a stage for the display of power as well as benevolence and popularity: I wonder the Conduits did not run Claret, and the Cammells, Elefants and Hobbyhorses had not been fetch’d out of Leaden-hall to make Speeches to the Lord at the great Solemnity, the proclaiming this grand Act of Freedom? why did not the Bells ring backward? and the Bon-fires expresse the peoples joy?159

Crouch’s main objective may have been to demonstrate the people’s negative reception to the proclamation; however, he also reveals the government’s failure to launch a successful exhibition of power. His reference to Leadenhall’s meat market also alludes to the failure of the Commonwealth to entice people away from their everyday activities to celebrate the momentous – if long overdue – creation of the Commonwealth. As the Commonwealth attempted to dismantle the old regime publicly through a series of proclamations, it faced subtle and overt resistance in the very streets and marketplaces it used to promote its legitimacy. Counterproclamations and public campaigns against the state questioned where the authority of England resided, if not within new the Commonwealth. Leveller leaders and women who took to the London streets and the press channeled rank-and-file soldiers’ agitation over its arrears and general discontent over taxes and other great “burthens” foisted upon “the poor people of this Nation”.160 Certain royalist authors broke ranks and celebrated the unrest unleashed by their former foes in April and May 1649, while some of those sympathetic to the Levellers may have turned to royalism in rejection of the new order.161 Leveller leaders faced not only the challenge of defeat, but also the inconsistencies inherent in their “appeal to the people” when they claimed popular sovereignty lay within parliament.162 Meanwhile, several royalist tracts promoted the subversive power of ordinary English men and women to restore order and harmony in England.

  The Man in the Moon, no. 8 (28 May–5 Jun. 1649), p. 70.  Kiffin, Walwins Wiles, p. 15; Hughes, Gender and the English Revolution, p. 106. 161 Foxley, The Levellers, p. 81; Amos Tubb, “Mixed Messages: Royalist Newsbook Reports of Charles I’s Execution of the Leveller Uprising”, Huntington Library Quarterly, 67:1 (2004), 65–9. 162 Foxley, The Levellers, p. 82. 159 160

60

Disaffection.indb 60

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

Though the consistent contests over the Commonwealth’s legitimacy gradually diminished, many continued to risk punishment and publicized their opposition to interregnum regimes, officials and policies. Despite the Commonwealth’s exploitation of elaborate state funerals or celebrations of military victories as legitimating rituals, officials continued to encounter resistance during these performances.163 At a funeral of a London alderman attended by Chief Justice Bradshaw and Bulstrode Whitelocke in March 1650, Whitelocke noted that there was a large crowd of unruly people. In his diary, he claimed that Bradshaw had been thoroughly frightened by the crowds, and that one attendee had cursed Bradshaw as “that Rogue that judged the King”.164 Accounts of Cromwell’s entry into London following his success in Worcester also reveal that the event had a mixed reception. One report suggests that the notable lack of acclaim amongst the large crowd could be explained by Cromwell’s humility, noting that Cromwell purposely chose to “avoid the popularity and applauses of the people”. The procession of Scottish prisoners through the streets the following day also had a varied response, as (according to one account) several passers-by provided the prisoners with “good white bread and money, as well as blankets and bandages for their wounds”.165 The public proclamation of Lord Protector Cromwell provided people with a significant opportunity to articulate opposition to the new Protectorate and, in so doing, attack its legitimacy. An intercepted newsletter reported the proclamation of the Lord Protector at Temple-bar, Cheapside and the Exchanges in London, relating that soldiers accompanied these declarations to ensure order and participate in the fabrication of authority. According to this royalist newsletter, rather than shout for joy, the audience of this proclamation “publiquely laughed and derided [Cromwell] without being taken notice of”.166 The Venetian ambassador’s description of Cromwell’s first state visit in London as Lord Protector indicates that its reception also left something to be desired. The ambassador remarked that, although “the entire population of London” had entered the streets to view Cromwell, “not the faintest sound of applause was heard, nor were any blessings invoked on the head of his Highness”.167 When Cromwell departed a banquet in honor of his knighting the Lord Mayor the same week, once again there was an absence of “popular applause”, and in its place a “large stone” was reportedly thrown at him “from a window”.168 Whether or not such acts signaled the loss “of much affections of the people” is unclear, but the failure of the Protectorate’s audience to play the part designed for them in these rituals  Kelsey, Inventing a Republic, pp. 58, 70–6.   Ibid., p. 76; The Diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke, 1605–1675, ed. Ruth Spalding (Oxford, 1990), p. 225. 165 Kelsey, Inventing a Republic, p. 75; Another Victory in Lancashire Obtained Against the Scots (London, 1651), pp. 3–4. 166  Thurloe, vol. 1, p. 641. 167  CSP Venetian, vol. 29, pp. 184–6. 168 Ibid. 163

164

61

Disaffection.indb 61

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

stressed the vulnerability of the state.169 The Protectorate’s exploitation of the sites of rites of authority in London necessarily risked disapproval, resistance or even retribution. Consider the controversy surrounding an attempt to install a portrait of the new Lord Protector at the Royal Exchange in 1653. After the tribute to Cromwell was mounted in the crowded Exchange, someone supposedly posted the following words alongside it: “Bring Crownes and Sceptre, its now high time, unfold your cloistered baggs, you state cheats . . . Let all men bare head cry God save the King”.170 This text – posted shortly after Cromwell’s army forcibly dissolved the Rump Parliament – provoked conflicting interpretations amongst its readers. One spectator claimed that verses under Cromwell’s portrait were “tending much to his honour”. According to two royalists, however, it was a disaffected individual who had courageously inscribed “God save the King” above the General’s picture as a sign of allegiance to the Stuarts.171 Within a few days the Lord Mayor of London, who had likely brought the portrait to the Exchange, removed and presented it to Cromwell, suggesting that its placement had indeed resulted in controversy. At first glance the significance of this act of defiance appears to lie solely in the posting of a potentially subversive phrase, “God save the King”, over a symbol of state power. The hanging of the portrait at the Exchange, though meaningful, is hardly surprising. As the epicenter of commerce in the capital, the Exchange was closely tied with English prosperity, affluence and power, and it had long displayed emblems of authority such as the Commonwealth arms. Interacting with the portrait at the Exchange was different than viewing it within a private home or a local victualing house. The addition of those few, debated lines over the portrait at the Exchange provoked public discussions of the Protectorate at one of the city’s primary sites of authority. An image designed to invoke authority, placed within this particular social space, was altered to question the very legitimacy of the new regime. The use of public ritual to promulgate authority clashed with policies designed to suppress public gatherings that might elicit conflict or opposition to the state. During the Protectorate, the Council of State continued prior practices designed to fabricate an ordered, peaceful society through the quelling of conflict. As with the push to regulate morals, officials attempted to stem the growth of discord through the regulation of everyday interactions. The prohibition of Sunday sports – long desired by reformers – not only protected the sanctity of the sabbath, but also curbed large gatherings of young men in streets, marketplaces and fields. Similarly, through the banning of stage plays, the suppression of ales and Morris dancing, and the regulation of cock-matches and horse races, officials endeavored to usher in a new age of   Thurloe, vol. 1, p. 641.   BL, George Thomason MS, It is I. 171  Mercurius Pragmaticus, no. 1 (16–25 May 1653), p. 8; The Clarke Papers, ed. C.H. Firth, vol. iii (London, 1899), p. 6; Thurloe, vol. 1, p. 249. 169 170

62

Disaffection.indb 62

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

morality while limiting social gatherings that might foment unrest.172 As new, tangible threats against the interregnum regimes emerged, the emphasis of the reform movement shifted between the regulation of morals and the maintenance of peaceful social relations, particularly in spaces of everyday life. Grappling with the threat of royalist agitation, the Protectorate took several precautionary steps to avoid a possible outbreak of unrest during social gatherings.173 Protectorate officials monitored and limited social engagements that might attract disaffected persons. In March 1654 the Council put forward an ordinance against cock-matches, which labeled any gathering an unlawful assembly, uniting the Council’s designs to regulate morality and maintain the public peace.174 In yet another move to quell any possible uprisings, the Council put forward an ordinance prohibiting horse races for six months in early July.175 Following some troublesome races near Berwick associated with a “designe against his Highness”, the Council commanded Captain Charles Howard to keep a “very strict and vigilant eye” out for “disaffected persons” in the region and provided Howard armed reinforcements to ensure his success.176 A year later, in August 1655, Cromwell ordered the major-generals to “keep a strict eye on the carriage of the disaffected”, and directed them to “allow no horse races, cock fightings, bear baitings, or unlawful assemblies, as rebellion is usually hatched on such occasions”.177 The 1654 ordinance against challenges, duels and provocations reveals the ways in which the Protectorate viewed seemingly quotidian gestural and speech acts as meaningful political challenges. Though the ordinance forms a part of the longer history of slander and defamation, it directly arose out of the historical circumstances of the 1650s. The ordinance against “private quarrells” emerged from officials’ desire to curb divisive social interactions “contrary to all good order and government” following a contentious civil war – many of which took place within the public street. Language deemed “seditious” or “treasonous”, while prosecuted through separate legislation, was also recriminalized in 1654. Most of these policies focused on containing divisions and possible seeds of disaffection amongst social elites, but they also reflected the Protectorate’s policy of closely policing social interactions within to maintain stability and assert its dominance. Such policies inevitably required the policing of social space. State and civic officials’ thrust towards the tighter regulation of social

172  Durston, “Failure of Cultural Revolution”, in The Culture of English Puritanism, 1560– 1700, ed. C. Durston and J. Eales (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 217–19. 173  A & O, II, pp. 861–9, 941–2. 174  TNA, SP 25/51 fol. 11, 10 April 1654; A & O, II, p. 861; Durston, “Failure of Cultural Revolution”, p. 217; Capp, England’s Culture Wars, p. 205. 175  TNA, SP 25/75 fol. 413; Durston, “The Failure of Cultural Revolution”, p. 217; Capp, England’s Culture Wars, pp. 207–8. 176  TNA, SP 25/75, fol. 419. 177  CSPD 1655, p. 296.

63

Disaffection.indb 63

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

behavior often entailed a systematic regulation of the streets of London.178 Further ensuring stability, civic and state authorities consistently increased the number of troops in London to combat potential unrest throughout the mid to late 1650s. The Venetian ambassador described London’s atmosphere in December 1655, writing, They have forbidden under several penalties all brawls, and occasion for scandal, confusion or gathering of people, and have charged the patrols or companies of horse, quartered at the different chief passages of the city, to charge and arrest authors of any kind of disturbance, however slight, of popular excitement.179

With each of these preventative measures, Cromwell and his councilors attempted to police social interactions that might give way to conflict, breed disaffection, or even promote revolt. The decline in festive celebrations of England’s providential escape on 5 November during the late 1650s suggests that authorities’ regulation of behavior could provoke alienation. Though the Commonwealth had revolutionized England’s Protestant calendar when it eliminated “popish” celebrations such as Christmas and Easter, Gunpowder Treason Day – the holiday that commemorated England’s deliverance from the Catholic plot to blow up king and Parliament in 1605 – remained. Following the defeat of Charles I in the 1640s, Parliament heartily embraced the holiday as part of its historic struggle against tyranny and oppression. During the 1640s and 1650s more parishes adopted the custom of ringing the bells to celebrate England’s deliverance, but, towards the end of the Protectorate, some localities chose to check or eliminate celebrations.180 In 1654, a publication of John Turner’s verses commemorating the Gunpowder Plot warned readers that “England alas almost hath quite forgot/ The great deliverance from the Powder-plot”. Though the celebrations of England’s deliverance from the popish menace had not disappeared, Turner’s poem, along with a series of sermons from the mid to late 1650s, expressed concern that this providential and pivotal moment risked being “Laid aside, and buried in oblivion”.181 In places such as London and its parishes, civic officials muted celebrations by limiting them to controlled events such as sponsored dinners for elites, anniversary sermons, bread for the poor and the ringing of bells. The drop in sponsored, public events such as parish bonfires during the second half of the decade left many to celebrate with private blazes and the throwing of squibs, but such practices were also increasingly suppressed.182  Boswell, “Provoking Disorder: The Politics of Speech in Protectorate Middlesex”, Journal of British Studies, 53:4 (2014), 885–908. 179  CSP Venetian, vol. 30, p. 158. 180 Ronald Hutton, The Rise and Fall of Merry England: The Ritual Year, 1400–1700 (Oxford, 1994), pp. 221–2. 181  John Turner, A Commemoration, or A Calling to Minde of the Great and Eminent Deliverance from the Powder-Plot (London, 1654), p. 1; David Cressy, Bonfires and Bells: National Memory and the Protestant Calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England (Thrupp, 2004), pp. 166–70. 182 Cressy, Bonfires and Bells, pp. 164–5. 178

64

Disaffection.indb 64

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

Whether or not the historic celebrations on Gunpowder Treason Day were gradually viewed as inappropriate or disorderly later in the Protectorate is debatable, but local authorities’ interference in private celebrations in cities such as London and Exeter suggests that the fear of future terror had, in some cases, replaced the celebration of its past defeat.183 In October 1656, London officials banned the burning of bonfires on 5 November in a move directed to eliminate the risk of disorder within the city’s streets.184 Despite this interdiction, revelers from parishes and streets across the city chose to celebrate the holiday according to tradition. Nineteen individuals – men and women, artisans and servants – were compelled to appear before the city court to answer for lighting pyres, throwing squibs or fireworks, or simply being at a bonfire on 5 November. Some chose to resist the night watch as they approached to suppress the revelries.185 A year later, a riot broke out in Exeter as constables tried to enforce the mayor’s order prohibiting the throwing of squibs and fireworks on Gunpowder Treason Day. According to the constable Nicholas Savery, while the watch mustered at the Guildhall the night of 5 November a group of youths approached, burning squibs in hand, in direct defiance of the city’s proclamation. Several other young apprentices and servants allegedly gathered in the city streets with clubs determined to clash with the constables charged with upholding the mayor’s order squashing their revelries. Evidence from the courts strongly suggests that a contingent of the young men plotted this reprisal against the civic authorities that threatened to curb the age-old tradition of throwing fireworks.186 These formative moments of youthful misrule, traditionally accepted despite their inversion of normative concepts of order, became too threatening for civic authorities to allow.187 For revelers in Exeter as well as London, regulations controlling the festivities of England’s sole remaining pre-civil war holiday became moments of tension rather than celebrations of unity and manhood. Oliver Cromwell’s funeral was most likely the largest public spectacle launched during the interregnum.188 Following his death, the Council of State had the immediate responsibility of maintaining the legitimacy of the Protectorate under Cromwell’s son, Richard. The easiest path to a smooth succession was to utilize the ready formula of traditional regal ceremonies. 183  Whereas Cressy sees these variations in celebrations as suggestive that some “uncertainty developed about whether the old festivity was appropriate or permissible” during the 1650s, Ronald Hutton argues that the increasing number of parishes that sponsored bell-ringing during the 1640s and 1650s suggests that the holiday became more widely celebrated. See Cressy, Bonfire and Bells, p. 165; Hutton, The Rise and Fall of Merry England, pp. 221–2. 184  LMA, COL/CA/01/01/068, fol. 241. 185 Ibid., CLA/047/LJ/01/0134; MJ/SR/1156 rec. 174. 186  DHC, ECA, Book 64, fols. 382–5. 187 Shepard, Meanings of Manhood in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2003), p. 108. 188  This discussion of Cromwell’s funeral is largely informed by Laura Lunger Knoppers’s brilliant analysis of the spectacle in Constructing Cromwell: Ceremony Portrait and Print 1645–1661 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 132–66.

65

Disaffection.indb 65

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Thus, the Council soon decided to represent the former Protector in full monarchical regalia, exploiting the early modern ideology of the “king’s two bodies” in its attempts to guarantee Richard’s peaceful succession and reign.189 Similar to royal processions, lavish amounts of money were spent on the funeral – Henry Parker’s décor for Cromwell’s ornate funeral hearse alone amounted to over £734.190 Detailed accounts of the ceremony, which took place months after the death of Cromwell on 3 September 1658, suggest that it was perceived as successful by some and deceitful by others. John Evelyn, a royalist, mockingly recorded that the funeral “was the joyfullest funeral that ever I saw, for there was none that Cried, but dogs, which the souldiers hooted away with a barbarous noise”.191 Republicans and royalists alike contested this depiction of Cromwell as king. Though the funeral was an elaborate, relatively successful piece of public propaganda, the conflict inherent in depicting the Cromwells as monarchs of England bubbled underneath this stately facade.192 There is no method with which historians can calculate the overall effectiveness of these rituals of power, but we can pinpoint certain consistencies and inconsistencies with these rites. One regular feature during the interregnum – to be analyzed more broadly in Chapter 4 – was the constant presence of soldiers and militiamen. By placing troops within the spectacle itself, the interregnum regimes attempted to preserve order and legitimacy while shrouding the army’s rule under the pretense of unity and stability. Comparing the state’s attempts to implement order during the 1650s and the tenacity with which those who endeavored to dismantle it in the winter of 1659–60 reveals the precarious nature of legitimacy achieved through a semblance of authority, as well as the significance of the spatial context of ritualistic dissent. Following the army’s dissolution of the Rump Parliament in October 1659, the newly formed Committee of Safety produced several proclamations to generate legitimacy, each with varying effects. In his diurnal, Thomas Rugg noted that the November 1659 proclamation that ordered people to obey the army-controlled Committee “did not take soe well as [the Committee] thought it would have done”. Rugg blamed its tepid reception on the fact that most people were “greeived . . . now to be ruled by the sword and committee of swordman”.193 The rejection of the army’s authority was further manifested by the treatment of soldiers in the streets of London and Westminster. Rugg recorded that around this time “yong men did very much offront the

 Knoppers, Constructing Cromwell, p. 139.   BL, MS Harley 1438, fol. 75b. 191  The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. John Bowle (Oxford, 1983), pp. 178–9; Knoppers, Constructing Cromwell, p. 145. 192 Knoppers, Constructing Cromwell, p. 158. 193  Rugg, p. 9. 189 190

66

Disaffection.indb 66

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

soulders as they went up and downe the streetes, and the soulders ware a laughing-stock”.194 Apprentices physically protested against the Committee’s December proclamation forbidding the presentation of “dangerous” petitions to the Committee within the London area. On 5 December, while the sergeant-atarms and a troop of soldiers marched to the Exchange to make the proclamation, apprentices who had gathered in anticipation of their arrival assaulted them. In the face of this opposition and General Monck’s menacing presence in the north, the Committee of Safety resolved to recall the Rump Parliament on 27 December 1659. Rugg observed that the pronouncement of the Rump’s restoration “did take with some mens minds, and the more because that would have a face of government, but Commitee [sic] of Safety had not any at all”.195 Nevertheless, the apprentices continued to manifest their grievances with the army through symbolic protests in the streets of London in January 1660. Samuel Pepys observed that a gibbet was erected in Cheapside on which a picture of Colonel Hewson, a regicide who had sent troops into the crowd of apprentices during the 5 December riot, was hung in effigy.196 Streets and markets housed similar iconic displays of disaffection during the first months of 1660. The caricature of the Rump Parliament as a rotting carcass that was poisoning the body politic was displayed in street demonstrations and pamphlet literature throughout the winter and spring of 1659–60. In his textual and cultural analysis of the “Rump”, Mark Jenner claims “by February 1660 rumps had become the center of the improvisational street theatre of London politics”.197 People lined the city’s streets with bonfires upon which they burned the hinds of animal carcasses in celebration of General Monck’s entrance into London and his call for a new Parliament.198 The ridicule of the Rump Parliament persisted in political rhetoric throughout the spring. Pepys recorded that “boys do now cry ‘Kiss my Parliament’, instead of ‘Kiss my arse’, so great and general a contempt is the Rump come to among all men, the good and bad”.199 In February 1660 once again the mounting of an anonymous painting exploited the Exchange as site of political dissent. Rather than a triumphant portrait of Cromwell, there hung a picture “of a great pair of buttocks shitting of a turd into [Admiral] Lawson’s

  Ibid., p. 13.   Rugg, pp. 16–17. 196 Samuel Pepys, The Diary of Samuel Pepys, vol. 1, ed. Robert Latham and William Matthews (Berkeley, CA, 1970), p. 28. For more on the apprentices’ actions against Hewson, see pp. 157. 197  Mark S.R. Jenner, “The Roasting of the Rump: Scatology and the Body Politic in Restoration England”, Past and Present, 177:1 (2002), 90. 198 Harris, London Crowds, pp. 49–50; Ronald Hutton, The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales, 1658–1667 (Oxford, 1985), p. 93; Jenner, “The Roasting of the Rump”, pp. 84–5. 199  Diary of Samuel Pepys, vol. 1, p. 45. 194 195

67

Disaffection.indb 67

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

mouth, and over it was writ ‘The thanks of the house’”.200 Unlike the ambiguous meaning behind the Protector’s portrait, this act explicitly ridiculed the Rump and its cronies.201 Using the Exchange as the site for this subversive depiction not only exposed the state’s loss of control over this important economic space, but also the use of scatological humor revealed the breakdown of proper social order. The visceral quality of people’s rejection of the iconic remnants of the Rump in England’s streets and markets is most striking in comparison to the relatively passive removal of the king’s arms in the early 1650s. While Parliament had purged his arms from the House and the Court of Common Pleas, it was not until April 1650 that the Commons finally ordered his arms to be taken from ships, churches, chapels and “all other publick Places” throughout the country.202 Once again in February 1651 Parliament ordered authorities to remove the king’s arms from “all publick Places, in all Cities, Boroughs, and Market Towns” and to replace them with those of the Commonwealth.203 Though there appears to have been a certain degree of compliance with these orders, most of these images remained untouched in the year and a half following the execution of Charles. Even when upheld, the implementation of these directives was often merely bureaucratic procedure. This sharply contrasts with accounts of the restoration of the king’s iconography during the spring of 1660. At a dinner in April, Samuel Pepys’ acquaintances remarked that “the King’s Arms are every day set up in houses and churches, particularly in Allhallows Church in Thames-street, John Simpson’s church, which being privately done was a great eye-sore to his people when they came to church and saw it”. As Pepys’s diary suggests, those who restored the king’s arms in April did so on their own initiative and prior to Parliament’s order for their replacement on 8 May 1660. An officially sponsored celebration on 9 May in Boston, Lincolnshire, further illustrates the degree of audience involvement in the deconstruction of the Commonwealth’s insignia. During the proclamation of Charles II, the “States armes” were immediately removed, after which “the yonge men draged them up and downe the streets and cause[d] the beadles of the towne to whip them, the[n] pissed and sh[it] on [them]” before tossing them into a bonfire.204 One final comparison of two related events further highlights the public’s essential role in the successful manipulation of sites of authority and symbolic representations. In a ritualized execution, the king’s statue at the Exchange was beheaded in August 1650. The statue was ultimately replaced with an  Ibid.   Jenner, “The Roasting of the Rump”, p. 98. See also R.W. Scribner, For the Sake of the Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation (Oxford, 1994), chaps. 4–6; Mikhail Bakhtin, Rabelais and his World, trans. Helene Iswolsky (Bloomington, IN, 1984). 202  CJ, vol. vi, pp. 394–6; Kelsey, Inventing a Republic, p. 86. 203 CJ, vol. vi, pp. 530–1. 204  Rugg, p. 84; Jenner, “Roasting of the Rump”, p. 98. 200 201

68

Disaffection.indb 68

19/09/2017 11:25

STREETS AND MARKETPLACES

engraved Latin insignia that translates as “The last of the tyrant Kings died in the first year of England’s restored liberty, 30 January 1649”.205 Mercurius Politicus reported this symbolic act, jeering at rumors that people groaned when the statue was decapitated.206 Despite its derisive tone, this statement suggests that the replacement of monarchical imagery with manifestations of the new Commonwealth lacked popular support regardless of the absence of resistance. When, eleven years later, news of the king’s impending return spread through the streets of London in March 1660, a man brought a ladder to the same statue and painted over the Commonwealth’s statement. According to Thomas Rugg, after the painter had finished his work, he threw away his “brush”, stating that this instrument “would never doe him any more service [in] regard it had the honour to put rebells hand wrightinge out of the way”. The Venetian ambassador reported that once the man had finished, he “began to shout ‘Long live Charles II’”, at which time “the cry [was] taken up by the acclamations of a number of people who had watched him at work, and the deletion was celebrated by many bonfires, no one interfering”.207 The act became so renowned that two broadsides and a pamphlet were printed in its honor, one of which was a ballad penned in its praise: Exit Tyrannus up they set As if the Kingdome then did get By this their Liberty, When as indeed from this their crime The Nation well might date the time Of reall Tiranny.208

Though there is some indication that Monck had ordered the motto to be blotted out, the crowd’s “joyful” response and the prints honoring this act demonstrate that the successful exploitation of space and symbols required more than passive participation from the audience.209 The streets and marketplaces ultimately were spaces in which the public could express their apathy, anger or disillusionment with the political regime – undermining the state’s ability to maintain a consistent atmosphere of legitimacy in these spaces of everyday life.  This translation of the insignia is given in CSP Venetian, vol. 3, p. 132: “EXIT TYRRANUS REGUM ULTIMUS RESTITUTAE ANGLIAE LIBERTATIS ANNO PRIME DIE XXX JANUARII MDCXXXXIIX”; Kelsey, Inventing a Republic, p. 86; Rugg, p. 60. 206  Mercurius Politicus, no. 10 (8–15 Aug. 1650), p. 160; Kelsey, Inventing a Republic, p. 86. 207  CSP Venetian, vol. 32, p. 132; Rugg, p. 60. 208  An Exit to the Exit Tyrannus or Upon Erasing that Ignorminious and Scandalous Motto… (London, 1659). See also News from the Royall Exchange or Gold Turn’d to Mourning… (London, 1660) and The Loyal Subjects Teares for the Sufferings and Absence of their Sovereign… With an Observation upon the expunging of Exit Tyrannus Regum Ulitmus (London, 1660). 209  CSP Venetian, vol. 32, p. 132. For possible official involvement, see CSPD 1659–60, p. 393 and The Loyal Subjects. 205

69

Disaffection.indb 69

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

The streets and marketplaces of interregnum England were the sites of contests over what constituted stability, loyalty, legality and legitimacy during a period when these concepts were naturally tenuous. The gardeners’, fruiterers’ and costermongers’ struggle to maintain their rights and privileges along West Cheap in the face of attempts to reorder this gateway into the metropolis provides an example of how the political revolution could transform long-standing power struggles and clashes over customary rights. Sir Arthur Hesilrige’s manipulation of the courts and his disregard of unwelcome verdicts underscore the ambiguous nature of legality during an age of consistent political reorganization. After failing to legitimate his claim to the Collingwood estate through the law, Hesilrige sought to appropriate power not only through terror, but also by exploiting a cultural rite of authority – an act that required the exploitation of Whittingham’s fairgrounds as a site of power. Despite Hesilrige’s efforts, the Collingwood faction as well as the local tenants refused to let Hesilrige dominate the political landscape, assaulting him in the high street and challenging his right to proclaim Whittingham’s fair within the marketplace. News of this localized conflict fueled national debates, illustrating how such struggles could easily be framed as local manifestations of national grievances, fluctuating between social and ideological space. The connection between these two important sites of confrontation is most evident in the analysis of the struggle for stability in the streets of London during the months following the regicide – a conflict that reveals the relationship between the use of streets and markets for the dissemination of opinion and their manipulation as sites infused with political symbolism. By dispersing printed broadsides and pamphlets and manipulating performances of authority, the Levellers vied for legitimacy in the very sites in which the new state attempted to manifest its authority over the nation. With the help of the New Model Army, the Commonwealth ultimately was able to subdue the Leveller threat. Despite this victory, the state’s continued employment of traditional rituals associated with the manifestation of power exposed interregnum officials to symbolic expressions of disaffection. The public could resist through demonstrations of apathy, laughter or anger during the state’s theatricals. The daring proclamation of Charles II at New Malton’s market cross reveals that the disaffected had recourse to the very same spatial and cultural contexts as the state when performing their own rituals of power and resistance. To comprehend the methods through which people articulated their grievances requires us to consider the place of streets and marketplaces – not just as important, everyday social spaces – but further as sites of cultural and political significance that, when effectively manipulated, could amplify the effect of even minor acts of defiance. In scattering libels, singing bawdy ballads, burning rumps and desecrating other symbols of parliamentary authority in late 1659 and early 1660, various interests intersected in the streets and marketplaces to dismantle the legitimacy of the republican experiment. 70

Disaffection.indb 70

19/09/2017 11:25

2

Drink and Disaffection

In the mid-1650s many owners of inns, taverns and alehouses managed to keep their doors open and their customers in “drink” despite an increase in the regulation of alcohol and its consumption under the “Rule of the MajorGenerals”. Keepers of orderly, well-trodden and visible drinking houses who offered sustenance to weary travelers, day laborers, local artisans and visiting merchants could still obtain a license from local justices. Such venues supplied their patrons with a place to rest their heads, a warm hearth on cold days and the camaraderie and conversation of good company. The Black Boy Inn served locals, travelers and traders in Aschott, Somerset for over forty years when the act of one tippler threatened its existence in December 1656. While socializing at the popular inn, William Higgory offered a customary toast (known as a “health”) to his fellow drinkers as an act of fellowship. Though health-drinking could serve as a social lubricant that forged or strengthened relationships among drinkers, Higgory’s health paid tribute to the exiled Charles II rather than Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell. This was no slip of memory or drunken mistake, for Higgory allegedly declared, “Let us drink, let us sing, here’s a health to our King, and it will never be well until we have one again”.1 The language of Higgory’s health suggests that his design was to bond with his fellows through traditional customs of sociability – drink, song and loyalty – but the crowd’s stunned response to the king’s health recast his act as one of a social pariah. Rather than pledge Higgory’s proffered health, members of the befuddled company allegedly asked whether Higgory was drunk, deranged or if he wished to be “hanged”. Though Higgory’s health was blatantly seditious, the company’s exasperated retort – which provoked Higgory’s ire – suggests that the drinkers in the Black Boy wished to know why Higgory would openly state his opinions and force them upon others, not why he thought them. Concerned that Higgory’s outburst had jeopardized the existence of this popular inn, several parishioners penned a “Certificate” defending the forty-year-old Black Boy as a “very suitable” establishment.2   Quarter Sessions Records for the County of Somerset, ed. E.H. Bates, vol. iii (Somerset, 1912), p. 323. 2  Ibid., p. 347. 1

Disaffection.indb 71

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

The primary concern of these men and women was to preserve this peaceful social site – particularly under the watchful eye of Major-General Disbrowe – not to punish Higgory for voicing his affection for Charles II. As the controversy at the Black Boy suggests, factional strife and civil war complicated the everyday consumption of drink. As primary consumables and centerpieces of sociability, beverages such as ale, beer and wine were at the heart of a complex web of heated concerns–consumerism, taxation, nutrition, intoxication, the regulation of behavior, the expression of opinion and the culture of civility and good company. Tensions surrounding these divisive issues converged at the drinking house, where they had the power to provoke interpersonal struggles and solidify the relationship between communities and the new interregnum regimes. Official condemnation of drinking customs disturbed sites of sociability and the negotiation of social relations at drinking houses throughout the nation. Higgory’s willingness to declare his allegiance to Charles Stuart cannot be understood without considering how traditions of male sociability were intimately connected with rituals of monarchy. The state’s policing and taxation of drink, the vilification of drinking customs and the historic association between social drinking and monarchical culture all combined to politicize the production and consumption of alcohol in the 1650s. During the interregnum, drink became a site where many people encountered disruptive or distasteful policies associated with civil war and revolution. Officials and “honest” locals who strictly regulated alcohol and drinking culture – whether through taxation, price controls or by policing the drinking house – provoked hostility and bred disaffection in social hubs across England. The excise tax gouged victuallers and brewers, while its hated collectors perched on the benches of local drinking establishments. In times of scarcity, dearth orders and regulation weakened the strength of ale and beer, daily necessities for England’s laboring poor. Social regulations shut down countless alehouses, and soldiers saddled up to local taps where they listened in on alehouse chatter. The persistent criticism and criminalization of drinking culture forged new tensions amongst fellow tipplers that altered perceptions of the relationship between social drinking and good fellowship, affection, loyalty and allegiance. This general assault on drink and drinking culture fostered a climate of anti-statism, disaffection and royalist sentiment in spaces of drink-infused sociability. Royalist propagandists exploited cultural associations between drink and dissent to create the specter of a broad, royalist public that emerged wherever and whenever drink was consumed. Within newsbooks, ballads, poems and pamphlets, royalist authors and other disaffected propagandists exaggerated the negative effects of interregnum policies as well as the ties between the culture of drinking and the survival of the monarchy. Though some polemicists celebrated wine as the drink of the royalist elites, other royalist authors painted the monarchy as the protector of ale – the native drink of England’s poor – to show that the crown, much like strong drink, was the choice of 72

Disaffection.indb 72

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

the vast majority of the English commons. Royalist polemicists tied together grievances over drink that emerged in multiple contexts and reframed them as evidence of popular royalism. Scenes of real and fictional grassroots resistance to the regulation of drink, drinking houses and the policing of tipplers’ conversations questioned the authority of regimes whose legitimacy rested on the support and will of the commonality. Royalists’ rhetorical use of drink reveals the importance of the everyday politics of drink and drinking for the royalist cause. Indeed, the cultural association of traditional festive drinking with monarchy contributed to popular support for the return of Charles II in the spring of 1660. Drink and the Politics of Everyday Life Drink, a catchall term for alcoholic beverages, was central to the everyday experience of practically every English man, woman and child. As a daily staple, drink held “nutritional” value and provided energy to England’s industrious sort, and, in particular, to its laborers.3 Ale- and beer-selling provided income to struggling families; drink softened the experience of harsh winters, personal loss and poverty. In the taverns, alehouses and inns of England drink helped to create good fellowship amongst neighbors, companies, associations and out-of-town travelers. Drink was ubiquitous at celebrations, from the inauguration of a new king to local wedding festivities. As a source of energy, a social lubricant and a major commodity, drink served an unparalleled role in the lives of mid-seventeenth-century English people. The type of beverage a person regularly consumed depended on a wide host of factors. Not only did one’s social standing and occupation inform what sort of drink a person quaffed, but also one’s locality, the time of year and the state of the harvest and the economy. Most men and women in interregnum England drank beer as their primary beverage. Water, though consumed, was tinged with poverty and was often considered dangerous to one’s health. By the 1650s only a few folks living in parts of the North still drank traditional, un-hopped English ale, while many people in the western counties consumed cider or, less frequently, perry. Most members of the lower orders could not afford wine, which was largely regarded as the beverage of the elites or, on occasion, the middling sort. Aqua vitae consumption was limited in the mid-seventeenth century, except perhaps in the capital.4 By the outbreak of the civil wars, beer had come to dominate the drink market in most regions of the country. Beer’s prevalence in seventeenth-century England can be traced to its ingredients, its nutritional value and its place in English drinking culture.  Craig Muldrew, Food, Energy and the Creation of Industriousness (Cambridge, 2022), pp. 65–7. 4  Peter Clark, The English Alehouse: A Social History, 1200–1830 (Harlow, 1983), pp. 95–6. 3

73

Disaffection.indb 73

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

After Dutch brewers introduced beer and beer brewing into England during the late fifteenth century, it gradually overtook ale, becoming the staple drink in much of the country over the next century. While brewers largely made both ale and beer from English barley, ale was preserved by the addition of spices and herbs such as long-pepper or wormwood, whereas beer was brewed with hops. Not only did hops add to the overall flavor and consistency of a brew, but it also worked as a preservative.5 Ale tended to come in only two forms, “strong” ale and “weak” ale. By the mid-seventeenth century beer had been divided into three categories – “strong”, “middle”, and “small” beer, with middle beer being comparable in strength to strong ale. The strength of the beer depended on the amount of malt used to create the wort. Brewers could manipulate the alcohol content by adding more water to the wort or using substitute grains for barley. Some brewers, particularly home or small batch brewers, made “small” beer by pouring water over the mash from the first brew a second or third time. Small beer often required further preservatives and, like old English ale, often included spices to prolong its drinkability.6 In his study of laboring families’ diets, Craig Muldrew claims that beer served as a vital energy source in early modern England, since food powered the labor force that propelled the economy. Not only does Muldrew’s research demonstrate that beer formed a substantive part of a laborer’s daily intake of nutrients and calories, but it also suggests that people quaffed far more and far stronger beer and ale than historians previously believed. Muldrew’s reconstruction of laborers’ diets overturns historians’ assumptions that the laboring poor drank small beer almost exclusively. According to Muldrew, people frequently brewed and imbibed strong middle beer. The accounts from one farming household suggest that during harvest season some laborers consumed as many as 4,000 calories worth of beer on a single day to maintain their energy.7 Laborers tended to drink small beer to quench thirst, middle beer at midday meals and breaks to maintain energy and very strong beer in the alehouse.8 Several people, from farmers to state officials, believed that middle and strong beer were better for laborers’ constitutions and productivity than small beer. Weaker and muddier small beer not only allegedly lacked the nutritional qualities and medicinal value of the stronger varieties, but it also threatened to weaken an otherwise healthy constitution. A petition from 1673 claimed strong beer was necessary to maintain the strength of the laboring poor, and the amount of middle and strong beer provided to laborers at a   Judith M. Bennett, Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300–1600 (Oxford, 1996), p. 77; Clark, The English Alehouse, pp. 31, 96–8; Muldrew, Food, Energy and the Creation of Industriousness, p. 73; Mark Hailwood, Alehouses and Good Fellowship in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 2014), p. 3. 6 Clark, The English Alehouse, pp. 96–8; A. Lynn Martin, Alcohol, Sex, and Gender in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe (New York, 1992), pp. 32–3; Muldrew, Food, Energy and the Creation of Industriousness, p. 3. 7 Muldrew, Food, Energy and the Creation of Industriousness, pp. 65–80. 8  Ibid., pp. 69–70, 78. 5

74

Disaffection.indb 74

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

farmers’ cost further suggests that people understood the necessity of drinking strong brews to maintain energy levels while working in the fields.9 Given its central place in early modern life, the strength, production and availability of beer quickly became topics of concern during moments of dearth. During the late 1640s the combination of grain shortages, the excise on alcohol and the institution of new, strictly enforced price mandates made the production of strong ale and beer less viable.10 When England experienced a relatively severe harvest failure from 1647 to 1650, the initial refusal of local magistrates to institute policies similar to the Elizabethan and early Stuart dearth orders provoked hostility and resistance amongst broad sections of the populace.11 With grain scarce, many petitioners bemoaned the continued existence of licensed malt makers and the large number of alehouses in their communities. Steve Hindle has shown that petitioners often employed language of “despair” to legitimate their opposition, commenting on how hoarding and high prices harmed the poor.12 While alehouses did tend to serve strong beer – indeed, often alehouses competed for clientele by offering stronger brews – petitions exaggerated the ill effects of using malt and barley to make beer over bread.13 Beer, though more expensive to make, lasted longer than bread and could be transported with relative ease. Beer also provided many of the necessary calories – or what brewers’ called “nutrients” – to the hard-working laboring classes of England. Alcohol had also become an increasingly important staple as bread prices rose more dramatically than the price of beer and ale over the seventeenth century. Despite the widespread desire for the regulation of grain prices during the dearth, some propagandists drew upon the discourse that claimed the production of strong ale and beer was necessary to sustain the laboring poor. Quite naturally, authors resentful of the government’s regulation of ale and beer emphasized the significance of these beverages to the diet of poorer sort. In a petition to Parliament in 1647 written against these restrictions, the London brewers asserted that “[s]trong Beer and Ale itself is generally for the Service of the Poor”. Thus, they argued, the higher taxation on the stronger beverages – four shillings a barrel – stifled their trade, and adversely affected the diets of the poorer sort. Strong ale and beer, the brewers’ petition claimed, is “the cheapest Food and chiefest Nourishment”, which along with “Bread” sustained the poor during “hard labor”.14 Taking their cause to the public, the printed versions of the brewers’ petition further argued that strong beer and ale revived “poor wearied Labouring men”, lifted “drooping Spirits” and   Ibid., pp. 50, 66–69.   A & O, I, pp. 274–83; ibid., II, pp. 244–5. 11  Steve Hindle, “Dearth and the English Revolution: The Harvest Crisis of 1647–1650”, Economic History Review, Special Issue (2007), 1–34. 12  Hindle, “Dearth and the English Revolution”, pp. 21–5. 13 Clark, The English Alehouse, p. 109; Martin, Alcohol, Sex and Gender, p. 33. 14  “House of Lords Journal Volume 9: 24 August 1647”, Journal of the House of Lords, vol. 9 (1646), British History Online. 9

10

75

Disaffection.indb 75

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

cheered “the hearts of the sorrowfull and afflicted”.15 The brewers’ Vindication of STRONG-BEERE and ALE specifically addressed the significance of strong beer for the diet of those who could not afford to eat meat.16 That others adopted this view of strong beer is apparent in a song by John Phillips, Milton’s nephew, that states, “Fortune my foe hath stoln away my Bacon,/ And powdred Beef and Mustard my mouth hath quite forsaken;/ Which makes me fall unto my Bread & Cheese; O help strong Beer & Ale, or else my life I leese”.17 Clearly opinions favoring the regulation of malt-making and the strength of beer were not universal, and the logic supporting government intervention was openly questioned. As this literature indicates, the relative absence of strong ale and beer heightened tensions between those who favored their production and those who wanted them outlawed during the dearth. After Parliament and local officials altered the price of ale and beer toward the end of the crisis, many brewers could no longer afford to brew their drink strong. Prior to the civil wars, local and city governments had been in charge of setting the assize of ale for their communities – prices that were more likely to have been disregarded than observed.18 In September 1649, right when brewers would be preparing the strong “October” beer for the next harvest, Parliament set the maximum price for a barrel of ale or beer at ten shillings. Brewers who violated the set price would be fined five pounds for the first offense. For a second offense they would be sent to the house of correction.19 According to one newsbook, prior to the new price restrictions many brewers had sold their beer for 18 shillings a barrel around London.20 While these price mandates might have made these beverages more affordable, they did not prevent brewers and maltsters from acquiring precious grain for their trades. The stringent enforcement of regulations likely halted the production of strong ale and beer as they cost more to brew. John Crouch, author of The Man in the Moon, made this connection when he commented on the newly enacted price maximum: “to be sure they’l take care that we shall drink our Drink small-enough”.21 With the double-edged goal of alleviating dearth while ridding England of drunkenness, Parliament officials restricted the brewing of strong ale and beer despite the resulting loss of essential nutrients and sources of income. During the interregnum, strands of royalist rhetoric picked up this discourse condemning the policies of heartless Commonwealth officials who policed strong ale and beer. Most historians have focused on how royalists deplored ale and beer as the drink of “mechanics” and plebs, yet some royalist authors   A Vindication of STRONG-BEERE and ALE… (London, 1647), pp. 1, 4. See also The Brewers Plea (London, 1647). 16  A Vindication of STRONG-BEERE and ALE, pp. 3–4. 17  John Phillips, “A Song”, in Sportive Wit the Muses Merriment… (London, 1656), p. 117. 18 Clark, The English Alehouse, pp. 179–80. 19  A & O, II, pp. 244–5. 20  A Perfect Diurnall…, no. 318 (27 Aug.–2 Sep. 1649), p. 2749. 21  The Man in the Moon (12–19 Sep. 1649), p. 184. 15

76

Disaffection.indb 76

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

chose to write sympathetically of people’s dependence on these nourishing beverages to promote their connection with the English commons. Echoing the concerns of the brewers, the anonymous author of the 1649 pamphlet A Curse against Parliament Ale delineated how Parliament had depleted people’s diets by eliminating strong ale, “the nourisher of blood”. In scorn of its regulatory policies, the author demands, “Does your tainted souls in reason think/ ‘Cause we want Meat, to keep us from our Drink:/ Now against winter too, in snow and Frost,/ Basely rob us of our POTT and TOST!”22 The rhyme’s allusion to ale, which was often imbibed from pots with bits of toast, would not be lost on an early modern audience. Much of this rhetoric exploited strong drink’s double function as a food and an intoxicant. On his attentiongrabbing title page, the Curse’s author lamented that “our Damn’d Juncto, to adde Sorrow to Grief,/ Have Robbed us all, of our best Relief”.23 In a revised version of a ballad celebrating ale, John Taylor reminded his readers: when heaviness the mind doth oppresse And Sorrow and griefe the heart doe assaile, No remedy quicker, than to take off your Liquor And wash away Cares with a [pot of Good ALE].24

Taylor’s ballad also noted how a glass of ale comforted the “Naked”, and when provided with ale, “The hungry man…quite forgets hunger”.25 Each author touted the benefits of strong beer and ale, particularly focusing on their broad importance for the poor. Certain royalist authors capitalized on the metaphorical value in decrying “weak” beer’s unpopular coup over “strong” ale, and in so doing they entered into the debate that concerned those dependent on these beverages for their nutritional and caloric value. The entire pamphlet A Curse against Parliament Ale used Parliament’s restrictions on the production and sale of strong ale and beer to craft connections between the royalists’ plight to that of the industrious commons. In championing “strong ale” over “small beer”, the author aligned the monarchy with ale, the traditional drink of the English people. Not only was ale native to England, but it was also associated with the hard working “country-man”. Beer, however, was traditionally associated with a rising “foreign” middling class of beer brewers whose costly trade replaced that of England’s traditional ale-sellers – poor widows.26 While the actual difference between ale and beer producers and drinkers had lessened significantly by the seventeenth century, the social distinctions between their stereotypical consumers were readily mocked in the satire Wine, Beere,

  A Curse against Parliament-Ale (London, Oct. 1649), p. 3.   Ibid., p. 1. 24  John Taylor, Ale Ale-vated into the Aletitude (London, 1653), p. 20. 25  Ibid., p. 21. 26 Bennett, Ale, Beer, and Brewsters, pp. 77–8, 82. 22 23

77

Disaffection.indb 77

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Ale and Tobacco Contending for Authority reprinted in 1658.27 Even though the poorer sort’s attachment to ale was largely a rhetorical construction, the Curse exploited the traditional association of ale as the drink of the poorest members of the commonality and connected the survival of the crown with the English people’s “native” drink.28 In its opening, the author declares, “Base Miscreants . . . could ye not invent/ Some other Plague in your damn’d PARLIAMENT, To vex good-fellows, but you must put down/ Strong-Ale, the chief upholder of the Crown?”29 In opposition to the monarchy’s relationship with strong ale, these authors coupled Parliament officials with “small” beer. The ballad “A Hymne to CROMWELL” mocked Cromwell’s policies that favored the production of small, weaker beer over strong ale. Malicious rumors claimed that Cromwell himself was a descendant of brewers, suggesting his role in politics was as “foreign” and unnatural in England as his brew. Moreover, the Curse’s allusion to Cromwell’s production of watered-down “small” beer was a direct reference to the crippling taxes and regulations placed on these essential beverages and the reformist desire to ban the brewing of strong drink. Thus, the author craftily tied together the fate of the monarchy with the customary intoxicant and nourishment of the English people. The Curse alludes to happier times before the rise of “his smallbeer Excellence” when people drank their ale strong to “ease [their] mindes of Poverty and Care”.30 Even at a time when the Commonwealth regime was attempting to alleviate dearth, authors of pamphlets such as The Curse crafted an opposing discourse that positioned royalists as those who truly understood the needs of the poor. By aligning the monarchy with “strong” ale and Cromwell to “small” beer, the author claims that the crown safeguarded the welfare of the industrious commons, as well as the “native” traditions and products of England.31 Capitalizing on ale’s innate English quality, these royalist propagandists directly linked drinking ale with English nationalism. One author accused Parliament of robbing the people of “The ancient DRINK of England”, linking the attack on ale with the eradication of the traditional form of government by a king.32 John Taylor’s ballad also glorified ale’s historic role in English  Gallobelgicus, Wine, Beer, Ale, and Tobacco, Contending for Superiority: A Dialogue (London, 1658). The pamphlet was originally published in 1629. Phil Withington argues that these stereotypes are softened through the introduction of “tobacco” as a shared intoxicant: see Withington, “Intoxicants and Society in Early Modern England”, The Historical Journal, 54:3 (2011), 631–57. 28 Crouch’s use of “the man in the moon” and his attachment to claret references a widely known poem from the medieval period. See McElligott, “John Crouch: A Royalist Journalist”, p. 140. 29  A Curse Against Parliament Ale, p. 3. 30 Ibid., pp. 7–8; “A Hymne to Cromwell”, in A Curse Against Parliament Ale, p. 4; Knoppers, ‘“Sing old Noll the Brewer’”, p. 3. 31  A Curse against Parliament Ale, p. 3. 32  Ibid., p. 3. 27

78

Disaffection.indb 78

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

society, championing tradition over innovation. The implicit connection between ale and monarchy in his ballad is apparent. One stanza claims an ancient British King invented ale: “To the praise of CAMBRIVIUS that good Brittish King/ That devised for his Nation (by the Welshmens tale)/ Seventeen hundred years before CHRIST did spring,/ The happy invention of a [pot of Good ale]”.33 In this rhetoric, ale is described as integral to the constitution of English men and women, while the monarchy is presented as a fundamental part of the body politic. Though Parliament’s strict restrictions on the production of beer and ale would soften following the dearth, the continuance of the excise on alcohol continued to strain the prices of these daily necessities. The excise tax, an innovation that began during the 1640s, was extremely unpopular particularly as it affected people across the social spectrum, including the poorest members of society.34 The black-letter broadside drinking ballad The Good Fellowes Complaint: Who Being much Grieved Strong Liquor should Rise in paying a Farthing a Pot for Excise suggests that the brewers were not alone in their regret over the rising prices and declining production of strong beer and ale in particular. In the song the good fellow grumbles that “The Brewer must be paid/ The Hostis she will not score,/ Yet drinke is smaller made,/ Then’t was in times before”.35 A pamphlet defending Christmas celebrations from puritan assault picks up this discourse. While traveling the country in celebration of the holiday, Father Christmas mockingly remarks that the “ringworm excise” has diluted his favorite English beverages. The “slender, lean small Beer or Ale” he received from the good countrymen and women “would have warmed a mans heart like pangs of death in a frosty morning”.36 Many royalist songs that made up loyalist compilations published in 1659–60 suggest that Charles II would eliminate the hated tax on England’s favorite beverages. One such ballad predicted that if Charles were to return, “wee should very well like our fate/ & drink wine at a freer rate”.37 Whether you drank wine to toast your peers or strong beer to harden your labors, Charles II and the royalist cause had your best interests at heart. These arguments in favor of the production, consumption and sale of drink demonstrate that many disaffected authors were aware of the negative impact that certain social policies had on the welfare of the industrious sort and the laborious poor. Whether addressing the hated excise or the absence of essential drinks and livelihoods, royalist pamphleteers exploited these grievances in an attempt to undermine the authority of the established government  Taylor, Ale Ale-vated into the Ale-titude.   For a fuller discussion of the excise, see Chapter 4. 35  “The good Fellowes Complaint: Who being much grieved strong Liquor should rise in paying a Farthing a Pot for Excise” (c.1647) in Cavalier and Puritan: Ballads and Broadsides Illustrating the Period of the Great Rebellion, 1640–1660, ed. Hyder E. Rollins (New York, 1923), pp. 211–12. 36  The Vindication of Christmas (London, 1652), p. 7. 37  BL, MS Harley 3991, fol. 29. 33 34

79

Disaffection.indb 79

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

by ridiculing its unpopular policies. Rhetoric that claimed the “commonwealth” established in the wake of the revolution did not uphold the interests of England’s men and women struck at the legitimacy of the interregnum regimes. Just as many royalist authors championed the daily necessities for England’s industrious commons, many would also deride the increasing regulation on social drinking and drinking houses during the interregnum. Dissent and the Drinking House Those troubled by the consumption and production of strong beer often reproved alehouse-keepers for peddling stronger and stronger versions of the drink in a market saturated with competing drinking establishments. Alehouses became the target of puritan moralists, officials and concerned locals not only because they served the stoutest brews, but, more importantly, because many viewed alehouses as havens of immorality and, at times, disaffection. The close quarters of back-alley alehouses heightened fears that these establishments bred both social and political subversion. Puritans, along with concerned Anglicans and sectaries, struggled throughout the interregnum to regulate establishments that were as necessary to English social life as beer was to the English diet. Stricter policing of social behavior, particularly within victualing and drinking houses, provoked the ire of drinking companies, keepers and other locals resentful of obtrusive policies. Zealous officials and informants who embraced or exploited the reformist goals of the regime brought new political dimensions to ongoing debates over proper forms of sociability. Determined resistance of stalwart keepers and their customers, encounters with hypocritical officials siphoning wealth from the drink trade and increasing tensions among fellow drinkers provoked anti-statist sentiment in alehouses, inns and taverns across the nation – at times in the heart of puritan communities. Whatever their alleged faults, drinking establishments such as alehouses, taverns and inns offered a variety of services to people across the social spectrum. Inns, the largest of the venues, provided sleeping accommodations and stables in addition to sustenance. At times taverns also offered lodging to travelers, while some alehouses – which were often no more than a room in the keeper’s residence, a bench, table and hearth – might temporarily accommodate chapmen and women, day laborers, migrants or vagrants.38 Gentlemen and merchants tended to frequent taverns and inns, as these venues hosted political clubs, assemblies and events such as cock-matches. Wine, the drink of choice for much of the gentry, was not regularly available within alehouses, though in establishments located in towns, it was more

 Hailwood, Alehouses and Good Fellowship, p. 10.

38

80

Disaffection.indb 80

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

common.39 The poorer sort, including laborers, apprentices, servants and poorer craftsmen, patronized ale and victualing houses most frequently, but recent research reveals that the middling sort also made up sizable portion of guests. Despite these trends, several drinking houses served individuals from various social levels, at times promoting the social mixing of classes.40 In almost all drinking houses keepers provided victuals for hungry travelers, market-goers or those without easy access to ovens, such as the poor of London.41 Additionally, all of these venues doubled as economic centers for peddlers, merchants or traders and, of course, thieves. Beyond offering these mundane services, drinking establishments served as centers of sociability.42 This included private houses whose owners only occasionally opened their home to people “clubbing” for ale and beer. In his diary, the apprentice Roger Lowe consistently alluded to spending his free time drinking with other tipplers, and he recorded meeting with members of both genders at the alehouses of Lancashire.43 Alehouses offered the pleasures of comfort and company, while keepers often provided spaces in- and outside of their shops for games such as cards or bowling. Some young men and women used these establishments as a place for courtship or general merriment, and, at times, for sexual encounters. Certain tavern owners and victuallers hosted plays or shows for their customers’ amusement, defying Parliament’s ordinances 39 Clark, The English Alehouse, p. 124; Angela McShane, “Roaring Royalists and Ranting Brewers: The Politicisation of Drink and Drunkenness in Political Broadside Ballads from 1640 to 1689”, in A Pleasing Sinne, Drink and Conviviality in Seventeenth Century England, ed. Adam Smyth (Cambridge, 2004), p. 84; Alan Everitt, “The English Urban Inn, 1560–1700”, in Perspectives in English Urban History, ed. A. Everitt (London, 1973), pp. 114–17. 40 Keith Wrightson, “Alehouses, Order and Reformation in Rural England, 1590– 1660”, in Popular Culture and Class Conflict 1590–1914: Explorations in the History of Labour and Leisure, ed. Eileen Yeo and Stephen Yeo (Brighton, 1981), p. 7; Amanda Flather, Gender and Space in Early Modern England (Woodbridge, 2007), pp. 110–21. The term “victualing” could refer to the selling of both alcohol and food, but it could also be applied to the provision of drink alone. See Sara Pennell, “‘Great quantities of gooseberry pye and baked clod of beef’: Victualling and Eating Houses in Early Modern London”, in Londinopolis, ed. P. Griffiths and M. Jenner (Manchester, 2000), pp. 230–4. Most yeomen produced beer within their own households and, therefore, had less need to visit the alehouse than their poorer neighbors. Similarly, those of middling status were able to bake at home, while many poor city dwellers had to pay for the use of the local victualler’s oven. 41  Pennell, “Victualling and Eating Houses in Early Modern London”, p. 230; Clark, “The Alehouse as an Alternative Society”, in Puritans and Revolutionaries, ed. D.H. Pennington and K. Thomas (Oxford, 1978), p. 54. 42  See Hailwood, Alehouse and Good Fellowship, for a detailed examination of alehouse sociability in the seventeenth century. 43 A. Lynn Martin, “Drinking and Alehouses in the Diary of an English Mercer’s Apprentice, 1663–1674”, in Alcohol: A Social and Cultural History, ed. Mack P. Holt (Oxford, 2006), p. 97.

81

Disaffection.indb 81

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

against stage plays during the 1640s and 1650s.44 Drinking venues also played a critical role in the reception and dissemination of news and rumors. Locals and travelers shared the latest reports of current events by word of mouth and also shared newsletters and recent printed broadsides or pamphlets.45 Drinking establishments clearly offered much more than drink – the promise of a warm meal, good fellowship, public entertainment and fresh news brought many folks out to the local watering hole. Given the central role drinking establishments played in English sociability, popular resentment toward their strict regulation was as old as regulation itself.46 Although the policing of alcohol consumption and alehouses was not an interregnum innovation, the motivation and drive supporting regulation transformed following civil war and revolution.47 According to Bernard Capp, social regulations reached their apex after the civil wars as puritans gained control over many local and national seats of power.48 In the context of the revolution, resistance to local governance could easily be infused with larger criticisms of state policies associated with a new and potentially illegitimate regime.49 As seen in the debate over strong beer, resistance to enhanced restrictions of the drink trade further politicized drinking culture at the alehouse during the 1640s and 1650s.50 Reformers concerned with curbing immorality and officials apprehensive of seditious murmurs attempted to root out these evils by regulating the dens of sin that fostered such behavior: the “disorderly” alehouse. However, the regulations on drink and drinking – stricter sabbatarian legislation, the excise on drink and a ban on French wine to name a few – also provoked resistance amongst individuals and communities that depended on drinking establishments socially and economically. The conflicts that ensued were not necessarily fueled by disaffection, but disruptive policies and officials associated with the new regimes bred hostil44 For plays and shows, see, for example, A & O, II, pp. 1070–2; LMA, CLA/047/ LJ/01/0127, 10 Jan. 1655; CLA/047/LJ/01/0135, 9 Jan. 1657. For the use of alehouses for encounters, see Griffiths, Youth and Authority, pp. 206–8; Gowing, “‘The Freedom of the Streets’”, p. 140; Martin, “Drinking and Alehouses”, pp. 102–3. 45   Adam Fox, Oral and Literate Culture, pp. 352–3. 46   The reasons behind the derogation and regulation of the alehouse have been widely studied and debated. See, for instance, Keith Wrigtson and David Levine, Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling, 1525–1700 (Oxford, 1995) particularly the postscript; M. Spufford, “Puritanism and Social Control?”, in Order and Disorder in Early Modern England, ed. Anthony Fletcher and John Stevenson (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 41–57; Martin Ingram, “Reformation of Manners in Early Modern England”, in The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England, pp. 47–88. 47  Mark Stoyle, Loyalty and Locality; David Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion; Wood, Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics in Early Modern England, pp. 130–2. 48 Capp, England’s Culture Wars, pp. 152–3. 49  Bowen, “Seditious Speech and Popular Royalism”, p. 3. Bowen similarly argues that after the revolution, “challenges to local authority were thus altered in their political meaning and rendered distinct from earlier invective against king’s officials”. 50  A & O, II, pp. 239–40.

82

Disaffection.indb 82

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

ity. In such a climate, civil war politics regularly melded with personal grievances, a mixture that fostered disaffected sentiments and royalist sympathies. Though the success of social reformers is notoriously difficult to gauge, evidence suggests that certain regions and cities saw a sharp increase in regulation during the interregnum. In his study of the reformation of manners during the 1650s, Bernard Capp notes the collusion of local magistrates, concerned ministers, moralists and state officials gave rise to stricter, more encompassing regulations of alehouses in areas across the country.51 Regions that experienced large overhauls in local administration following the outbreak of war, such as Lancashire and Hampshire, had a notable upsurge in prosecutions against drunkenness and unlicensed alehouses.52 Men dedicated to Parliament and the interregnum regimes replaced local officials who had adhered to the king, ensuring the enforcement of several regulative policies.53 In May 1650, Parliament released a new act “for the better observance of the Lords day”, which in turn generated increased prosecutions of sabbath breakers.54 The new sabbatarian legislation outlawed public drinking on Sundays, whereas previous legislation had only forbidden tippling during service time. That same year the Council of State instructed justices to regulate the number of licenses provided to alehouses, inns and victualing houses within a community and to shut down houses that were “unnecessary” or located in “blinde Corners”.55 Some “well-affected” persons petitioned their local justices to eliminate alehouses entirely, such as the parishioners of Westonzoyland, Somerset who bemoaned the existence of troublesome alehouses that served no purpose in their community.56 Though the interregnum regimes never introduced novel legislation, national and local regulations were often bolstered by the renewed vigor of zealous reformers and new officials who gained power following the revolution. Partly to ensure the implementation of his reformist agenda, Lord Protector Cromwell famously placed majorgenerals in charge of the localities from October 1655 to January 1657. Some of these officials took charge and enforced social regulation very seriously, as evidenced by John Barkstead’s meetings in Westminster and Middlesex to discuss licensing issues and breaches of the sabbath.57 Licenses became more difficult to procure in certain cities and localities, as justices in places such as Middlesex, Westminster, Cheshire and Leicestershire began to limit the number allowed in certain areas and barred the approval of licenses from outside one’s division. In 1656, the justices of the West Riding in Yorkshire ordered that only two alehouses could be licensed in any one town. In  Capp, England’s Culture Wars, p. 154.   Wrightson, “Two Concepts of Order”, appendix 5; Capp, p. 157. 53  See, for instance, C.F. Forster, “Government in Yorkshire During the Interregnum”, Northern History, 9 (1976), 100–01. 54  A & O, vol. ii, pp. 383–7. 55  A Briefe Relation, no. 11 (27 Nov.–4 Dec. 1649), p. 128. 56 Hailwood, Alehouses and Good Fellowship, p. 31. 57 Capp, England’s Culture Wars, pp. 157–8. 51 52

83

Disaffection.indb 83

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

many cities and counties, such as Middlesex, Norfolk and Somerset, justices would only distribute licenses at the quarter and petty sessions.58 Other local officials insisted that licenses be approved by all justices, or even required a note from the local parish minister and other local notables.59 The excise tax on ale, beer, cider and wine also placed certain restrictions on the production and public consumption of “drink”.60 As a consequence of greater state investment in regulation, stricter policing and the new excise tax, those who patronized drinking establishments increasingly came into direct contact with the interregnum state and its policies. The vigorous campaigns to enforce social regulations met with resistance in many locales. Tapsters and the drinking companies they served found ways to keep their doors open despite strict directives and the dearth of licenses. As Bernard Capp has shown, those keepers who lacked or lost licenses could obtain a counterfeit one with relative ease in certain areas of the country. In Middlesex Edward Cooke entered the business of crafting and selling fake licenses, some including a forged copy of Oliver Cromwell’s hand and seal.61 Three men from the West Riding of Yorkshire were prosecuted for selling blank licenses in Pontefract “for lucres sake”, including one to a local widow. Other keepers tried their own hand at counterfeiting a victualing license.62 Owners of disorderly or unlicensed houses also evaded prosecution by staying one step ahead of local officials. A Shadwell woman charged with having a disorderly house open on a Sunday attempted to protect herself and her patrons from the authorities by hiding some clients and sneaking others out of a window on the top floor.63 When the high constable of Shoreditch found Barbara Burton in an alehouse on a fast day “in the company of twoe yong men”, she attempted to flee from the officials “by scaling a bricke wall of eight foote high and leaping down from thence”. Prior to this extreme action, she had attempted to evade prosecution by saying one of the men was her husband; she only opted to flee after they required her to produce a certificate of marriage.64 When Laurence Sedgwick of Dent in West Yorkshire was charged with keeping an unlicensed alehouse for a second time in July 1654, he decided to run away rather than face being whipped in a house of correction. Undeterred, he was brought up for unlicensed brewing and evading a local justice again in 1657.65 John Reeder of Swaffham in Norfolk also similarly absconded after being convicted as an unlicensed alehouse   WYAS Wakefield, QS 10/3 fol. 185; Capp, England’s Culture Wars, pp. 157–8.   Ibid., p. 158. 60  A & O, I, pp. 202–14. 61  LMA, MJ/SR/1088 rec. 85, 4 Jun. 1652; Capp, England’s Culture Wars, p. 155. 62  WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/4 fol. 4, 20 Apr. 1652; See also LMA, MJ/SR/1163 rec. 128, 26 Mar. 1657. 63  LMA, MJ/SR/1076 rec. 226, 3 Nov. 1651. 64  LMA, MJ/SR/998 rec. 54, 27 May 1647. 65  WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/5 fol. 4 and QS 10/3 fols. 50 and 218. First offence committed in Jul. 1654. 58 59

84

Disaffection.indb 84

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

keeper for a second time in January 1654. Local justices ordered the constables to locate Reeder and to send him to the house of correction.66 After the short-lived experiment of the Rule of the Major-Generals, several inn and alehouse keepers in Exeter, a town in which social reformation had been largely successful, attempted to allude the surveillance of local officials. Before the constables managed to break down the door of his inn on the night of 8 September 1657, Martin Perryman and his patrons snuffed out the candles and scattered their playing cards across the room.67 Sometimes keepers had elaborate plans to prevent searches of their establishments. Philip Mason attempted to evade the law and intimidate the officers searching his house one Sunday by locking them as “prisoners” in his house for over an hour.68 John Meeres of Hoxton hired a doorman whose sole responsibility was to refuse entry to any officers trying to search his victualing house, including justices of the peace and the sheriff of London. Meeres’s seventeenth-century bouncer stood guard at his alehouse on Sundays, days of thanksgiving and days of humiliation. Clearly his presentment before the bench did little to reform Meeres or his alehouse – he had to return to the local session four years later for barring the watch from his establishment yet again.69 Aggressive resistance from owners, customers and sympathetic locals made office-holding a dangerous business. Not only did these unpaid, temporary officers risk alienating their neighbors if they enforced unpopular ordinances such as the sabbatarian legislation, but they also jeopardized their safety.70 Cases against those who refused to assist constables as they searched drinking establishments littered the Middlesex bench during the interregnum.71 In June 1654 at least eleven people were presented for abusing local officials. This aggressive resistance of law enforcement helps explain how twenty-one people were charged with neglecting their duties as constables or watchmen in the same session.72 Bernard Capp has shown similar patterns of violence against local enforcers in the counties. In a well-known case from Coventry,   D.E. Howell, ed., Norfolk Quarter Sessions Order Book, 1650–1657 (Norfolk, 1955), p. 65. 67   DHC, ECA, Book 64, fol. 380–1; For similar cases, see ibid., fols. 348, 357, 371b, 386, 431. See also Capp, England’s Culture Wars, p. 252. 68  LMA, MJ/SR/1202 rec. 136, 12 Sep. 1659. 69  LMA, MJ/SR/1065 rec. 133, 25 Mar. 1651; and MJ/SR/1043 rec. 169 & 172, 12 Sep. 1655; see also LMA, MJ/SR/1127 rec. 312, 6 Aug. 1654. 70  For a discussion of the problem with local law enforcement, see, for example, Keith Wrightson, “Two Concepts of Order”, p. 29; Mark Goldie, “The Unacknowledged Republic: Office-Holding in early Modern England”, in The Politics of the Excluded, c.1500–1850, ed. Tim Harris (New York, 2001), pp. 153–94; Hailwood, Alehouses and Good Fellowship, pp. 83–7. 71  See LMA, MJ/SR/1195 rec. 30, 17 May 1659 session; MJ/SR/1167 rec. 78, 24 Jun. 1657. 72  LMA, MJ/SR/1126 rec. 143, 243, 253, 269/270/271, 291/293, 308, 446, 448, 464 and ind. 343–58 and 372–6, 20 Jun. 1654 session. 66

85

Disaffection.indb 85

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

the local mayor and town zealot, Robert Beake, provoked a riot when he attempted to suppress a large number of alehouses in early 1656.73 The large number of victuallers in the London suburbs allowed for collaboration amongst keepers who resisted regulation during the interregnum. When local officials charged Thomas Bloodworth with keeping a disorderly victualing house, he retorted that “he with other vitulers would joyne together against any law that should oppose them”.74 The arrival of informants threatened to undermine victuallers’ ability to resist or negotiate the implementation of unwelcome regulation. To target this threat, Middlesex victuallers and other sellers created networks to facilitate the spreading of information about official informers. Evidence suggests that victuallers alerted their fellow keepers of two such informants who exploited social legislation for their own personal gain. Henry Potter and John Poulgreen appear on numerous indictments and recognizance records from Middlesex. The records indicate that these men searched for “sabath breakers and victuallers” and regularly used their information to blackmail violators. Local officials may have paid Poulgreen and Potter to discover keepers who ignored regulations, but evidence suggests the informants may have turned a blind eye to infractions should a keeper offer a bribe. Some reports even suggest they provided false testimonies. As the two continued to inform against victuallers some chose to retaliate with violence and suits charging the two with false testimony beginning in 1652. Detailing his frustration with the duplicity of Poulgreen, William Hatch allegedly claimed “that John Poullgreene was a false … man for informeinge against sabath breakers and victuallers”. According to Hatch, Poulgreen was just one of “three or foure rogues . . . mainetayned to sweare and false sweare against honest house keepers”.75 Two years later William Nicholson of Clerkenwell chose to seek legal redress and charged Poulgreen with “takeing Bribes and Cozening the people under the pretence of Informing against offenders that breake the Lords day”.76 Henry Potter was one of Poulgreen’s sureties. Another record regarding this case accused Poulgreen of “taking composition of Alehouse keepers that keepe disorders in theire houses and not bringing them before a Magistrate”.77 Poulgreen and Potter continued their roles as informants despite actions of men such as Hatch and Nicholson. Just two months following the case against Poulgreen, he and Potter presented Elizabeth Younge “for keeping unlawful Games” and allowing people “to drinke and tipple at her dore and about her house on the Lords day”.78  Capp, England’s Culture Wars, pp. 155–6; Underdown, Revel, Riot, and Rebellion, pp. 263–4. 74  LMA, MJ/SR/1185 rec. 115, 20 Jul. 1658. 75  Ibid., MJ/SR/1088 rec. 88, 11 Jun. 1652. 76  Ibid., MJ/SR/1126 rec. 50, 7 Jun. 1654. 77  Ibid., MJ/SR/1126 rec. 50, 7 Jun. 1654. 78  Ibid., MJ/SR/1127 rec. 273, 12 Aug. 1654.

73

86

Disaffection.indb 86

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

A network of keepers organized to thwart Poulgreen and Potter as the two continued to inform against Middlesex victuallers. On 29 May 1655 Poulgreen and Potter presented at least fifteen cases at the Middlesex sessions, some together, some separately. Of these cases, they were assaulted in four.79 The number of attacks suggests that Poulgreen and Potter’s reputation preceded their searches. The keepers who beat the two informers attempted to silence them through violence and intimidation rather than succumb to their blackmail, which suggests a culture of retribution had developed amongst the victualing community. For these victuallers, the self-serving behavior of Potter and Poulgreen surpassed the boundaries of acceptability. While the two informants may have viewed themselves as “honest men” who exercised loyalty and “good citizenship” through their searches, the Middlesex victuallers saw their conduct as dishonest, greedy and worthy of physical punishment.80 The use of informants such as Poulgreen and Potter added fuel to discourses that suggested the supposed zeal of reformers often led to persecution of honest victuallers, and it questioned the sincerity of the entire enterprise. In their language against Poulgreen and Potter, the victuallers’ subverted traditional views of the honest informant and exposed the dishonesty and deception of the two men. Though the acts keepers and their clients perpetrated were not remarkable in themselves – tapsters and tipplers used similar methods to evade prosecution before the interregnum – grassroots responses to the interregnum campaigns in Middlesex reveal that the revolution could change the language and dynamics of opposition. When a local official attempted to arrest the laborer Henry Kelsey for drinking in an alehouse on the sabbath in May 1652, Kelsey responded by abusing the officers and condemning “the authority of Parliament by which they act[ed]”.81 In a statement against the heightened sabbatarian regulations of the interregnum regimes, as well as those who enforced them, Phillip Carter, a victualler in Holborn, publicly declared that “They were rogues that would observe the Act of Parliament for keepeinge the Saboth and against drinkeinge”.82 When the night watch entered an alehouse around midnight in West Leigh, Lancashire, the company of tipplers jeered that they were well aware of the act regulating alehouses hours, but they would “not obey it” as they preferred to continue to “drink”.83 79 Ibid., MJ/SR/1138a. Cases presented by Poulgreen and/or Potter where they were not assaulted: rec. 56, 61, 67, 83, 84, 85, 86, 86a, 88, 87, 94. Cases in which they were assaulted: rec. 60, 62, 63, 69, 29 May 1655 sessions. 80 For a discussion of informants as good citizens, see Rachel Weil, “Matthew Smith versus the ‘Great Men’: Plot-Talk, the Public Sphere and the Problem of Credibility in the 1690s”, in The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England, ed. Peter Lake and Steve Pincus (Manchester, 2007), p. 233. 81  LMA, MJ/SR/1085 rec. 144. 82  Ibid., MJ/SR/1088 rec. 86, 18 Jun. 1652. 83  Quoted in Hailwood, Alehouses and Good Fellowship, p. 21; Wrightson, “Two Concepts of Order”, p. 21.

87

Disaffection.indb 87

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Similarly, when the Whitechapel headborough attempted to shut down John Gallant’s house around midnight on 21 January 1660, the victualler refused, and further shouted that the officer “had no Authority and that there was noe Authority in England”, likely referring to the disintegration of power that began the previous October. Gallant told the headborough “to Kiss his Ass”, and claimed that neither he, “my Lord Mayor nor the Lord Cheife Justice should come into this house”.84 Royalist authors exploited rumors that certain interregnum politicos, including Cromwell and those close to him, were brewers in order to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the state’s regulation of social drinking.85 Thomas Pride, the infamous colonel who purged Parliament in 1648, was actually a brewer, and the combination of his political and military exploits, his involvement in social regulation in the capital and his trade provided perfect fodder for royalist propagandists. Evidence suggests his interest in the victualing trade continued after his political rise following the civil wars. Not only had Pride signed the 1647 brewers’ petition in favor of alleviating the excise on strong beer and ale, but also in 1654 he and his associates were responsible for providing beer and ale to the navy. In that same year Pride attempted to evade payment of his excise arrears for victuals sold in the 1640s.86 Thus, Pride’s lucrative occupation as a brewer enabled royalist pamphleteers to portray his heavy-handed policies against tipplers and alehouse-keepers as simultaneously ironic, hypocritical and smacking of self-serving motivations. During 1649 and 1650 many royalist newsbooks capitalized on Pride’s involvement in the hunt for Sabbath breakers in and around London to illustrate the state’s hypocrisy. John Crouch’s newsbook claimed that Pride’s actions merely forced people out of Islington and into Smithfield and Pye-corner, where they “might have drunke of his Brewing as long as they would without control”.87 After Pride had been elected to London’s Common Council, Mercurius Pragmaticus, a royalist newsbook, jeered that this brewer would institute a policy requiring that “Pride’s-Ale … run in each tap-house” or else he would provide “no Licence to sell Ale on Sundaies”.88 When Parliament decided to levy the excise on home-brewed ale and beer in February 1650, The Royall Diurnall declared that this policy was “beget by that blockhead Pride” in order to “get the sole Trade of brewing into his own hands”.89 Disaffected propagandists also amplified people’s animosity toward hostile prosecutions against poor, prosecuted alehouse-keepers. Mercurius Pragmaticus berated Colonel Pride for taking away people’s alehouse licenses “if they doe but sell a pot of Ale toward   Ibid., MJ/SR/1208 rec. 53, 21 Jan. 1659/60.  Laura Lunger Knoppers, “‘Sing old Noll the Brewer’: Royalist Satire and Social Inversion, 1648–64”, The Seventeenth Century, 15:1 (2000), 33. 86  Gentles “Pride, Thomas”, ODB, pp. 401–5; CSPD 1653–4, p. 9; CSPD 1654, p. 426. 87  The Man in the Moon, no. 44 (20–27 Feb. 1650), p. 349. 88  Mercurius Pragmaticus (For King Charls II), part II, no. 47 (19–26 Mar. 1650). 89  The Royall Diurnal, no. 2 (25 Feb.–6 Mar. 1650). 84 85

88

Disaffection.indb 88

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

maintaining of their Famelies” on a Sunday.90 All of these authors used the duplicitous figure of Pride to attack the legitimacy of the Commonwealth’s reformist policies, placing grassroots hostility to officials’ interference with the drink trade in a royalist context. In addition to their attacks on Pride, royalist propagandists also targeted reformer and London official Robert Tichborne for his overzealousness in Middlesex. In a pamphlet designed to persuade Londoners to vote against Alderman Robert Tichborne in the 1654 mayoral elections the polemicist and sometimes royalist, Samuel Sheppard, chastised Tichborne for his overzealous regulation in Middlesex – particularly his strict execution of penal laws against poor ale and victualing house-keepers.91 Sheppard provided details of Tichborne’s career as a justice of the peace and an alderman, including his persecution of any violations of the regulations placed on the drink trade. Emphasizing the poverty of the people adversely affected by Tichborne’s fanaticism, this pamphleteer first noted that most of the “Tapsters” Tichborne pursued were beggars prior to their positions as ale-sellers. This was followed by a discussion of specific cases that illustrated the harmful results of his overzealous enforcement of regulations. One case involved a “poor necessitous wretched old widow” who was forced into selling “a pot or two of Ale” to “some of her neighbours” to feed herself and her children. When she sold a quart of ale for 2d, Tichborne fined her 20s even though “her whole estate is not worth ten shillings”. When she committed this violation again, she was taken to Bridewell and her children were forced upon the parish. The author questioned Tichborne’s actions, and declared “who would not rather imagine this poor soul an object of compassion, then a subject for so much severity and so little justice”.92 Such punishments were well within Tichborne’s purview; what the author attacked was his strict enforcement of price mandates and licensing requirements with no consideration of the poorer members of his community. In another case against a vintner, the pamphleteer emphasized how Tichborne’s enthusiastic implementation of the penal laws violated traditional values that upheld social relations within the community. The vintner was charged with using a concealed entrance to his house to cause the least amount of “offense” to his neighbors. For this violation, Tichborne’s men crept into his house during the night and snatched the vintner “out of his bed”, whisking him off to Bridewell. Again, the author referred to the family of the accused, and stated that Tichborne’s warrant ordered “no respect to be given to Betty his wife, their six children, or any of them”. In this instance, as in the case of the widowed alehouse-keeper, Tichborne’s “zeal” caused him to violate the customs of the community instated to safeguard the poorer members of the English commonality. Indeed, Sheppard argued that Tichborne’s behavior   Mercurius Pragmaticus (For Charls II), part II, no. 44 (5 Feb.–5 Mar. 1650).   S. Sheppard, Good Ale Monopolized and the Tapsters Persecuted (London, 1654). 92  Ibid., p. 6. 90 91

89

Disaffection.indb 89

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

suggests he was an irreligious man, stating the alderman was “one whom we may presume fears not God, because he so hates his neighbors”.93 By reiterating the importance of the drink trade to the livelihood of the poor and destitute, Sheppard drew upon popular hostility toward the prosecution of poor alehouse-keepers. Tichborne’s zeal conflicted with the customary view that selling ale allowed the poor to alleviate their plight without going “on the parish”.94 Repeatedly constables were hesitant or unwilling to prosecute men and women who dispensed drink in order to survive. The constable of Thruscross in West Yorkshire “refused to execute a warrant” from the local justices of the peace who had ordered him to seize 20s of goods from both Frances and Ann Brotherton, single women who brewed and sold ale from their cottage without a license.95 The strict prosecution of unlicensed keepers regardless of their character or economic circumstances could provoke hostility. After Middlesex Justice John Waterton committed Mary Carter to prison in May 1654 for victualing without a license, Richard and Thomas Carter confronted him, threatening “that he did more then he could answer in committing Mary Carter to prison for victualing without a license”. Richard allegedly told Waterton “he would have a license in despite of him”, while Thomas taunted him, “saying that neither he nor his petifoggers should committ Mary Carter”.96 The Commonwealth and Protectorate marshaled zealous magistrates such as Waterton, along with soldiers, officers, “honest men” and moralists to institute one of the most intensive reform campaigns in England. While Derek Hirst and Christopher Durston have argued that the puritan goal of “godly reform” had failed, Bernard Capp’s recent work reconsiders the context in which these “culture wars” were fought in the 1650s. Not only did reformers face persistent resistance even in the regions where reform took root, but they also lacked the powerful resources of an established church and a strong central presence to ensure their quick victory.97 Though many reformers and their supporters made good headway during the eleven-year puritan experiment, the surveillance and regulation of drink and the drinking house created tensions amongst communities, neighbors and drinking companies across the country that were easily exploited by royalist and disaffected authors. The divisiveness of civil war and revolution redefined old grievances, and perceptions of age-old policies and practices of social reform were tinged with partisan politics and the encroaching reach of the revolutionary regimes. The strict regulation of drinking and sociability incited   Ibid., pp. 5–6, 8.  Hailwood, Alehouse and Good Fellowship, p. 47. 95  WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/4 fol. 247, 13 Jan. 1656/7. 96  LMA, MJ/SR/1123 rec. 162–3, 3 May 1654. 97  Derek Hirst, “The Failure of Godly Rule in the English Republic”, Past and Present, 132:1 (1991), 33–66; Durston, “Puritan Rule and the Failure of Cultural Revolution”, 210–33; Capp, England’s Culture Wars, pp. 258–63. 93 94

90

Disaffection.indb 90

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

resistance and roused anti-state sentiments within the alehouses, taverns and inns across the country. Dissent in the Drinking House Recently the debate over the role of the alehouse as a site of “dissident subculture” has been revived.98 Most social historians agree that alehouse grumblings should no longer be dismissed as “pathetic shouts”, but we must also be careful not to assume that alehouses were the preserve of feisty plebs who expressed frustration over their subordinate status with little fear of retribution.99 Scholarship assessing political agency in the alehouse tends to separate the social history of drink – as a food, a necessity, an intoxicant and a regulated commodity – from the discussion of the alehouse as a political and cultural space. Many scholars have noted that civil war divisions politicized “drink”, but few have considered how partisanship, periods of dearth, stricter regulations and taxation collectively unsteadied forms of sociability and patterns of social interaction that hinged on normative customs of social drinking.100 In his work on intoxicants and intoxication, Phil Withington prioritizes the relationship between sociability and drinking, arguing that social practice, more than architecture, informs and creates space. While the physical design and structure of a drinking house weighed into its definition as a social space, an individual’s or a company’s experience of a 98 Wrightson, “Alehouses, Order and Reformation in Rural England”; Clark, “The Alehouse as an Alternative Society”; James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance (New Haven, CT, 1990), 108–35; Phil Withington, “Company and Sociability in Early Modern England”, Social History, 32:3 (2007), 291–307; James R. Brown, “Drinking Houses and the Politics of Surveillance in Pre-industrial Southampton”, in Political Space in Pre-Industrial Europe, pp. 61–80; Mark Hailwood, “Alehouses, Popular Politics, and Plebian Agency in Early Modern England”, in Locating Agency, pp. 51–76; Hailwood, Alehouses and Good Fellowship, pp. 61–74. 99  Clark, “The Alehouse and the Alternative Society”, p. 68; Andy Wood, “Fear, Hatred and the Hidden Injuries of Class in Early Modern England”, The Journal of Social History, 39:3 (2006), 41–72; Wood, “Subordination, Solidarity and the Limits of Popular Agency in a Yorkshire Valley, c.1596–1615”, Past and Present, 193:1 (2006), 803–26; Weil, “Matthew Smith versus the ‘Great Men’”, pp. 232–51; Brown, “Drinking Houses and the Politics of Surveillance”, pp. 61–80; Hailwood, “Alehouses, Popular Politics, and Plebian Agency”, pp. 61–4; Hailwood, Alehouses and Good Fellowship, pp. 64–5. 100  For the politicization of “drink” see, for example, Marika Keblusek, “Wine for Comfort: Drinking and the Royalist Exile Experience, 1642–1660”, in A Pleasing Sinne, pp. 55–68; Angela McShane, “Roaring Royalists”, pp. 69–88; McShane, “The Extraordinary Case of the Blood-Drinking and Flesh-Eating Cavaliers”, in The Extraordinary and the Everyday in Early Modern England, ed. McShane and Walker (Basingstoke, 2010), pp. 192–210; McShane, “Subjects and Objects: Material Expressions of Love and Loyalty”, Journal of British Studies, 48:4 (2009), 871–86; Lois Potter, Secret Rites and Secret Writing: Royalist Literature, 1641–1660 (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 138–43; Charles Ludington, The Politics of Wine: A New Cultural History (New York, 2013), pp. 15–30.

91

Disaffection.indb 91

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

drinking house was relational, and, therefore, largely dependent upon social interactions within its walls.101 The quest to achieve a deeper understanding of how drinking houses were tied to efficacious popular agency requires a discussion of how larger social, economic and political forces interacted with performances of individual or communal agency wherever drink was bought, sold and consumed in public.102 Tracing the impact of such fields of force is notoriously difficult, and the importance of individuality and local customs problematizes general theories regarding the relationship between the alehouse, disaffection and the history of “everyday life”. Notwithstanding these methodological pitfalls, close analyses of interpersonal clashes at drinking houses, placed within the larger context of the history of drink, reveal that interregnum policies and the politics of allegiance further complicated traditional forms of sociability and practices of communal and individual agency. As sites hosting countless forms of social interaction, drinking and victualing houses provided the setting for interpersonal struggles triggered and informed by civil war divides. Despite their zeal for social order, the Commonwealth and Protectorate regimes did very little to heal these breaches or to appease the grievances they spawned. The following section does not merely claim that drinking houses offered a space for the uttering of disaffected conversations or royalists’ grumblings during the interregnum; more importantly, it argues that the experience of social drinking provoked social tensions and grievances that were linked to civil war politics and interregnum policies. Regulations that interfered with established social practices bred ill-will and hostility, and, by unsettling social relations at drinking houses, they shook the foundation of the social and political orders. When interregnum officials and their supporters policed alehouses, the sharing of rumors, opinions and the drinking of seditious healths, they challenged popular interpretations of “neighborliness”, “loyalty” and “good company”, as well as the social bonds that generated each. Seditious statements uttered in the alehouse did far more than express dissent; they infused historic rituals of conviviality with new tensions and complications within England’s drinking communities. Friends, neighbors and strangers who continued to drink to the health of the Stuarts sought the support and acknowledgment of good fellows, and those who refused to perform the custom damaged the honor and respectability of health-drinkers. The ill-will and hostility such encounters bred did not necessarily result  Phil Withington, “Company and Sociability”, pp. 294–6. See also Withington, “Intoxicants and Society”, pp. 631–57. Withington’s view is influenced by Michel de Certeau’s conception of “space”. See de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven F. Randall (Berkeley, CA, 1984). 102  Similar points have been raised by Phil Withington in “Company and Sociability”, p. 295 and Andy Wood, “Subordination, Solidarity, and the Limits of Popular Agency”, p. 43. Whereas Withington is skeptical about the possibility of isolating the influence of such fields-of-force, Wood is troubled by how these hegemonic structures limit popular agency. 101

92

Disaffection.indb 92

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

in support for the Stuarts; however, in concert with the state’s programs of reform, regulation and its definition of “orderly” behavior and interaction, dissension at victualing houses provoked grievances that were easily exploited and re-conceptualized by royalists. English men and, on occasion, women had engaged in seditious or treasonable talk over a cup of ale or beer for centuries. While the extent to which utterances themselves were actionable had shifted over time, the Treason Act of 1649 and subsequent ordinances allowed state officials to prosecute any utterances that “openly” declared that the Commonwealth (and, later, the Protectorate) was not the supreme authority of the nation. By claiming that anyone who attempted “to plot, contrive, or endeavor[ed] to stir up or raise force” against the state committed treason, this act and subsequent ordinances could also construe seditious speech as treason within certain contexts.103 Given the link between seditious speech, rumor and rebellion, Commonwealth and Protectorate officials undoubtedly feared that drinking houses could become spaces for subversive meetings and conversations. Some state and local officials even viewed breaches of regulations governing alcohol consumption as evidence of hostility to the government. Parliamentarian tracts enshrined cavaliers as debauched tavern haunters and depicted drunkenness as a distinctly royalist crime.104 Officials’ fears that drink-laced disaffection might lead to conspiracy meant that well-established venues, such as the Black Boy in Ashcott, risked closure if the keepers openly permitted subversive or disorderly behavior. These harsh laws against treasonable speech – more powerful than those under the Stuarts – suggest interregnum officials were acutely aware of the power of speech and its ability to incite unrest.105 Many authorities and moralists believed the seditious ramblings of the poor required regulation, but they viewed the dangers such language posed differently than the tavern-talk of royalist conspirators. A similar process occurred in revolutionary France, where actions authorities deemed “political” were also socially stratified. Thus, the bourgeois café was seen as a site for “dangerous public opinion”, whereas officials viewed proletarian brandy shops as disorderly for different reasons.106 English puritan moralists argued that poorer men’s tongues, loosened by a pot of ale, inevitably pronounced opinions of their social superiors.107 The dangers alehouse sociability posed also emerge in broadside ballads and petitions that   A & O Online, vol. ii, pp. 193–4; see also Orr, Treason and the State, pp. 56–7.  Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, p. 240; The Moderate, no. 17 (31 Oct.–7 Nov. 1648); Several Proceedings, no. 42 (11–18 Jul. 1650). 105 Orr, Treason and the State, pp. 18–19; Cressy, Dangerous Talk, pp. 49–54. 106 Thomas Brennan, “Taverns and the Public Sphere in the French Revolution”, in Alcohol: A Social and Cultural History, p. 16. 107  See, for example, John Downame, Foure treatises tending to disswade all Christians from foure no less hainous then common sinnes… (London 1613); Clark, The English Alehouse, p. 145. 103 104

93

Disaffection.indb 93

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

condemned the disorderly, derelict and drunken behavior that these sites supposedly encouraged.108 Fueled by drink, the mask of subordination slipped from the faces of commoners who pontificated on affairs of state. As Andy Wood has argued, plebeian speech provoked elite anxieties precisely because it challenged hegemonic codes of social interaction that demanded silence and deference from subordinates.109 Elites feared that speech acts could “stir up” resistance because the inherent “disorderliness” of the lower orders made them easily excitable and prone to speak collectively against the interest of their superiors. While Commonwealth and Protectorate officials fervently sought out speeches that smacked of royalist plotting or conspiracy, the state relied upon local officials, soldiers and “honest men” to report, prosecute and silence sporadic seditious talk. Wood and James R. Brown argue that these local “honest” men, often of middling status, would inform authorities of the dangerous talk and disorderly behavior of their poorer neighbors.110 Rachel Weil’s research on the later Stuart period offers further evidence that informing served as an “expression of citizenship”, loyalty and identity. Informants used their voices to repress troublesome speech, manipulating the state’s desire to safeguard the social order through silence, thereby forming their own image by regulating others.111 Civil war and revolution may not have eradicated the culture of subordination and deference that often drove neighbors and local officials to inform, but they did create alternative interpretations of loyalty, disaffection, “honest” men and “good citizens”. During the interregnum, many men and women grappled with balancing multiple identities and the fluid definitions of loyalty, good fellowship and allegiance. At times state officials and local authorities mobilized informants to weed out what they perceived to be dangerous talk, but their interference often incited interpersonal tensions that subtlety damaged the stability and legitimacy of the Commonwealth and Protectorate regimes. Those who enforced state policies against the will of individuals or the community provoked conflicts over “honest” and loyal behavior. When the constable of Shepton Mallet, Somerset demanded Richard Ellis leave Edward Browse’s “house” in January 1656, Ellis claimed that “knaves were in office and honest men set by the[ir] heels”.112 Despite the presence of possible informants or local officials, the frequent sharing of opinions that reeked of sedition in alehouses, inns and taverns suggests that at least some drinkers believed that their opinions would be tolerated if not seconded by members of their company. Ultimately, drinking houses could provide individuals with a relatively safe setting in which they could  Hailwood, Alehouses and Good Fellowship, pp. 43–5.  Wood, The 1549 Rebellions, pp. 132; 118–19. 110  Wood, “’A Lyttul Worde Ys Treason’”, p. 840. 111  Weil, “Matthew Smith versus the ‘Great Men’”, p. 233. For fluid definitions of loyalty during the civil wars and interregnum, see Weil, “Thinking about Allegiance”, pp. 184–5. 112  Quarter Sessions Records for the County of Somerset, p. 307. 108 109

94

Disaffection.indb 94

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

articulate their political sympathies and criticisms, as long as they behaved in a manner deemed acceptable according to local customs and the habitus of their fellow drinkers.113 Allegations of sedition, which frequently resulted from divisive and combative arguments, reveal how communities and individuals employed such accusations to negotiate interpersonal conflicts and to prescribe acceptable patterns of behavior within drinking houses. The existence of disaffection could empower the voices and gestures of women and poorer men within alehouses despite the normative patriarchal codes that demanded their obeisance. Civil war did not merely divide communities; the politics of revolution produced new perspectives of loyalty, allegiance and affection that impacted social relations, the practice of good fellowship and sociability at the alehouse. As the previous section revealed, unpopular policies, particularly those that impacted everyday life, provided fodder for political conversations at the drinking house. Thus, the agenda of the puritan regimes, such as the regulation of social drinking, could easily transform these relatively innocuous sites into spaces of social ferment. Alongside strict regulation of drinking and drinking establishments, other intrusive policies, such as the newly imposed and unpopular excise tax, also elicited violent debates in the alehouse. The excise tax, an innovation that began during the 1640s, was extremely unpopular particularly as it affected people across the social spectrum, including the poorest members of society and struggling alehouse-keepers.114 Inevitably, the excise tax sparked controversy in the establishments that it adversely affected. At an alehouse in Pontefract, Yorkshire, a debate over the excise tax turned deadly when the female keeper was killed in 1646.115 The arrival of the excise collector at a victualing house provided patrons, tipplers and keepers with the impetus to express their dissent to these public officials. “Excise-men” frequently lodged at inns and called on drinking establishments in order to collect taxes due on beer, wine and ale. Their intrusion brought the state’s regulation of alcohol immediately to the patrons’ attention. In October 1650 at Gisburne in Yorkshire, Peter Atkinson and William Staw, two “Excise Masters”, were staying at a local inn.116 When Atkinson chose to have a drink in the parlor, a heated discussion broke out between him and another tippler, Captain Barcroft. According to Atkinson, Barcroft had taunted him, stating that Atkinson and his partner were “exciseinge rouges and hee would justifie itt to his face”. Atkinson responded by throwing a can of ale into the captain’s face. A fight broke out between the two men, and quickly several patrons 113  Pierre Bourdieu’s view of habitus attempts to find a balance between the internalized values and norms and an individual’s agency to respond or adapt to a given situation. Here, habitus is similarly used to suggest, while confined by larger, imbedded social values and interactions, individuals or local “companies” of drinkers responded uniquely to social situations within drinking establishments. See Bourdieu, The Logic of Practice, pp. 53–4. 114  For a full discussion of the excise, see Chapter 4. 115  TNA, ASSI 45/1/5 fol. 67–8. 116  Ibid., ASSI 45/3/2 fols. 154–7.

95

Disaffection.indb 95

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

and Atkinson’s colleague Staw joined in.117 A similar debacle arose at Edward Peacock’s victualing house in Royston, Hertfordshire when his patrons came to his aid after the excise-man tried to seize Peacock’s copper. In response, Peacock’s wife threatened to “discharge” their muskets at the men.118 Thus, state regulations and agents were often resisted within drinking houses, provoking seditious language and charging the space with anti-statism. Similar to the presence of the excise-man, soldiers’ entrance into drinking houses could provoke public expressions of disaffection. The peddler Joan Jones from Portsmouth confronted two garrison soldiers within widow Gunter’s house in February 1655. Jones chided the soldiers, calling them “Roundhead dogs” and stated that she would see them hanged before she would “drink with such rogues”. In the early 1650s many communities in the North encountered troops deployed to Scotland. In the town of Pocklington in Yorkshire, the quartering of soldiers at inns provoked civilians to express their opinions of the current regime on several occasions. When Thomas Welsh of North Dalton entered his “host house” in Pocklington, he began drinking and chatting with some quartered soldiers. One soldier accused Welsh of declaring “that there is a king and England could never be Governed aright without” him. Apparently, Welsh declared that “Prince Charles” was the rightful king of Scotland, and that he would “shortly be among” them. To seal his declaration, he demanded that the soldiers join him in a health to Charles, the queen mother and northern magnate Sir Marmaduke Langdale.119 Arguably the soldiers’ presence stirred Welsh’s royalist sentiments and provoked him to offer a health in defiance of the soldiers’ position in the Commonwealth army. Soldiers similarly incited the schoolmaster, William Long, to articulate his disdain for the Commonwealth regime. On 2 February 1650, Long entered a local drinking establishment and asked two soldiers, Roger Harrison and Thomas Knowles, “what they were”. Upon learning of their current occupation, Long allegedly declared that “Cromwell was a son of an whore and that the Commons of England were fooles and that he scorned their Government”.120 Though Knowles’s deposition states that “divers others” overheard Long’s declaration, only the two soldiers provided statements to the local authorities. The testimonies against Welsh and Long not only demonstrate how these two openly questioned the legitimacy of the constitutional changes in England before men who represented the Commonwealth, but they also reveal how the local drinking house served as the site of political confrontation because it was a site of convergence for the disaffected and agents of the state. Perhaps influenced by drink, both men aimed their hostility at soldiers who represented the newly founded, and, in their eyes, illegitimate government.   Ibid., fol. 156.   Hertfordshire County Records, ed. W.J. Hardy (Hertford, 1905), vol. i, pp. 94–5. 119  TNA, ASSI 45/3/2 fols. 165 and 166. 120  Ibid., ASSI 45/3/2 fol. 98a. 117 118

96

Disaffection.indb 96

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

As these few examples suggest, many allegations of seditious speeches emerged from general discussions of current affairs at the local drinking house. While the state’s intrusion into a community’s social sites prompted individuals to express their grievances, everyday topics of conversation amongst patrons of drinking houses also included policies governing social drinking, current events, military ventures and the state of the Stuarts. Following the regicide, alehouse walls continued to reverberate with speeches against Cromwell, inverted healths offered to the “confusion” of Parliament, and expressions of loyalty to the Stuarts. In August 1651, Christopher Wright “came rushing” into Thomas Norfolke’s Inn at Whitby in Yorkshire, where he immediately fell into conversation regarding current events. Wright supposedly “sate down att the table and Called for drinke” and shortly thereafter declared “that hee was A Cavaleere and that hee was for king Charles; and that he would fight hartily for him soe long as hee … did live though hee were hanged att thee doore Cheeke for itt”.121 Several years later in 1659, Edward Sutcliffe entered the house of Samuel Wade in Midgley, Yorkshire, and similarly “called for a cup of Ale”. He then fell “upon some discourse” with Wade, in which Sutcliffe stated “that the Lord Protector”, meaning Richard Cromwell, “was either a younger brother or a Bastard, and that hee did hope to goe to the hangeinge of him”. Wade objected to Sutcliffe’s words, which prompted Sutcliffe to label Wade a “roundheaded rogue” who would one day beg Sutcliffe “for shelter”.122 As Sutcliffe’s speech suggests, seditious conversations over national politics often shifted along with current events, and at times they also reflected regional or personal concerns.123 References to Charles II as the “King of Scots” were common during the war between the Commonwealth and the Scots in the early 1650s, particularly in the northern parts of the country and in the London metropolis.124 During the first Anglo-Dutch War, a small number of pro-Dutch sentiments, often fueled by royalism, were prosecuted in Middlesex.125 Throughout the Protectorate, Cromwell and his loyal officials provoked bitterness and scorn (even after Cromwell’s demise).126 Richer, more detailed accounts of seditious talk reveal   TNA, ASSI 45/4/1 fol. 190.   TNA, ASSI 45/5/4 fol. 45. 123   See also Cressy, Dangerous Talk, pp. 189–202. 124 See, for example, TNA, 45/3/2 fols. 165–6; 45/4/1 fol. 13; 45/4/1/40; LMA, MJ/ SR/1072 rec. 107; MJ/SR/1076 rec. 49; MJ/SR/1079 rec. 53; CLA/047/LJ/01/0112, 10 Feb. 1652; DHC, QS/4 Midsummer 1652, Box 57. 125  See LMA MJ.SR/1090 rec. 32, 181; MJ/SR/1088 rec. 46, 165. 126  See, for example, DHC, ECA, Book 64, ff. 299b, 205b; DHC, QS 1/9 MFC 17/62, 63, 64; LMA, MJ/SR/1111 rec. 19, ind. 196; LMA MJ/SR/1123 rec. 11, 73; MJ/SR/1126 rec. 46, 147; MJ/SR/1148 rec. 380; MJ/SR/1152 rec. 103; MJ/SR/1163 rec. 90–1; MJ/SR/1165 rec. 50; MJ/SR/1169 rec. 29; MJ/SR/1172 rec. 40, 102; MJ/SR/1183 rec. 63; MJ/SR/1887 rec. 20, 43; MJ/SR/1193 rec. 42, 133; TNA, ASSI 45/3/2 f. 98a; 45/5/4 fols. 6–7, 26, 30, 45; 45/5/5 fols. 15; WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/4 fols. 147b, 170b, 211b, 233; QS 4/5 fol. 144; ERO Chelmsford, D/B 5 Sb2/9 fols. 39–40b. 121 122

97

Disaffection.indb 97

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

specific discussions of political or martial exploits, with a particular focus on local concerns. Indeed, such rich descriptions of seditious talk in drinking houses suggests that utterances often emerged during everyday conversations over politics, rumors or news and that they only turned hostile when competing notions of deference, allegiance, loyalty and good company disrupted relations amongst fellow drinkers. The occasional presence of women further complicated the meaning of political chatter among companies of drinkers. Gendered prescriptions that warned women away from disorderly alehouses – and the culture of excess and violence that informed male sociability within them – pushed women to the margins of alehouse culture. Although women who patronized alehouses might damage their reputations, evidence also suggests that women regularly entered establishments without causing controversy.127 Printed depictions of unruly and masculine alehouse-haunting women exist alongside drinking ballads that present women engaged in festive drinking and political dialogue at the alehouse, both licitly and illicitly.128 Certainly women appear far less frequently in records of seditious speech than men, but this disparity in the courts may reflect popular views of women’s speech as less weighty, and, therefore, less dangerous. Similar to cases against men, women who uttered sedition faced prosecution for having violated the company’s sense of propriety, but gender norms that equated women’s subordination with obedient silence added other variables to these already tense interactions.129 A strained relationship between two Exeter women unearths how at these two experienced divisions when drinking socially. Just before Parliament forces took Exeter in 1647, Mary Cholwill supposedly claimed that she would prefer a Turkish invasion or for Exeter to be set ablaze over surrender. When Elizabeth Beare chastised Cholwill for her speech, Cholwill retorted by calling Beare a “Roundhead” and tried to force her to drink a health “to the Confusion of Parliament”. The squabble permanently soured relations between the two; Beare asserted that Cholwill consistently “abused” her with “reviling” names such as “vagabond” and “whore” following their encounter.130 Beare’s charges against Cholwill – which linked the dangers of seditious talk and gendered insults – bring to light tensions that emerged when women vocalized political allegiances or disaffection at the alehouse. Thus, the politics of civil war and revolution did not merely provoke squabbles over the expressions of divergent opinions or allegiances at the  Laura Gowing, “The Freedom of the Streets”, p. 140; Martin, “Drinking and Alehouses”, pp. 102–3; Paul Griffiths, Youth and Authority, p. 208; Shepard, The Meanings of Manhood, p. 102. 128  The Gossips Braule, Or, the Women weare the Breeches (London, 1655); Angela McShane Jones, “Roaring Royalists and Ranting Brewers”, pp. 84–7. 129 Andy Wood, “The queen is ‘a goggyll eyed hoore’: Gender and Seditious Speech in Early-Modern England”, in The English Revolution c.1590–1720: Politics, Religion and Communities, ed. Nicholas Tyacke (Manchester, 2013), pp. 82–3. 130  DHC, ECA, Book 64, fol. 102b. 127

98

Disaffection.indb 98

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

drinking house – they infused day-to-day interactions and complicated common practices of sociability. Tensions ran high when a conversation over Cromwell’s progress in Ireland involving a “company” of sailors turned violent at a Colchester drinking house in February 1650. As the men talked about the war over drink, quite naturally the conversation turned to the navy. Thomas Annable claimed that Charles II’s ships would defeat any of those put to sea by the Commonwealth, and he further called “Lord Deputy” Cromwell a rogue who had been “beaten out of Ireland”.131 According to his testimony, Nicholas Gillibrowne dutifully confronted Annable over his dangerous words about Cromwell and his war effort. Coming to Annable’s defense, Henry Nuttall and Samuel Gidlott maintained that Cromwell was indeed a “rogue”. Robert Thackston, perhaps suspicious of Gillibrowne’s outrage, allegedly asked Gillibrowne whether Cromwell was “a rogue or an honest man”, and further questioned “what can you saie to it[?]” Quite likely the other sailors also smelled a rat. When Gillibrowne asked Nuttall why, if “he loves the kings partie” so much, has he not gone to Charles, Nuttall reportedly replied, “I can doe him as good a service here as I can doe him there”, a vague, dangerous boast. Scoffing at Nuttall’s professions of loyalty, Gillibrowne questioned “what good” had Nuttall had ever done for royalists. Nuttall supposedly retorted with a staunch defense of his military record, including the numbers of horses he had shot. The shouting match devolved into violence once Gillibrowne proclaimed that he was going to “declare or make known their reviling speeches”.132 Nuttall allegedly grabbed Gillibrowne by his shirt, took a blade to his neck and threatened to break it. Gillibrowne, who reported the entire situation to the authorities, may have embellished his displays of loyalty to Cromwell at the expense of his fellow sailors. Ideas of citizenship and genuine allegiance may well have motivated Gillibrowne, but his threat to report the conversation also provided Gillibrowne the upper hand in an argument with fellow drinkers – one in which he was apparently outnumbered. This tactic also violated the faith of those amongst his company, who likely had engaged in a discussion of the war amongst fellow sailors whom they believed they could trust. While spars over the politics of allegiance and the performance of masculinity were relatively commonplace, Thackston’s response to Gillibrowne questions Gillibrowne’s motivations for fighting with his fellow sailors. By asking Gillibrowne not only what he thought of Cromwell, but also “what can you saie to it”, Thackston’s reported statement suggests he did not view his or anyone’s personal beliefs regarding Cromwell’s character to be a matter of such concern for Gillibrowne. Gillibrowne disagreed and pushed the quarrel forward by questioning Nuttall’s loyalty, and, ultimately, his manhood. Such a taunt likely provoked Nuttall’s most seditious claim – that he could help Charles II’s cause from the comfort of a Colchester   ERO Chelmsford, D/B 5 Sb2/9 fols. 39–40b.  Ibid.

131 132

99

Disaffection.indb 99

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

drinking house. The politics of civil war undoubtedly strained interpersonal relations, but, as Thackston’s query suggests, such debates need not turn into a full-blown argument that poisoned relations amongst the “company”. Perhaps fueled by drink, Gillibrowne’s decision to challenge Nuttall and to threaten to bring the authorities into the sailors’ disagreement further politicized what was otherwise a relatively typical debate over political allegiances. Though Gillibrowne may well have taken issue with the expressed royalist sympathies of his company, he undoubtedly took aim at one man – Nuttall – suggesting that personal dislike drove the quarrel and his desire to quash his rival. Gillibrowne’s own testimony suggests that he baited Nuttall and goaded the other sailors, risking his neck to ensure his victory.133 The politics of allegiance were inseparable from the dynamics of interpersonal relations at the drinking house. The offering of healths, more than any other form of sedition, wrenched the politics of revolution into the practices of everyday life. The interactive ritual required an immediate verbal and physical response, intensifying relations amongst fellow drinkers as soon as it was proffered. As a custom that was intimately linked with monarchical culture, health-drinking and the conflicts it provoked generated several prosecutions against seditious talk during the interregnum. Not surprisingly, many of those who were resentful of particular interregnum regimes or policies continued to practice the ritual by drinking to the health of Charles II or to the confusion of Parliament and Cromwell. Indeed, the custom was so entrenched that some drank healths to Cromwell despite prohibitions against the practice. Following the regicide, the meaning of the language and gestures performed in health-drinking transformed, and the practice of health-drinking and the prolonged tippling it often encouraged symbolized a participant’s rejection of the ideological agenda of the state.134 At its core, health-drinking was a collaborative custom that involved language and gestures rife with meaning. In her studies of the loyal-health, Angela McShane notes that consideration of the entire ritual – from the drink itself to its vessel, the gestures performed and the amount imbibed – is as necessary to our understanding of its reception as the words spoken.135 The most detailed accounts describing the ritual during the early to midseventeenth century emerge from moralist literature attacking the practice. The diatribes against the custom, especially those railing against the social pressures fellow drinkers exerted, directly speak to its social significance and widespread practice. While authors such as Thomas Nashe, Thomas   Ibid., fol. 39.   Angela McShane, “Material Culture and ‘Political Drinking’ in Seventeenth-Century England”, Past and Present, suppl. 9 (2014), 270. For a brief discussion of the ritual’s transformation, see McShane, “The Extraordinary Case of the Blood-Drinking and FleshEating Cavaliers”, p. 194. 135  McShane, “Material Culture and ‘Political Drinking’”, p. 263. 133 134

100

Disaffection.indb 100

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

Heywood and William Prynne were concerned with drunkenness broadly, their tirades often attacked health-drinking as the root cause of such excesses.136 These moralists certainly colored their accounts of healths with the visceral contempt they held for a ritual they viewed as profane, but their descriptions also illuminate certain aspects of the culture and gestures of healths that might otherwise elude historians. In his tract condemning the vices of his age, Barnaby Rich thoroughly depicts the ceremony of health-drinking and pledging. “He that beginnes the health”, Rich wrote, “hath his prescribed orders: first uncovering his head, hee takes a full cup in his hand, and settling his countenance with a grave aspect, he craves for his audience”. Having gained his company’s attention, hee beginnes to breath out the name, peradventure of some Honourable Personage, that is worthy of a better regard, then to have his name polluted at so unfitting a time, amongst a company of Drunkards: but his heath is drunk to, and hee that pledgeth must likewise off with his cap, kisse his fingers, and bowing himself in signe of reverent acceptance; when the Leader sees his Follower thus prepared, hee soups up his broath, turnes the bottome of the cup upward, and in ostentation of his dexteritie, gives the cup a phillip, to make it cry Twango.137

Though tinged with Rich’s scorn, this passage draws out some of the more ceremonial aspects of the ritual. Angela McShane describes Rich’s narrative as a caricature of “gospel and prayer book accounts of the Last Supper”.138 Elements of his distorted recantation of health-drinking imitated the liturgy, but they also reflected the ritual’s reliance on the cohesive performance of each step. After the person who offered the toast removed his hat, he expected his fellow tipplers to remove their caps out of respect to him (or, occasionally, her) as well as to the person being venerated. The successful completion of this social ritual depended on the reaction of the company; only after his drinking fellows ceremoniously pledged the health did he too drink to the honored person. Rich may have designed his account as a grotesque mimicry of sacred rituals, but he also mocked any supposed honor to an elite that required a person to down cup after cup of beer or wine.139 In doing so, he accented the shared experience and performance-dependent aspects of this drinking ritual. While the rituals of health-drinking certainly encouraged excessive consumption, collective drinking and its gestures of sociability also served to forge social bonds, heal breaches, shore up goodwill and foster general

136  James Nicholls, The Politics of Alcohol: The History of the Drink Question in England (Manchester, 2009), p. 21. 137  Barnaby Rich, The Irish Hubbub, or, The English Hue and Crie Briefly Pursuing the Base Conditions, and, Most Notorious Offences of the Vile, Vaine, and Wicked Age… (London, 1618), p. 24. 138  McShane, “Material Culture and ‘Political Drinking’”, p. 260. 139 Rich, The Irish Hubbub, p. 24; McShane, “Material Culture and ‘Political Drinking’”, p. 260.

101

Disaffection.indb 101

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

neighborliness.140 Mark Hailwood’s work on alehouse sociability argues that notions of good fellowship celebrated “heavy drinking” as a “positive socio-cultural activity from which participants could derive a degree of status or honour”, but they did not promote or tolerate drunkenness and the loss of control.141 In his comparative study of alcohol consumption across cultures, anthropologist Dwight B. Heath also highlights the importance of drink for creating sociability.142 Drinking provides a focus; it facilitates conversation and, as Heath notes, it gives one something to do with one’s hands. For Heath, drinking forms a crucial part of creating bonds and social unity, and the toast forms the quintessential expression of sociability. If drinking is a great “social equalizer”, then the ritual of health-drinking similarly created a sense of camaraderie amongst those who may not have equal social capital within their communities.143 McShane questions modern interpretations of health-drinking as a bonding ritual shared between “equals”, and argues that contemporaries viewed the drinking ritual as an expression of the “unequal but necessarily symbiotic relations between God and man, king and subject, ruler and ruled”.144 Within the drinking houses of interregnum England this view of health-drinking certainly existed, but alongside other interpretations that emphasized the ritual as one of several forms of sociability. Indeed, as McShane notes, classical and humanist interpretations of health-drinking – particularly those found in broadside ballads – influenced the performance of the ritual and the attendant pressure to participate as a reflection of social belonging and the cohesion of the “company”.145 The offering or pledging of a health was, therefore, not solely about an expression of loyalty to or disdain for the person or office (dis)honored. Those who pledged a health in honor of Charles II may have done so out of respect for their drinking companions more than devotion to the exiled Stuart. After all, tipplers and drinkers who refused to pledge a health rejected not just the sentiment expressed or the integrity of the ritual, but also a fellow drinker’s offer of good fellowship. Conversely, drinking fellows who rebuffed an offered health may have been motivated in part by personal grievances that had little to do with partisan politics. Perhaps, like the patrons of the Black Boy Inn,   Alexandra Shepard, “Drink Culture and Male Bonding in England, c.1560–1640”, in Love, Friendship and Faith in Europe: 1300–1800, ed. Gowing, Hunter, and Rubin (New York, 2005), pp. 120–1. 141 Hailwood, Alehouses and Good Fellowship, pp. 140–1. 142  Dwight B. Heath, Drinking Occasions: Perspectives on Alcohol and Cultures (New York, 2000), p. 172. 143  Ibid., pp. 172–3. 144  McShane, “Material Culture and ‘Political Drinking’”, p. 249. 145  Ibid., pp. 251, 267–7, 270. See also Hailwood, Alehouse and Good Fellowship, pp. 122–3; Withington, “Renaissance Drinking Cultures and Popular Print”, in Intoxication and Society: Problematic Pleasures of Drugs and Alcohol, ed. J. Herring, C. Regan, D. Weinberg and P. Withington (Basingstoke, 2012), pp. 135–52; Withington, “Intoxicants and Society”, p. 635. 140

102

Disaffection.indb 102

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

those who snubbed proposed healths merely thought it mad to express such seditious, illicit sentiments publicly, or, like Rich, they ranked God’s approval far above that of their peers. A drinker’s decision to pledge or not to pledge was shaped by more than personal political allegiance, godliness or the vertical and horizontal structures of early social relations.146 Unsurprisingly, moralists emphatically rejected the assumption that health-drinking reflected genuine loyalty. Most famously, William Prynne’s 1628 treatise, Healthes: Sicknesse, accused Charles I of countenancing the offering of healths in his name at court despite his avowed distaste for the ritual.147According to Prynne, everyone from the highest lord to the lowest, base drunkard engaged in the immoral custom of health-drinking to the king. He challenged Charles’s abeyance since the ritual was designed only “to draw men on to drunkenness”. Why, questioned Prynne, has Charles refused to condemn the practice, given “the onely Patronage and protection, to iustifie, countenance, and beare out, the intemperance & riot of all such … is your Majesties Healths occasion it”. Prynne further pushed the king to consider whether it was not “a great affront, indignity & dishonor to your Majesty, that your sacred Health, your Name, and royall Crowne, should bee thus prophaned, & banded vp & downe in euery Drunkards mouth?”148 Along with his other writings, Prynne’s tract provoked the king’s ire for its unsubtle attack on Charles’s character. As the country drifted into civil war and revolution, moralists’ rhetoric condemning those who used loyalty as a foil to instigate drinking bouts carried new connotations. In April 1648, Timothy Gunton produced a broadsheet in response to “a cluster of drunkards” who had urged him to drink a health to the king. After arguing that the soul did not require drink or “any other materiall substance”, Gunton composed a short rhyme detailing the uselessness of drinking a health: By these let all men know ‘tis worse then sordid stealth, To fawn upon a friend, and swallow down his health. Yet some audacious Rogues dare in their drunken notes Pour King and Kingdomes health down their ungodly throats And strove in it their stinking paunch an hour, or twain, And then they spew, and cag, and pisse it out again. Oh then how sick are thou poore King, and common-wealth, While drunken sots daily drink, pisse, and spew thy health.149

Gunton staunchly defended his refusal to drink Charles’s health with an outright attack on the “ungodly” ritual. Shifting the focus away from the   Withington, “Company and Sociability”, pp. 294–5.   William Prynne, Healthes: Sicknesse (London, 1628); Withington, “Intoxicants and Society”, p. 646. 148 Prynne, Healthes, p. 3. 149  Timothy Gunton, An Extemporary Answer to a Cluster of Drunkards… (London, 1648). 146 147

103

Disaffection.indb 103

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

culture of allegiance, he instead labeled health-drinking as symptomatic of the “sickness” plaguing the nation. In response to a request from M.P. Humphrey Salway, John Geree employed a similar discourse in a brief pamphlet offering “a Cure” for “unnaturall Health-Drinking”. Geree referred to the public censure that awaited a person who refused to engage in the ritual as evidence of its unnatural character, but questioned “what is worse, that men scoffe, or God curse?” Geree’s argument sought to justify the refusal of any health offered even if the rejection suggested that the abstainer was disloyal to the state.150 While not explicitly unfaithful to Charles I, both Gunton and Geree spurned this ritualistic public display of loyalty to king at a time when the country was embroiled in civil war. Thus, war and revolution brought yet another dimension to the already contested ritual of drinking healths. Moral diatribes against healths made their way into many mediums during the 1640s and 1650s, from poetry to the weekly sermon. In a 1648 sermon condemning the practice of drinking healths, Edward Bowles detailed how the dangers of health-drinking had increased due to partisanship. Bowles warned his parishioners to “avoid and abhor that frequent drinking healths, not so much of good fellowship, as of faction, which were wont to be confined to Taverns, but are now got into private houses, and publick streets, and are ready to fill us with drunkennesse, and dash us one against another”.151 Similar to Rich and Prynne’s writings, Joseph Rigby’s poem The Drunkards Prospective criticizes health-drinking not only for promoting drunkenness, but also due to its association with loyalty to the crown. After lamenting the innumerous healths drunkards offer up to men and women of various stripes, he claims: Last to the King and Queen they’ll have a cruse, Whom for to pledge they think none dare refuse; Though he be both unwilling and unable, And be therewith made drunk, cast under th’ table And thus these tempters wind and draw men in, To be partakers of their deadly sinne. Whom they arest they suffer none to baile, ‘Till all their senses, all their members faile; The most corrupted heart can hardly think, How they’ll triumph o’r others in their drink.152

Though parts of Rigby’s lament draw on the language of earlier moralists, his focus on the consequences of the ritual were grounded in the specific context of the interregnum. Tipplers who offered a health to the crown, he writes,   John Geree, Theiopharmakon. A Divine Potion to Preserve Spiritual Health, by the Cure of unnatural Health-Drinking (London, 1648), pp. 1–8. 151  Edward Bowles, Good Counsell for Evil Times. Or, A Plain Sermon Preached at Pauls in London, April 16. 1648 (London, 1648), p. 21. 152  Joseph Rigby, An Ingenious Poem, Called The Drunkards Prospective, or Burning-glasse (London, 1655), pp. 12–13. 150

104

Disaffection.indb 104

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

were well aware of the social pressures that would incline a person to accept. The last line advises that such drunkards actually aim to use the ritual of health-drinking to “triumph o’r others” – to pressure one’s company not only to reject the moralists’ stance against excessive drinking, but also to proclaim support for the monarchy. As Rigby’s diatribe against health-drinking reveals, one’s acceptance or refusal of an offered health did not necessarily indicate one’s unwavering, internal political allegiance. Undoubtedly many of those who offered up healths in honor of royals, nobles, officials or friends did so out of genuine affection, allegiance and respect. However, health-drinking, like so many other gestural forms of interaction, was a ritual performance in which interpretations of good fellowship and civility clashed with social, gender and partisan identities. Rachel Weil has wisely cautioned against assuming that the outward performance of allegiance reflects internal beliefs, and, thus, scholars should be wary of making interpretations of healths that ignore the complexities of these speech acts.153 Gestures and utterances of loyalty or disaffection were multi-vocal performances that did not necessarily express a deep-rooted ideological stance. The politics of health-drinking also involved jockeying for prestige, acceptance and esteem amongst different types of “company” in victualing houses and beyond. Alehouse sociability and health-drinking served as an “alternative” expression of “manhood” – particularly for young or subordinate men who were excluded from patriarchal forms of masculinity.154 Health-drinking, much like other expressions of personal or political allegiance, was a gesture through which identity was performed and defined in a given social moment. A thorough assessment of the politics of health-drinking during the interregnum requires us to consider how the politics of regime change affected the ritual’s place within the interaction order that upheld social relations and identities. Though historically offered to promote good fellowship and general sociability, expressions of allegiance or disaffection in the form of a health during the interregnum frequently provoked tensions and ill-will amongst “good company”. When a fellow drinker offered a health, he or she fervently expected fellow drinkers to pledge the offered health according to custom. A fellow drinker’s failure to pledge a seditious health signaled his or her rejection of a gesture weighted with customs of respect, good fellowship, authority and deference. The Victorian moralist Reverend Richard Valpy claimed that “pledging” emerged as a safeguard for those who offered healths during the Anglo-Saxon period. Having offered a health, the drinker tossed his head back and downed his drink, leaving his neck bare and vulnerable to attack. He who pledged the health promised to defend the unsuspecting drinker   Weil, “Thinking about Allegiance”, pp. 184–5.   Alexandra Shepard, “From Anxious Patriarchs to Refined Gentlemen? Manhood in Britain, Circa 1500–1700”, Journal of British Studies 44:2 (2005), 291; Shepard, Meanings of Manhood, pp. 102–6. 153 154

105

Disaffection.indb 105

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

from an assault as he ceremoniously guzzled down his brew.155 Though Valpy’s interpretation has little evidentiary basis, drinking companies would have recognized pledging as a significant speech act. To “pledge” for someone not only meant to promise their safety or provide a surety, it also served as a sign of allegiance and a promise of friendship and fidelity.156 Refusal to pledge could undermine the social position of the person who offered the rebuffed health before his or her company. When a drinking fellow forced his or her political voice on a company of drinkers or when the offered health insulted and threatened those present, the ritual of camaraderie turned into a source of tension and conflict that many chose to pursue through the politics of sedition and (dis)loyalty. Unlike conversational complaints or nostalgic remembrances that might be overlooked, seditious healths literally forced the hand of those asked to pledge it. Similar to those who witnessed William Higgory’s outburst at the Black Boy Inn, individuals who pursued a reported case of seditious healthdrinking in the North Riding of Yorkshire had more at stake than loyalty to the Commonwealth or the Stuarts. Several depositions suggest that a group of men, likely farmers, had gathered at Roger Pattison’s house in New Malton on 26 February 1650 for some drink and fellowship.157 Two of the company, William Coleman and Thomas Noble, accused Pattison of pushing Noble to pledge a health to King Charles II. Noble not only rebuffed Pattison’s offered health, but also retorted that “he knew noe kinge there was”. Angered, Pattison supposedly roared that he would “owe” Noble “a grudge”.158 Coleman supported Noble’s story, and both men claimed that Pattison raged on after Noble rejected his health. According to these witnesses, Pattison allegedly remarked that “one Parliament man had hanged himself” – a reference to the suicide of Member of Parliament Thomas Hoyle – and that “he hoped all the rest would follow”.159 In his account, Pattison not only denied offering the alleged health to Charles, but he also asserted that Noble and Coleman had never even entered his house that evening. Pattison told the justice that Noble and Coleman were merely plotting “to take away” his “life” since Pattison was bound to appear as a witness against Noble in a case of horse theft at the Northern Assizes. Though Noble had indeed been accused of stealing a horse several months before, the phrasing of Pattison’s deposition suggests the justice clearly found it difficult to believe Pattison’s claim that Noble, who lived “within three houses” of Pattison, had never visited his house except once during Christmas. Pattison ended his testimony with an earnest and final refutation of the charges, declaring that only someone who   Richard Valpy, Nineteen Centuries of Drink in England (London, 1884), p. 42.   “pledge, v”., OED Online. 157  TNA, ASSI 45/3/2 fols. 114–15. Thomas Noble was listed as a yeoman; none of the other men’s occupations are listed. 158 Ibid. 159  Mercurius Pragmaticus (For King Charles II), part. 2, no. 14. (17–24 Jul. 1649), 7. 155 156

106

Disaffection.indb 106

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

“desirith noe part in gods kingdome” would ever have spoken such words “or harboured any such thoughts in his hea[d]”.160 Pattison drew on the discourse of godliness to present himself as loyal to the Commonwealth and God in body and spirit. The account of Pattison’s health – real or fabricated – details how the revolution transformed a custom designed to foster good fellowship. Both sides of this squabble underscore how politics of allegiance, identity and manhood – and the performance of all three – charged interpersonal relations and provoked or intensified social tensions. If Coleman and Noble did provide false testimony, their fabrication exploited the fractures wrought by civil war to question Pattison’s reliability as a witness and to present Noble as a dedicated member of the Commonwealth. Unless Noble and Coleman were savvy enough to include the reference to Hoyle’s suicide in their plot, it seems likely that Pattison performed the ritual and that Noble’s refusal provoked a “grudge” that would continue to poison relations between the neighbors. Health-drinking could just as easily forge divisions as cement ties, and its connection to disaffection was all too easily exploited in interpersonal conflicts. Indeed, John Timberlyne was sent to Newgate for falsely accusing William Rainsborough of drinking a health to Charles II and forcing others to follow his example.161 The well-known, intimate ties between disaffection and drinking culture enabled men, such as Timberlyne and Noble, to use accusations of health-drinking as weapons in their interpersonal conflicts. Coleman and Noble’s insistence that Noble’s snub of Pattison’s offered health provoked a “grudge” reflects the social gravity of ritual healthdrinking. Regardless of the truth behind their testimonies, Noble and Coleman’s relation of Pattison’s “grudge” against Noble could only be convincing if such a heated reaction was believable. The personal embarrassment or affront that a fellow drinker’s refusal to pledge caused validates the concerns of moralists like Prynne, who believed that the social pressures of health-drinking could tempt the most civil and respectable men. Intoxication likely fueled those who offered healths at inopportune moments or in problematic milieus, exacerbating tensions rather than lubricating sociability. According to Phil Withington, sociability within civil and elite “companies” also involved drinking, and, at times, excessive drinking.162 The innkeeper James Wilkinson, a new bailiff for Ryedale who traveled to Kirkby Moorside for his proclamation at the market in May 1658, made quite a stir when he drunkenly offered a cryptic seditious health at a local gentleman’s house. According to John Savile’s testimony, several men were socializing at his home after the market’s close. Savile’s wife claimed that Wilkinson came to the house to discuss the execution of writs with her husband, who, concerned by Wilkinson’s drunken demeanor, asked to see his deputation.   Ibid., fol. 113. For charges against Noble for theft, see fols. 107–8, 110.   LMA, MJ/SR/1172 rec. 56. 28 Aug. 1657. 162  Withington, “Intoxicants and Society”, p. 635. 160 161

107

Disaffection.indb 107

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Affronted, Wilkinson allegedly began to rant “very high”, and soon thereafter took up a “cup in his hand and did drinke three healths” to the “three best men beyond the seas”, meaning the Stuart heirs. As incredible as such a gesture may seem, evidence suggests that not all present viewed Wilkinson’s health as offensive or problematic. Savile deposed that he believed John Moore, a local shoemaker, drank the health but that he was unsure whether Samuel Appleby did.163 Such nonchalance from a local gentleman over seditious healths drunk in his own home suggests that such healths were relatively commonplace. Savile’s wife, who overhead the offered health, supposedly urged her husband not to drink it.164 John Savile claimed his denial irked Wilkinson, who questioned why he refused it. In a telling response, Savile allegedly answered that “hee thought itt was not a thing concerning them to drinke such healths”, to which Wilkinson supposedly replied, “Well, well I thought you would have pledged it”.165 Even if Savile was known to have royalist sympathies, the idea that Wilkinson would have believed that a man of his stature would openly pledge a health to the Stuarts amongst company shows that these rites of male sociability were fraught with competing social and political demands. Interpersonal dynamics, personal loyalty, godliness, fear of prosecution and the performance of allegiance battled for supremacy amongst those confronted with a partisan health. While good fellows might often find it easier to pledge the health, or, at the very least, to turn a blind eye to its illegality, other forces intervened to require a public airing of the tense interactions. Drinking culture that involved both expressions of solidarity and excessive imbibing pressured many men to participate in health-drinking, but what about women? In the previous case we see the wife of John Savile appear on the margins of the company, but also in a position that allowed her to advise her husband against drinking the proffered health and to overhear Wilkinson questioning those who refused to pledge it. Savile’s responsibility to her household justifies her intervention, but her desire to render herself and her husband innocent of any hint of sedition empowered her speech within her home as well as the courts. Another telling case from an Exeter suggests women faced different stresses while engaging with company at the drinking house.166 The scuffle involved a small cadre of drinkers in a chamber at Lewis Parker’s house, including the owner’s wife, Abigail, in April 1656. John Stiles of Tiverton had called for a half dozen beers to drink and had invited a soldier, John Woodbridge, to join his “company”.167 The conversation   TNA, ASSI 45/5/5 fol. 74.   Ibid., fol. 75. 165  Ibid., fol. 73. 166  For evidence of women in victualing houses, see, for example, Flather, Gender and Space, pp. 114–18; Williamson, Social Relations and Urban Space: Norwich, 1600–1700 (Woodbridge, 2014), pp. 132–3, 151–9; Hailwood, Alehouses and Good Fellowship, pp. 180–1; Capp, When Gossips Meet, pp. 90, 181–3, 212, 331–2. 167  DHC, ECA, Book 64, fol. 306. 163 164

108

Disaffection.indb 108

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

turned to Woodbridge’s career, and he shared with his fellow drinkers that he was pondering a move to Barbados. Stiles apparently offered to round up some men to travel with Woodbridge, but ultimately Stiles tried to persuade Woodbridge to stay “at home and follow a trade”. According to John Tapson, a local cordwainer, the company got along quite well – that is, until Stiles and Abigail Parker fell into a dispute. According to Parker’s information, Stiles allegedly offered up a health “to all his friends in England”. While she was willing to oblige Stiles, in her examination Parker claimed that she had made it clear that she “had no friend in England but the Lord Protector”. As the wife of the owner, Parker’s public declarations of loyalty to Cromwell may have been motivated by self-preservation as much as genuine affection. Parker’s reply angered Stiles, who allegedly called Parker “a dishonest woman” and an “unworthy Queane” who loved the Lord Protector more than her husband, to which she allegedly retorted that it was Stiles who was dishonest.168 Not only did Stiles view Parker’s love of the Protector as “unworthy” and “dishonest”, he equated her loyalty with adultery. John Stiles’s hostility toward Abigail Parker’s avowed affection for the Protector may have been tied to a belief that Cromwell had usurped Charles II’s position, undermining his role as the patriarch of England. Patriarchal theories that supported monarchical authority often compared the king’s power to that of a father and, at times, a husband. The Revolution struck a serious blow to this contested ideology. Republicans such as John Milton argued that, while a father’s authority stems from nature, a monarch’s authority emanates from the people.169 Perhaps Abigail Parker’s adherence to Cromwell provoked Stiles to question publicly Parker’s honesty and devotion to her husband, the patriarch of her household, as well as her chastity and moral character. Mixing the language of sexual insult with family political theory, Stiles attempted to force Parker to reject the Lord Protector. Yet, according to Parker, it was Stiles who was disloyal and disobedient – and, as the honest one of the two, she must report his dishonesty and disaffection to the civic authorities. The politics of disaffection could also alter gender relations as Parker claimed moral authority over Stiles. The soldier John Woodbridge, likely fueled by drink, also chose to express his resentment towards Stiles, first, by hitting him with a staff. According to the information of their fellow drinker John Tapson, Woodbridge attacked Stiles following his altercation with Parker, which surprised Tapson as the two men had got on previously. 170 Though Tapson did not directly connect Woodbridge’s violent outburst with Stiles’s slander against Parker, as a former soldier for Parliament Woodbridge may have been angered by Stiles’s interpretation of female “honesty” and chastity, which denied female affection and allegiance toward Cromwell by defending patriarchal notions of power  Ibid.  Hughes, Gender and the English Revolution, pp. 22–7; 106–7. 170  DHC, ECA, Book 64, fol. 306. 168 169

109

Disaffection.indb 109

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

that likely excluded men such as Woodbridge. Regardless of Woodbridge’s motivations, the conflict between Parker and Stiles reflects two very different perspectives on honesty, loyalty and good fellowship. Stiles slander against Abigail Parker’s honesty – motivated by her expression of loyalty to Cromwell – details how the politics of everyday life were deeply enmeshed in the politics of state. Exactly who initiated the case against Stiles remains murky, but the information Parker, Woodbridge and Tapson reported to the mayor and the local justice strongly suggests that deponents were not simply motivated by a desire to be “honest” citizens. Parker’s voice emerges alongside those of the men in the company, and it is through her declared allegiance to Cromwell and her protection of her household’s credit and income that her statement gains power. Stiles behavior amongst his company – particularly his rejection of Parker’s affection for Cromwell and his equation of this sentiment with disloyalty and dishonesty – caused tensions amongst the company that were pursued by informing civic authorities of his seditious intent. Health-drinkers like Stiles who exploited customs of sociability and drinking to force their disaffection on others risked provoking strong reactions from members of his company. Lockey Allerton, a local laborer from Allerton, Yorkshire, made his distaste for Cromwell, his policies and those who upheld them, well known amongst neighbors across the region. Records suggest that his fellow drinkers received his exaltations in stride for months until the summer of 1654. Previously, Allerton seems to have discussed his political views with relative impunity in most of the alehouses he haunted. Though Yorkshire had pockets of support for the Commonwealth and Protectorate, particularly in the cloth-producing areas of the West Riding, even supporters of the regime were critical of policies that failed to maintain economic growth and the general stability of their communities. A quarrel that broke out at a Clayton alehouse during a night of drinking on 6 July put an end to Allerton’s unregulated grumblings. According to witnesses, Allerton offered a health to the confusion of Cromwell, and, when four men and the owner failed to pledge the health, Allerton labeled those who refused it “traitors”. Tellingly, it was Allerton’s rebuffed health and his jeer aimed at his fellow drinkers, rather than another speech charging Cromwell as a rebel, which resulted in an indictment. By pressuring his company to adopt his views and reproaching them when they refused, Allerton overstepped accepted social boundaries established at that Clayton alehouse.171 While perspectives on proper behavior, particularly in regard to the practice of social drinking, were by no means uniform, the failure to perform gestures of sociability could easily affront drinkers and undermine their social agency. In his study of gestural politics, Mike Braddick argues that normative forms of “[c]eremonial etiquette framed encounters in such a way as that   TNA, ASSI 44/6, loose indictments and depositions, 1654–55.

171

110

Disaffection.indb 110

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

small details carried a massive freight of meanings”.172 Health-drinking was so weighted with social significance that some of those who offered a health simply refused to accept a fellow drinker’s non-performance of the ritual. One such spurned health resulted in a forced performance in the northern town of Beverly in Yorkshire in 1651. Commenting on the current war between the Commonwealth and the nearby Scots, William Bewick, a currier, allegedly drank a health “to Prince Charles King of Scotts, to his good success in England, and to the confusion of all his enemies”. According to custom, Bewick drank up his beaker full of ale and asked his drinking companion, Thomas Stockdale, to pledge the health. Insulted by his reticence, Bewick forced Stockdale’s hat from his head claiming “it was a health that deserved to be uncovered”.173 As Stockdale and Bewick were no doubt aware, the deferential doffing and removal of hats at the name of the king before social superiors and judges and in the sacred space of churches and cathedrals formed an important part of the gestural code that maintained the course of social relations.174 Stockdale’s refusal to drink the health was compounded by his unwillingness to perform what Bewick viewed as a proper gesture of deference to Charles II and, consequently, to Bewick as a member of his drinking company. These conflicts over the non-performance of gestures, notoriously difficult to trace in the written records, directly link the politics of interaction with the politics of the realm. Given the emphasis many historical studies have placed on locating allegiance and tracing links between articulated dissent and political change, scholars often prioritize the words uttered and, when possible, their direct impact on a listener’s political views and motivations. Close examinations of these conflicts over “seditious” talk suggest the dynamics of interpersonal relations and customs of sociability heavily influenced the performance or non-performance of drinking a health amongst one’s company. Much like the clash between Bewick and Stockdale, practices of male sociability, respect for “good company” and personal agency came into conflict during a tussle between a former royalist soldier and a London victualler at his establishment. Daniel Holt offered up a health to the “Prince” shortly after Charles I’s execution while drinking at John Gandyer’s victualing house on Charterhouse Lane in Middlesex. When Gandyer declined to pledge the health, Holt threated to “run” him “through with his sword for refusing”. Unsatisfied with Gandyer’s response, Holt snatched his hat and fixed it to the ceiling with his sword as a token of reverence to Charles II and Holt’s   Mike Braddick, “Introduction: The Politics of Gesture”, Past and Present, 203, suppl. 4 (2009), 13; See also Ted Vallance, “The Captivity of James II: Gestures of Loyalty and Disloyalty in Seventeenth-Century England”, Journal of British Studies, 48:4 (2009), 848–58. 173  TNA, ASSI 45/4/1 fol. 13. 174  John Walter, “Gesturing at Authority: Deciphering the Gestural Code of Early Modern England”, Past and Present, 203, suppl. 4 (2009), 101–8. 172

111

Disaffection.indb 111

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

place amongst the good company drinking that evening.175 As a custom dependent on mutual participation, it also demanded a detailed performance of good fellowship to the individual who offered the health to enable the creation, solidification and the healing of social bonds. To refuse a health risked a breach amongst good company; it damaged the social agency and reputation of the original drinker, and it enabled fellow drinkers to question the manhood and camaraderie of those who failed to perform. For Gandyer, pledging the health also risked the closure of his own victualing house as well as a possible disavowal of his own political and religious beliefs. Despite risks men like Gandyer faced if they offered, pledged or even allowed the drinking of healths to the Stuarts in their houses, there is good reason to assume that at times keepers did countenance health-drinking. Considering the social implications of reporting a royalist or disaffected health, it is hardly likely that the recorded prosecutions of these acts are representative of their occurrence. Undoubtedly, some keepers and patrons informed authorities out of genuine loyalty or a sense of good citizenship; however, cases from the interregnum that provide rich accounts of seditious health-drinking suggest that the incidents reported often involved an outside influence or, more frequently, interpersonal conflicts. From an economic standpoint keepers may have tolerated drinking rituals that kept their customers happy and in drink so long as they did not threaten their livelihood. Owners of well-known, central inns and taverns, such as the Black Boy in Aschott, may have felt obliged to police disaffected speech to avoid closure, and they also had the means and resources to chase off disaffected customers. This was by no means the case for all licensed alehouse-keepers, and especially not for poor, unlicensed ones. Disaffected keepers may also have taken advantage of their position to offer healths in their own establishment despite the risks of prosecution. William Lambert the elder, an alehouse-keeper in Kippax, offered a health to the confusion of Lord Protector Cromwell in January 1658. William Lambert the younger then pledged the health by taking his father’s cup, throwing down his hat, and uttering “God Confound them all” for “the Prince was comeing and Sir Marmaduke Langdale, and he would have the Crowne again”.176 Both men were fined 20s and forced to stand in the pillory with papers stating their crimes for two hours. Local officials demanded silence and subordination from these keepers, but did little to ensure allegiance or future loyalty. With the aid of royalist rhetoric, resistance to the strict regulation of drink, victualing houses and disaffected speeches aligned the practice of social drinking with royalist sympathies, and this association was not limited to wineguzzling royalists who lamented the death of the social and political orders. Many scholars have argued that royalist drinking culture provided a means for loyal men and women to share their woes in a manner that comforted   LMA, MJ/SR/1030 rec. 94, 13 May 1649. See also McShane, “Material Culture and ‘Political Drinking’”, p. 264, for a different approach to this incident. 176  WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/5 fols. 136 and 330, 7 Oct. 1658. 175

112

Disaffection.indb 112

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

their grief, literally and metaphorically.177 In her studies of allegiance, loyalty and material culture, Angela McShane examines how royalist authors penned sentimental ballads to promote a loving relationship between subject and state. By incorporating health-drinking into their verses, royalist balladeers encouraged drinkers to celebrate their affection for the crown publicly.178 Royalist authors did not merely encourage drunkenness and retirement amongst friends during the interregnum – many exploited the political alienation and anti-statism that arose in drinking houses to strengthen cultural ties between royalism and all customs of sociability. Ballads, whether lamenting the revolution or celebrating Charles II’s imminent return, frequently linked access to affordable, wholesome drink and the rituals of sociability that accompanied consumption with the survival of the monarchy. In particular, royalist authors readily encouraged the links between health-drinking and monarchical culture. Readers and listeners of royalist ballads were encouraged to sing along, which regularly necessitated drinking a health to Prince Charles overseas. On occasion balladeers and musicians performed the cheap political ballads that were pasted on the walls of alehouses, and drinkers would be encouraged to join in.179 The last refrain of the black-letter ballad Gallant Newes from the Seas highlights the preservation of this drinking tradition among the Stuarts’ loyal supporters: Here’s a Health to all by Sea and Land, that doth the Royall Cause defend That bravely for Prince Charles will stand, to bring his troubles to an end: With tan ta ra ra ra, &c.180

Such royalist ballads and songs elucidate the broad significance of social drinking in royalist culture.181 177  Marika Keblusek “,Wine for Comfort: Drinking and the Royalist Exile Experience, 1642–1660”, in A Pleasing Sinne; McShane, “Roaring Royalists and Ranting Brewers”; Lois Potter, Secret Rites and Secret Writing: Royalist Literature, 1641–1660 (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 138–43; Ludington, The Politics of Wine, pp. 15–23. 178   McShane, “Material Expressions of Love and Loyalty”, pp. 861–3. 179   In the introduction of his compilation of royalist ballads, Alexander Brome charges his readership with singing or “[t]he poor Ballads are undone”. Alexander Brome, The Rump, a Collection of Songs and Ballads (London, 1660), sign. A; Tessa Watt, Cheap Print and Popular Piety, 1540–1640 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 30, 178. For a truly outstanding resource on political ballads, see Political Broadside Ballads of Seventeenth Century England, ed. Angela McShane (London, 2011). 180  Gallant Newes from the Seas. Being a relation of certaine speeches made by Prince Charles, the Duke of Yorke, the Lord Montrosse, sea-men and land-men, with their resolutions: gathered together by a sea-man lately come from sea, and framed into a song by him; whose name is Tom Smith (London, 1649). 181  See, for example, McShane, “Roaring Royalists”; McShane, “Material Expressions of Love and Loyalty”; McShane, “Blood-Drinking and Flesh-Eating Cavaliers”; Keblusek, “Drinking and the Royalist Exile Experience”; Potter, Secret Rites and Secret Writing, pp. 138–43.

113

Disaffection.indb 113

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

While ballads regularly featured “elite” wine as the stereotypical royalist choice over “popular ale or beere”, all allusions to drink and drinking culture capitalized on the essential role of intoxicants in social life.182 Recent scholarship on royalism argues for a broader interpretation of the label – one that recognizes royalism as a variety of “political, religious and cultural positions”.183 Some royalist songs indicate that their loyalty was not to wine alone, but rather to “good” drink and good company. Indeed, almost all royalist authors focused their criticism of beer or ale on the “small”, weak varieties that they associated with interregnum officials and policies.184 Favoring both beer and wine, one royalist ballad declares, “fill us up a beere bowle boy that wee/ may drink it loyally”. In the next stanza the ballad predicts that if Charles were to return, “wee should very well like our fate/ & drink wine at a freer rate”. Rather than focus on artificial divides between “wine” and “beer” drinkers, the ballad celebrates social drinking while criticizing the excise on wine – one example of how the song focuses its attacks on unpopular policies and personalities associated with the interregnum state.185 One ballad that offered the customary health to Charles II referenced royalists’ monopoly on wine, and also encouraged collective drinking and the expression of royalist sentiment – feelings or beliefs that may not have been shared amongst everyone in a given company. The balladeer encouraged companies to drink “a health overseas to King Charles/ were he choak’d that repines/ a pox on those traytors that looke to his waters/ they have nothing to doe with our wines”.186 Though desolate in tone, the camaraderie and sense of loyalty and allegiance that excessive social drinking could produce amongst a fellowship of drinkers mimicked the expressions of loyalty to the Stuarts. Indeed, the ballad sounds strikingly similar to the healths proposed by William Higgory and James Wilkinson. Such songs not only encouraged devout royalists to express their grief in a muddle of shared fealty, but ballads that promoted social drinking within a royalist context also drew upon customs of sociability that intimately linked expressions of social unity with those of political allegiance. Royalists who published drinking ballads often encouraged the normative customs of sociability in the drinking house while melding their practice with political disaffection and the cause of the Stuarts. Aligning the monarchy with social drinking went beyond the promotion of celebratory healths in honor of the return of Charles II. Many royalist   For the connection between wine and royalism, see McShane, “Roaring Royalists”, p. 73; Ludington, The Politics of Wine, pp. 16–18. 183  McElligott and Smith, “Introduction: Rethinking Royalists and Royalism”, p. 12. See also Lloyd Bowen, “Seditious Speech and Popular Royalism”, pp. 44–66. 184  See above, pp. 00. 185  BL MS Harley 3991, fol. 29. See also Alexander Brome, “A Medley”, in Rump, or, An Exact Collection of the Choycest Poems and Songs Relating to the Late Times by the Most Eminent Wits from Anno 1639 to Anno 1661 (London, 1662), p. 252; John Phillips, “A Medley”, in Wit and Drollery Joviall Poems (London, 1661), p. 177. 186  BL MS Harley 3991, fol. 26b. 182

114

Disaffection.indb 114

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

balladeers described how a return to the monarchy would improve the day-today experiences of the industrious commons of England. The black-letter broadside ballad Gallant News of Late I Bring not only brought “news” of the king’s imminent return, but also of the significant social changes that would breathe new life into England’s communities and improve the lives of all, whether rich or poor.187 In place of the interpersonal clashes charged with partisan politics, England’s commons could now live “in love and unity”. By “chusing” a king, the people enabled “love” to “flourish” rather than discord between “friend and foe”. The king’s restoration would foster good fellowship, and “[t]he poor that lives in want … will know no scant” for “[c]harity will prove so great/ to feed the needy with meat/ When Charls is on his seat/ As King and Ruler meet”. By choosing a return to monarchy, the people united “King and Ruler” again, and their allegiance would promote loyalty and affection amongst the commons. Following Charles’s return, the ballad rhymes, “we shall have no strife/ but lead a quiet life/ gallant news/ We shall not be so feast, For to be so opprest/ But we shall live at rest/ The times will be at best”. Solidifying the association between the monarchy, drink and sociability, the author promises a tension-free, quiet and industrious life. Following Charles’s return, the “plow-man” will be able to “plow” in peace, and finish his days loving his “dear” while drinking “good ale and beer”. Loyalty and affection, once again, were linked to monarchy and the ability to enjoy “good” drink – an important daily necessity, a comfort and an agent of sociability that was particularly important to laboring people. Rather than merely laud Charles’s impending return, each stanza details why the people made the “choice” to call for a free Parliament and Charles’s return.188 As several royalist authors claimed in their writings throughout the interregnum, this ballad implies that royalists had gained the support of the “commonality” by promoting policies and practices that had the interest of England’s laboring and industrious families at heart. In stark opposition to the puritan disdain for social drinking, royalist authors tied strong drink and drinking customs to the revival of the Stuart monarchy. Social Drinking and the Restoration The restoration of the monarchy signaled the return of festive drinking in English society. The ballad The Twelve Brave Bells of Bow predicted the tenor of the celebrations of Charles II’s restoration, declaring, “When as the Throne/ Is garnisht with its own …. The conduite they shall run again

  Gallant News of Late I Bring, Tiding of Chusting now a King, Whereby true Subjects may Rejoice In Chusing them so Sweet a Choyce (London, 1660); McShane, “Material Expressions of Love and Loyalty”, p. 861. 188  Gallant News of Late I Bring. 187

115

Disaffection.indb 115

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

with sack”.189 Another ballad claimed free libations would abound at the coronation, and their ingestion would bring a return to civility: “Then fight ye like men for the good of the Nation/ as ye hope to be civilly drunk/ On free-cost at blessed CHARL’S Coronation”.190 Witnesses’ accounts reveal the actualization of these promises at celebrations that acquired a sense of liminality. The social tensions and interpersonal conflicts that erupted in drinking houses throughout the interregnum were softened through shared customs of sociability. Thomas Rugg described the evening following the proclamation of the king’s return, stating that “Bow Bells could not be heard for the noise of the people”, and that there was “a great store of wine give[n] by many [and] att ever[y] bonefier beere, where they dranke his Majesties health, plentifull”. Similarly, on the night of Charles’s entry into the city, “A hogs head of claritt wine rane very plentifull to all that could take it in there hatts or cups or glases”. 191 The king’s coronation was also fêted with drinking. Rugg detailed the city’s preparation for the coronation, noting again how the streets’ conduits ran with wine. Samuel Pepys visited the “Axe yard” where a group of celebrators forced Pepys and his companions to “drink the King’s health” on their knees. In his diary, Pepys confessed that thanks to the day’s festivities, he was completely “foxed” the following morning.192 Communities across the nation reveled in honor of the king’s Restoration. According to Pepys, musicians in Bruton, Somerset played “nothinge but The King Enjoyes His Owne Againe” while “plenty of drink” was handed around to the crowd.193 Monarchy and social drinking were clearly linked, and the loyal drinking culture depicted in royalist literature from the interregnum period became reality during these celebrations. Public drinking became a prominent physical declaration of loyalty to the king. Rugg noted that along with free wine, “severall medeles of his Majesty pictures was throwne” to the crowds during the celebrations of Charles’s return to London.194 Maypoles were erected at Restoration celebrations, and those who danced in their shadows displayed their allegiance to the crown.195 However, many people who raised their glasses in honor of the king at these extravagant celebrations considered Charles II’s restoration to be conditional.196 Shortly after the thrill of the Restoration wore off, royalist professions of the interregnum period were separated from reality. The persistence of wine as a theme in Tory rhetoric, particularly French claret, intimates the ultimate triumph of an elite royalist   Twelve Brave Bells of Bow in Cavalier and Puritan, p. 255.  Brome, The Rump, or A Collection of Songs and Ballads, p. 95. 191  Rugg, pp. 79, 90–1. 192  Diary of Samuel Pepys, vol. 2, p. 87. 193  Rugg, pp. 175, 179. 194  Rugg, p. 91. 195  Rugg, pp. 175–6; Diary of Samuel Pepys, vol. 1, p. 139; Harris, London Crowds, p. 54; Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, pp. 274–5. 196 Harris, London Crowds, p. 37. 189 190

116

Disaffection.indb 116

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

drinking culture over the broader, more socially diverse drinking culture of many royalist pamphleteers.197 Although Charles II’s regime retained its association with merrymaking and festive drinking, his administration refused to countenance drunkenness and social disorder. Rachel Weil notes a similar inconsistency in propagandists’ discussions of sexual libertinism at the time of the Restoration. She contends that the literary portrayal of “sensual pleasure” did not denote Charles II’s approval of this type of sexuality within English society.198 Though the celebrations of the Restoration provided the country with a temporary respite from normal social behavior, these were liminal moments that offered a false promise of a changed social order. While the Restoration regime clearly celebrated certain forms of popular culture, nonetheless officials presumed that the practice of festive activities could potentially cause disorder – particularly amongst the poorer sort. Despite the copious amounts of wine, beer and ale quaffed during Restoration celebrations, officials did not desire the eradication of regulations that policed social drinking. While there was a temporary respite in prosecutions, Restoration local officials quickly resumed their policing of social drinking practices.199 Yet, the number of cases of unlicensed ale-selling and other crimes associated with drinking decreased. During the first years of the Restoration era, local and state authorities were more preoccupied with uncovering seditious speeches and illegal religious assemblies, transgressions that were perceived as an immediate threat to the regime’s stability.200 As this suggests, following the Restoration the state’s investment in alehouse regulation diminished in the face of more pressing political problems. The failure of “godly rule” inevitably led to the diminishing importance of the reformation of manners. This movement was not central to the ideology, and, hence, legitimacy of Charles’s rule as it had been for regimes of the interregnum period. After 1660, Charles’s regime left the enforcement of social reform firmly in the hands of local authorities. In at least one respect, new policies regarding the ownership of alehouses attempted to regulate the use of drinking houses as spaces of subversion. After the Restoration, local justices attempted to license only men and women of a particular status, a decision that likely sought to prevent social and political disorder they associated with the poorer sort. In certain areas, justices required keepers to be freeholders, which meant they owned at least £15 in   Pincus, “Coffee Politicians Does Create”, pp. 823–5; Ludington, The Politics of Wine, pp. 26–30; McShane, “Roaring Royalists”, p. 77. 198 Rachel Weil, “Sometimes a Scepter is Only a Scepter: Pornography and Politics in Restoration England”, in The Invention of Pornography, Obscenity and the Origins of Modernity, 1500–1800, ed. Lynn Hunt (New York, 1993), p. 136. 199 Clark, The English Alehouse, p. 179. Peter Clark has stated that though there may have been “a brief period of liberalization” following the Restoration, shortly afterwards local officials began to prosecute alehouse-keepers who violated social policies. 200  See Tim Harris, London Crowds, especially chapter 4, “The Problem of Religion”. 197

117

Disaffection.indb 117

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

land. The Restoration may have witnessed an increase in the acceptability of public drinking, but official policy of the authorities favored the middling sort over the poor, despite interregnum populist rhetoric. Establishments that had garnered reputations for disorder remained under the close surveillance of local authorities.201 Not surprisingly, these alterations brought about under the restored regime did little to deter people’s discussions of the new political settlement in local drinking houses. The inconsistencies in the agenda of the Restoration monarchy informed speeches and debates on the ale bench, revealing once again how support for the monarchy did not signal blind approval of Charles’s policies. While drinking in Covent Garden, James Hardley expressed his loyalty to Charles but his frustration with the religious settlement, declaring, “Here is a health to the King but Confusion to the Papists and Bishopps”.202 In a conversation that likely took place within a victualler’s in Wapping, William Hammond compared the restored king to the former Lord Protector, exhibiting his disapproval of both leaders. Witnesses charged Hammond with stating “Oliver was as good a man as King Charles was”, but also “King Charles was as very a Knave as Oliver was”.203 In large part due to the outpouring of disaffected and royalist pamphlet literature in 1659–60, public consumption and discussion of current events peaked as Charles sailed toward England’s shores. Even though some royalist propaganda might have championed censorship and the stifling of political culture within English society after the Restoration, it nonetheless helped to create a politically aware and interested public – even within the seedy alehouses of London’s suburbs.204 Charles II’s officials were increasingly concerned with those who refused to embrace drinking culture at all. Their anxiety over public discussions of government policy in alehouses, inns and taverns was matched by their growing apprehension of the new coffeehouses. In tracts that echoed those of John Taylor and other royalist authors from the 1640s and 1650s, pamphleteers claimed that those who failed to drink “native” ale and beer were disloyal to the monarchy. Charles II’s officials eyed with suspicion those who favored sipping coffee in the newly imported coffeehouses over drinking a health to the king at their local victualler’s.205 The royalists’ promise to restore convivial, social drinking was fulfilled during Restoration celebrations, and the association of festive drinking with loyalty to the Crown continued throughout Charles’s reign. Nonetheless, the dissonance between royalist rhetoric and reality in the Restoration era  Clark, The English Alehouse, pp. 179–80.   LMA, MJ/SR/1238 rec. 27, 12 Aug. 1661. 203  LMA, MJ/SR/1241 rec. 60, 25 Nov. 1661; Jeaffreson, iii, pp. 315–16. 204  For a discussion of royalist authors and their desire for “secrecy” and exclusivity, see Potter, Secret Rites, p. 3; Mark Jenner, “Roasting of the Rump”, p. 118. For a broader discussion of the wide-spread engagement with print as a mechanism of popular politics, see Peacey, Print and Public Politics, pp. 299–393. 205  Pincus, “Coffee Politicians Does Create”, pp. 823–5. 201 202

118

Disaffection.indb 118

19/09/2017 11:25

DRINK AND DISAFFECTION

reflects the conflicting values, restraints and political interests that clashed over drink and its public consumption. The restored regime not only continued to wage the excise on alcohol, but it also began to distance itself from the “disorderly” expressions of good fellowship and loyalty associated with excessive drinking in alehouses and back-alley establishments. The politics of drink were terrains upon which value systems and political interests continued to clash.

119

Disaffection.indb 119

19/09/2017 11:25

Disaffection.indb 120

19/09/2017 11:25

Part II Objects of Disaffection

Disaffection.indb 121

19/09/2017 11:25

Disaffection.indb 122

19/09/2017 11:25

3

Meddling Soldiers

On the evening of 27 September 1655, Ambrose Mitton visited Steven Atkinson’s alehouse in Slaidburn, Yorkshire with fellow local William Fletcher to discuss some “business”. The newcomers joined a company of drinkers already gathered. Two of the crew were traveling soldiers, and witness testimonies suggest Mitton knew of their presence before he ventured in. Almost immediately the company engaged in an aggressive conversation over religion. Hostile from the start, Mitton allegedly asked the soldier John Phillips whether he was “a Quaker, Anabaptist or an Independent”.1 Mitton’s friend Fletcher claimed that it was the soldiers who demanded Mitton tell them his religion, stating that they “were Quakers and soe would live and dye”.2 Regardless of its origins, the heated discussion – charged with the effects of a few flagons of ale – quickly turned violent. Phillips threw a trencher at Mitton, who in turn launched himself at the soldier, calling him “rogue” and other “ill names”. Unable to watch his fellow soldier treated thusly, Matthew Ridley entered the scuffle, which shortly devolved into a wrestling bout on the floor. In the midst of the struggle, two of their fellow drinkers, Isabel Bernaud and Reginold Parkinson, snatched Ridley’s sword to prevent any real harm. Bernaud later returned the sword to Ridley who used it to stab Mitton, causing a fatal wound. Ridley was ultimately indicted for murder, though he would escape before charged. The clash between Ambrose Mitton and the soldiers, Phillips and Ridley, is an example of the tensions that developed between civilians and soldiers throughout civil war and interregnum England. The presence of soldiers in spaces of sociability presented people like Mitton with the opportunity to express frustration over unwelcome changes in their community to men who represented the excesses of the revolution in church and state. Depositions of the struggle at Steven Atkinson’s home suggest that Mitton was hostile to the soldiers’ religious beliefs, and his classification of Ridley and Phillips as dangerous religious sectarians demonstrates one of the many ways in which

  TNA, ASSI 44/6, 1654–55, loose depositions, 15 Oct. 1655.  Ibid.

1 2

Disaffection.indb 123

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

civilians associated soldiers with undesirable consequences of new policies – in this case the toleration and proliferation of radicalism. Marching, quartered and garrisoned armies could provoke public animosity through a seemingly endless list of grievances. The taking of free quarter, plundering, disorderly and scandalous conduct, drunkenness and irreligion emerged in oral and written complaints against forces during the civil wars and interregnum. Certain individuals’ and communities’ resentment of the army arose from interpersonal encounters with radical troopers, armed tax collectors or imperious officers. The experience of living under a standing army differed dramatically based on numerous factors such as one’s locality, gender, religion, political orientation, class and occupation. Shifts in policies – such as the Commonwealth’s attempts to eliminate free quarter, the destruction of several inland garrisons and the downsizing of troops – also affected civilians’ interactions with the military.3 Despite all of these contingencies, several popular characterizations of troopers and officers painted an image of soldiers and their superiors as intrusive interlopers who interfered with an individual’s or a community’s ability to negotiate policy and power. The interjection of members of the army into ordinary conflicts and everyday experiences could undermine established power relations within spaces of sociability. However, not all members of English society contested the army’s intrusion in the localities. Local authorities and reformers whose goals and visions aligned with army officers at times benefited from their presence and support, and on occasion troopers might ally with commoners who insisted on defending their ancient rights and liberties.4 In other communities or amidst interpersonal conflicts, however, individuals could find their ability to negotiate social power or engage in the politics of custom lessened in the face of armed resistance. This chapter will explore new social and political dynamics created by the entrance of quartered, garrisoned or marching soldiers in localities across England. Historians have explored soldiers’ impact on such weighty issues as tax collection, the protection of radicals and the enforcement of reform, but often they weigh the effects of the military on social life by emphasizing the small number of clashes between soldiers and civilians during the 1650s. Though soldiers or officers might overlook minor social infractions or seditious grumblings to avoid conflict or unpleasant scenes, their presence at sites of power also curtailed the public’s ability to voice frustration with local and national policies without fear of immediate retribution. Consequently, at times soldiers were reviled for their enforcement of unpopular policies, and because they were seen to be arbitrary enforcers who were less likely to be swayed by traditional means of popular justice. While public perceptions of the army were undoubtedly influenced by real-life encounters between civilians and the military, rumors, news and  Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, pp. 7, 98–107.   Ibid., pp. 7–8.

3 4

124

Disaffection.indb 124

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

rhetoric decrying the deeds of soldiers and officers also influenced the public’s views. Accounts of personal experience melded with popular representations of troopers in the antagonistic language used to slur and slight soldiers. Several disaffected and royalist authors who narrated clashes between soldiers and communities capitalized on the army’s interference in everyday politics to present the army as the embodiment of the state’s erosion of popular liberties. Royalist pamphleteers sought to undermine the interregnum regimes’ claims to represent the English commonality while presenting the Stuarts as the true champions of the people. The army’s political influence peaked with the military usurpation of state power in October 1659. Popular enmity toward the army, which reached explosive proportions in 1659, stirred up years of everyday animosities targeted at military forces. Divisiveness within the army itself and its increasing size and unpopularity made printed, verbal and even physical opposition to the army increasingly justifiable during late 1659 and early 1660. As the army rose to dominate politics, memories of past grievances were heighted by printed representations of soldiers and hardened into popular hostility. In their depictions of arbitrary troopers and officers, royalist pamphleteers attempted to unite all disaffected expressions of agitation with the army, whether minor irritations with local soldiers or outright resistance to army rule, under the guise of popular royalism. The formation and growth of the military in civil war and interregnum England is well documented.5 The rival claims of Parliament and King Charles to the county troops led both to assemble their own armies, which served as a significant factor in the outbreak of war. Originally, Charles and Parliament had attempted to use the militias in their war efforts, but both sides found them to be relatively unreliable. Militias tended to be ill-trained, and most refused to leave their counties.6 Eventually, both sides employed conscripted troops headed by officers well trained from their experiences in the Continent’s Thirty Years’ War. In 1645 Parliament developed the New Model Army to circumvent several of the difficulties posed by a field army influenced by regional loyalties. The officers of the New Model were proven soldiers and leaders, as opposed to traditional officers from the landed elite. The Self-Denying Ordinance, which accompanied the creation of the New   See, for example, Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England. For further examples, see Austin Woolrych, “The Cromwellian Protectorate: A Military Dictatorship?”, History, 75 (1990), 207–31; C.H. Firth, Cromwell’s Army: A History of the English Soldier during the Civil Wars, the Commonwealth, and the Protectorate (London, 1962); Ian Gentles, The New Model Army in England, Scotland, Ireland, 1645–1653 (Oxford, 1992); Gentles, The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms, 1638–1652 (Harlow, 2007); Mark A. Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1983). 6 Firth, Cromwell’s Army, pp. 15–17; Joyce Lee Malcolm, “The Role of the Militia in the Development of the Englishman’s Right to be Armed-Clarifying the Legacy”, Journal on Firearms and Public Policy (1993), 131–51.

5

125

Disaffection.indb 125

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Model, forbade officers from holding seats in Parliament with notable exceptions for Oliver Cromwell and his son-in-law, Henry Ireton. The creation of a standing, national army led by obscure, dedicated officers was an innovation.7 When examining the strong passions that soldiers could arouse amongst the populace, it is vital to appreciate the revolutionary change that a standing army represented within English society and the close connection established between this army and the state. The actual number of soldiers standing fluctuated throughout the interregnum, but in general the large size of the military was unprecedented. Roughly 11,000 to 47,000 troopers were in England at any given time during the years 1647–60, with many more in neighboring Ireland and Scotland.8 When Cromwell became Lord Protector in December 1653, the Instrument of Government granted him control over the army and provided enough money to support roughly 30,000 troops. Nevertheless, by 1654 he had only reduced the total number of the field army to 53,000, though he eventually decreased the number to around 36,500. By the end of the Protectorate, roughly 14,000 soldiers remained in England.9 Though these numbers are not overwhelming by today’s standards, they were extraordinary in seventeenthcentury England. In addition to the New Model, Parliament re-established the county militia in 1649. While these troops retained their local character, the Commonwealth and Protectorate adapted the militias’ responsibilities to suit their purposes. Parliament often charged militias with policing potentially subversive acts, particularly those thought to be fueled by royalist inclinations.10 Army officers were often on militia commissions, and during the Rule of the Major-Generals from 1655 to 1657 army grandees gained control of the militias and tried to use them to enforce state policy.11 Throughout the 1650s the state heavily relied on London’s militia. During times of crisis, Cromwell would appoint one of his own officers to the trained bands in order to ensure their loyalty, yet he would keep the city fiscally responsible for the troops.12 Despite the local nature of these bands, their close ties to the state were often explicit.13   For more on the New Model Army, see Kishlansky, The Rise of the New Model Army.   Michael Braddick, State Formation in Early Modem England, c.1550–1700 (Cambridge, 2000), p. 214. Reece places the numbers at 11,000–45,000; Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, p. 1. 9  Woolrych, “The Cromwellian Protectorate: A Military Dictatorship?”, p. 210; Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, p. 10. 10  Malcolm, “The Role of the Militia”, p. 142. 11  Woolrych, “Military Dictatorship?”, pp. 222–4. Woolrych argues that the major-generals’ use of the militia was ineffective due to the fact they were unable to pay them. 12  CSP Venetian, vol. 30 (1930), p. 28. 13  For a detailed analysis of the politics surrounding the formation of a standing army and the transformation of England’s militia into a more “permanent establishment”, see J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton, NJ, 1975), pp. 410–22. 7 8

126

Disaffection.indb 126

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

The continuation of the standing army following the end of the first civil war in 1646 intensified the public’s resentment toward the military. Historians have consistently cited the billeting of troopers within family homes, their tendency to plunder and the financial burden that the military placed on the populace as explanations for their unpopularity. The persistence of providing soldiers with free quarter topped the list of common grievances, and petitions poured into Parliament demanding the eradication of this policy.14 The billeting of troops and free quarter went against the 1628 Petition of Right, making Parliament’s continued provision of these policies after the first civil war especially problematic.15 Official accounts and newsbooks recorded the outbreak of violence between civilians and the quartered men in Yorkshire, Cheshire, Kent and Berkshire. In March and April 1649, Parliament began the first steps toward eradicating free quarter, but its impact was not felt until several months later.16 One royalist newsbook pointed to the spread of violent conflict between communities and quartered troopers – inflamed by civilians’ refusal “to give more Free-quarter or monthly Taxes” – as evidence of the “Country Bumpkins” growing “wise” of Parliament’s oppressive policies.17 Though reduced after 1649, free quarter persisted in certain areas of England throughout the 1650s and returned as common practice in 1659.18 The maintenance of a large standing army carried a high price for civilians. Costs of sustaining the army in the 1650s were higher than they had been in the first years of the civil war. Despite the disbanding of several troops, the main armies cost roughly £792,003 a year to maintain in the period between June 1653 and February 1660. These costs were exorbitant in comparison to those of Charles II’s army, which cost £188,000 per annum from January 1661 through September 1667.19 Much to the disappointment of the public, Parliament’s attempts to eradicate free quarter after the war forced the state to raise taxes to support its forces. Even the persistence of quartering within local inns, alehouses and taverns continued to cause conflict within communities due to the soldiers’ inability or refusal to pay their debts.20 Their presence in   See, for example, Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, chapter 8, especially p. 221; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 120–35; Robert Ashton, Counter-Revolution (New Haven, CT, 1994), chapter 2; Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, chapters 4 and 6. 15   Robert Ashton, “From Cavalier to Roundhead Tyranny”, in Reactions to the English Civil War, 1642–1649, ed. J.S. Morrill (New York, 1984), pp. 194–5. 16  The Moderate, no. 36 (13–20 Mar. 1649), pp. 362–3; The Impartial Intelligencer, no. 10 (2–9 May 1649); The Man in the Moon (27 Jun.–4 Jul. 1649), p. 94; Perfect Weekly Account (28 Jun.–4 Jul. 1649), p. 376; Ashton, Counter-Revolution, pp. 57, 70. 17  Mercurius Carolinus, no. 1 (19–26 Jul. 1649). 18 Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, pp. 100–4. Towns with garrisons or those hosting marching armies often failed to find enough housing for soldiers to completely avoid free quarter. See, for example, “State Papers, 1655: March (7 of 8)”, in Thurloe Online, vol. 3, pp. 295–310. 19  James Scott Wheeler, The Making of a World Power (Thrupp, 1999), p. 82. 20  See LMA, MJ/SR/1163/71, 24 Feb. 1656/7; 1150/63, 9 May 1656 for examples of victuallers refusing to give soldiers quarter; Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, pp. 98–107. 14

127

Disaffection.indb 127

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

these spaces of sociability also provoked resistance from individuals who felt hostility toward the soldiers and/or the policies they represented. Soldiers’ inhabitance could also threaten the livelihood of local traders. While a troop of soldiers might generate income for tradesmen, it could also provide competition for local artisans and laborers. Despite Parliament’s promise that apprentices could count their years in service toward their apprenticeship, local leaders refused to accept this negotiation. Annoyed tradesmen and civic governors ensured that soldiers and ex-soldiers who set up shop would face prosecution throughout the interregnum.21 Rumors of soldiers’ plundering and gluttony were widespread during the late 1640s and early 1650s. The state’s inability to pay its army promptly often resulted in the soldiers’ wanton confiscation of provisions without repayment and the plundering of civilians’ goods, frequently in quantities that exceeded their needs. Soldiers regularly seized livestock, horses, money, clothing and arms.22 Consequently, troopers gained the reputation of being mercenary. As part of a set of white-letter ballads designed to recruit soldiers to the New Model Army, the ballad The Mercenary Sovldier described the (cavalier) soldiers’ greed, declaring, “I came not forth to doe my Countrey good/ I came to rob and take my fill of pleasure/ Let fools repell their foes with angry mood/ Let those doe service while I share the treasure”.23 Though broadside ballads also depicted soldiers as “civil” and “zealous”, the trope of the greedy or gluttonous trooper continued to emerge in seditious conversations – particularly during the first years of the Commonwealth.24 In April 1650, Thomas Parsons linked his animosity toward the army and his political inclinations, claiming “[t]hat the Generall and his Army were … Rogues and thieves and went up and downe to deceive the Countrey”. The butcher, William Pierce, likewise articulated “evill words against Officers of the Army” and called the state’s troopers “thieves”.25 As the war raged on in Scotland in July 1651, Jane Neas was thrown into London’s Newgate prison for speaking against Parliament and the army. Far away from the actual fighting, she stated “that the States were all bloody Rogues and entertained none but bloody Theeves into their Service, such who went into Scotland to Robb the people there”, revealing that her dissatisfaction with Parliament was inextricably bound with her disgust for its soldiers’ reputations.26 Neas, who soldiers seemingly did not personally victimize, may well have learned of the army’s reputation for pillaging in Scotland  Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, pp. 112–13.  Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 129–30; Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, p. 109. 23  The Mercenary Sovldier (London, 1646); see McShane, Political Broadside Ballads of Seventeenth Century England, p. 48; McShane, “Recruiting Citizens for Soldiers in Seventeenth-Century English Ballads”, Journal of Early Modern History, 15 (2011), 105–37. 24 See The Zealovs Sovldier (London, 1646); Humphrey Crouch, The Downfall of Pride. Riband-Cod-pieses, Black-patches, and Whatsoever is Antick, Apish, Fantastick, and Dishonourable to a Civil Government (1656). 25  LMA, MJ/SR/1140 rec. 358. 26  LMA, MJ/GDR/1076 rec. 43; LMA MJ/SR/1075 rec. 62. 21 22

128

Disaffection.indb 128

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

as it had been a newsworthy topic in 1650.27 Fairfax and Cromwell released proclamations against plundering that were published as broadsides or in newsbooks to alert the populace of the consequences such soldiers faced.28 In the late 1640s and early 1650s public animosity toward soldiers was based on troopers’ violence and lack of discipline as well as the fiscal costs of quartering, taxation and plundering. Studies of areas that experienced heavy combat and long-term contact with soldiers, such as Warwickshire and Yorkshire, show that troopers’ presence increased crime.29 The dependence of Warwickshire’s county committee on the military enabled local forces to exploit the counties’ inhabitants. During the civil wars, captains in Warwickshire plundered large estates, soldiers captured and ransomed “delinquents” and Major George Purefoy forced local inhabitants into slave labor.30 The situation improved slightly after 1649 when the indemnity court began to grant fewer petitions to soldiers charged with thievery, particularly if a debt was involved. Soldiers whose petitions were rejected faced the wrath of local juries.31 Though state officials and military officers created new policies that lessened military–civilian strife associated with free quarter and illdisciplined troops, the public continued to fear a renewal of these violations into the interregnum. Cromwell’s dissolution of Parliament in April 1653 is just one example of how military might was used to dominate politics during the interregnum. Several studies have attempted to gauge the influence of Cromwell’s standing army on local communities. Scholars largely agree over the expansive political might of the military, though some historians question the view that army officers dictated central policies in London or the localities.32 Studies of the “Rule of the Major-Generals” and the impact of garrisoned forces question  E.g. A Perfect Diurnall no. 34 (29 Jul.–5 Aug. 1650); Perfect Passages of Every Daies Intelligence no. 1 (28 Jun–5 Jul. 1650); The Impartial Scout, no. 56 (12–19 Jul. 1650). 28  Thomas Fairfax, A Proclamation to Prevent Abuses by the Souldiers (London, 1647); A Perfect Diurnall, no. 34 (29 Jul.–5 Aug. 1650), pp. 394, 401. 29   See Ronan Bennett, “War and Disorder: Policing the Soldiery in Civil War Yorkshire”, in War and Government in Britain, 1598–1650, ed. Mark Charles Fissel (Manchester, 1991), pp. 248–73; Ann Hughes, “Parliament Tyranny? Indemnity Proceedings and the Impact of the Civil War: A Case Study from Warwickshire”, Midland History, 11 (1986), 49–78. 30   Ann Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), p. 203 31  Hughes, “Parliamentary Tyranny?”, p. 65; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 123; Bennett, “War and Disorder”, pp. 248–73. 32  The most recent and thorough work on the army’s impact on civilian communities during the interregnum is Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England. For discussion of its impact on politics, see also Woolrych, “The Cromwellian Protectorate: A Military Dictatorship?”; Lois G. Schwoerer, “No Standing Armies:” The Anti-Army Ideology in Seventeenth Century England (Baltimore, MD, 1974). Firth, Cromwell’s Army; Gentles, New Model Army; Gentles, The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms; Christopher Durston, Cromwell’s Major Generals: Godly Government during the English Revolution (Manchester, 2001). 27

129

Disaffection.indb 129

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

generalizations about the armed forces’ grip on power. While many historians have discussed interactions between soldiers and civilians, few have engaged in an in-depth examination of the army’s effects on the micro-politics of everyday life.33 The use of troops to uphold polices – or the threat of their deployment – also disrupted the delicate balance of power between the state and society as well as social relations within the communities they encountered. Much of interregnum historiography has explored the impact of the military’s political might on the traditional ruling classes and the rising middle class; however, the threat of armed enforcement of unpopular regulations also limited the power of people at the lowest levels of society. In seventeenth-century England, the development of a centralized government required an intricate system of negotiation between the state and society. In his examination of the state’s increasing role in moral reform during the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, Steve Hindle describes how “honest” men responsible for implementing social regulations were first and foremost “members of the communities” that they were required to control.34 The successful execution of social reform, therefore, necessitated the cooperation of the community. Even in the face of local repression, people had recourse to a large repertoire of rituals and customary language historically deployed as methods of popular resistance. The presence of soldiers – or fear of their retaliation – could minimize the effectiveness of many of these acts of defiance, such as the intimidation of officials through verbal and physical abuse. Soldiers’ participation in the spread and protection of radicalism, collection of taxes, implementation of social control, enforcement of enclosure or property rights and policing of opinions interfered with the people’s capacity to negotiate state policies. Although actual confrontations between civilians and soldiers may have been limited, those that did take place frequently became iconic in political culture through news and rumors. Royalist propagandists quickly capitalized on these social conflicts. Local and state officials’ ability to call on soldiers to uphold its programs necessarily limited public demonstrations against these policies. In fact, the continued presence of soldiers in public spaces could effectively alter the meaning of “public”. “Army of Sectaries” In several garrison towns and counties that encountered marching armies, local authorities clashed with army officers and their rank-and-file members  Two recent exceptions are Capp’s England’s Culture Wars and Reece’s The Army in Cromwellian England. 34 Steve Hindle, The State and Social Change in Early Modern England, c.1550–1640 (London, 2002), p. 181; Keith Wrightson, “Two Concepts of Order: Justices, Constables and Jurymen in Seventeenth Century England”, in An Ungovernable People, ed. John Brewer and John Styles (London, 1980), pp. 29–33. 33

130

Disaffection.indb 130

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

over religion. In his thorough study of the army in Cromwellian England, Henry Reece claims “the religious radicalism of the army” troubled civic officials more than plundering, criminal behavior, free quarter or the assessment.35 The notion that Parliament’s army was festering with religious radicals and lay preachers was prevalent in propaganda throughout the 1640s. “Thus by the will of this cursed Army of Sectaries”, one royalist newsbook bemoaned, “should the miseries of this Nation be perpetuated … Our Lawes turned to tyranny and Oppression, Our Religion into Blasphemy, Heresy, Schisme, Sacriledge, and Prophanation and our Freedome into flat slavery and bondage”.36 The royalist newsbook Mercurius Pragmaticus also regularly employed the theme that Parliament’s forces intended to overthrow religion, claiming soldiers fought to usher in “New Lawes” and “new Gospel”. Thomas Edwards’s Gangraena famously detailed the rapid growth of the most gruesome heresies, which included their infiltration of Parliament’s own forces. Cataloguing several reports of heretical and blasphemous ideas spreading throughout the country, Edwards related the existence of an army lieutenant who believed “that women might preach”, and that a woman “might lye with another man” if her husband was “absent from her”. Edwards further relayed that “there are some whole Troops in the Army that hold such desperate opinions, as denying the Resurrection of the dead, and hell”.37 Edwards’s tracts also recounted stories of troops that insulted and interfered with parish ministers, who were often replaced with preachers from their own ranks. One account claimed that Lieutenant John Webb disturbed one “M. Skinner” while he was preaching in his parish church, taunting him with shouts of “Popish Priest” and “tub-preacher”. Just a few days later, Colonel John Hewson confronted Skinner in his church and “contemned” Parliament’s ordinance against lay-preaching. Hewson threatened to “lay” Skinner “by his heeles” if he denied Hewson the opportunity to preach.38 In her in-depth study of Gangraena, Ann Hughes effectively argues that Edwards capitalized on deep fears of gender reversal, “monstrosity” and the workings of Divine Providence to provide his readers appealing and convincing accounts of heresy.39 Indeed, by the end of the first civil war people commonly believed the army was riddled with sectarians. While the New Model Army was not “an army of saints”, persistent toleration of radical beliefs in its ranks troubled contemporaries.40 Army officers whose influence enabled them to replace and remove local clergy threatened local autonomy. The Council of State empowered garrison  Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, p. 115.   Mercurius Elencticus, no. 45 (27 Sep.–4 Oct. 1648), no pagination. See also The Army Anatomized (London, 1647). 37  Thomas Edwards, A Third Part of Gangraena (London, 1646), pp. 22, 107; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 90. 38 Edwards, A Third Part of Gangraena, pp. 251–2. 39  Ann Hughes, Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution, p. 56. 40  Bernard Capp, “Popular Millenarianism”, in Radical Religion in the English Revolution, p. 169 35 36

131

Disaffection.indb 131

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

governors to supplant disaffected or questionable ministers, and they regularly appointed radical chaplains who preached to local congregations as well as troops.41 In the garrison towns of Poole, Hull and Bristol, local governors and civic authorities clashed over the army’s protection and promotion of unwelcome radicals. The Baptist preacher, John Canne, met with local hostility when he traveled to Hull, but the support of the garrison provided him with an audience and protection. Tensions overs Canne’s use of the parish church became so severe that Colonel Robert Overton received permission from the Council of State to construct a dividing wall within the parish church.42 The Bristol garrison’s protection of Quakers served as a constant source of friction between the community, the radicals and the army. Garrison officers allowed the Quakers Edward Burroughs and Francis Howgill to hold meetings behind the protective walls of the fort. When religious tensions between the Quakers and Bristol apprentices provoked a riot, once again the army attempted to influence events by suppressing the violence and urging magistrates to prosecute the offenders. Cromwell sent Major William Boteler to examine the ongoing conflict, and his findings influenced the Council’s decision to disgarrison the city.43 Leaders in Poole petitioned the Council of State in 1651 to rid their community of Lieutenant Colonel John Rede, a known radical who the petitioners claimed had “incroached upon the civil rights & priveledges of the town”.44 Rede had reported the local pastor to the Council of State for refusing to take the Engagement and moved to appoint a radical soldier in his troop in the interim, much to the chagrin of local authorities.45 Though there is no evidence of the Council’s response to the petition, Rede left Poole and soon thereafter the garrison was removed that year.46 As this suggests, neither all army grandees nor the Council allowed for the inhibited spread of radical beliefs through its troops. Several soldiers faced martial justice and public punishment for espousing dangerous tenets. The military’s use of public punishment proclaimed the army’s official rejection of blasphemous beliefs within its ranks, but it also publicized their existence.47 Despite the risks involved, some parish communities practiced popular forms of resistance against proselytizing troopers out of fear of the spread of their heresies. In August 1652, the soldier Daniel Lewes was expositing “upon the 106th Psalm” in Wookey, Somerset when local inhabitants stormed the parish church, asked for Lewes’s commission, and rang the bells  Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, pp. 118–19.   CSPD 1650, p. 452; Gentles, New Model Army, p. 112. 43 For a further development, see pp. 219; Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, p. 134. 44 BL, Stowe MS 189, fol. 5, quoted in Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, p. 130. 45  The Engagement was an oath declaring loyalty to the Commonwealth. 46 Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, pp. 130–1. 47  See, for example, The Man in the Moon, no. 48 (13–20 March 1650), p. 373; A Perfect Diurnall ...Armies, no. 49 (11–18 Nov. 1649), p. 605. 41 42

132

Disaffection.indb 132

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

during his oration.48 In a similar case from Chester, parishioners promised to ring the bells and call forth a crowd to “beat” a group of radical troopers attempting to preach at St. Peter’s in September 1653.49 Several townspeople in Whitchurch armed with “Bills and Staves” allegedly prevented a troop from entering their parish church in May 1651.50 Popular anxiety over the spread of religious radicalism within the army, while heightened by persistent rhetoric, was based in part on such encounters with radical army preachers and their armed audiences. Thus, soldiers symbolized not only the growth of sectarianism, but also the state’s protection of these religious groups at the expense of the parish. In the end, both soldiers and radicals became objects of disaffection within communities.51 Tax Collectors Army influence over ongoing, large-scale taxation throughout the interregnum was twofold. First, and most obviously, the maintenance of a large standing army resulted in unprecedented tax levels even during times of relative peace. Though the army was supposedly paid through the collection of monthly assessments, the growth in arrears and curbing of free quarter forced the state to dip into other fiscal resources, such as the excise tax, to maintain its soldiers. Second, the state and local collectors’ reliance upon the army to collect taxes contributed to the image of the soldier as a symbol of forcible exaction. Indeed, some soldiers worked directly for the excise administration as sub-commissioners.52 Public rejection of the soldiers’ collection could, therefore, easily represent animosity to high taxation as well as the state’s more coercive policies. Soldiers were frequently employed in the collection of the excise. Due to repeated violent confrontations between excise-men and civilians, excise farmers and commissioners regularly called upon troopers for reinforcement.53 During the excise riots of the late 1640s, public hostility was aimed at soldiers and excise-men, both of whom represented the state’s physical intrusion into communities. According to a newsbook, civilians surprised the excise-man Captain Prescott along with his soldiers in their quarters at Sturbridge in September 1649. The account claims roughly 300 armed civilians captured three commissioners and disarmed and dispersed all the troopers who were housed in the local church. The locals’ actions against the soldiers may well   Quarter Sessions Records for the County of Somerset, p. xxxix; Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, pp. 253–4. 49 Capp, England’s Culture Wars, p. 225. 50  Ibid., p. 44; Perfect Passages, no. 46 (30 May–6 Jun. 1651), p. 326. 51  For more on Quakers as objects of disaffection, see pp. 215. 52 Roberts, Recovery and Restoration, p. 142. 53  For a detailed discussion of the excise-man, see Chapter 4. 48

133

Disaffection.indb 133

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

have been preemptive, and their use of force implies that those protesting the excise collection were well aware of the state’s reliance on armed force to implement its unpopular policies.54 Such views were expressed in the popular press – a royalist black-letter ballad from that year explicitly linked the excise with soldiers when it claimed: “Excise doth give free quarter birth/ while Souldiers multiply”.55 The excise-men represented the state’s invasive policies, while the soldiers symbolized its oppressive enforcement tactics to ensure their success.56 Royalist reports of the events at Sturbridge and its environs exploited the crowd’s evident hostility to the state’s forces. Mercurius Pragmaticus’s account of the riot depicted a violent crowd, committed to ending state oppression. The author claimed that the violent protesters wounded several of the soldiers during the attack, threatening them with hanging if they ever “were seen within the Town againe”. Pragmaticus further attested that, following the attack on Prescott, the crowd continued to cause trouble for the state in order to “suppresse the Tyrannicall Proceedings of the Juncto”. John Crouch’s Man in the Moon also utilized the events at Sturbridge to emphasize officials’ oppressive use of soldiers to enforce their will. After remarking that the Lord General was ordered to suppress the revolt, the author noted that “the people will now questionless see their Bondage, and learn to be so wise at last, as to defend their own”.57 Soldiers also assisted with the collection of the assessment, a property tax waged to support the army. The responsibility for the assessment was often split between landlord and tenant, which unsettled relations between the two. On occasion partisan hostilities further fueled these interpersonal conflicts as both sides tried to negotiate their share.58 Other issues also complicated its payment, and the assessment was frequently in arrears throughout the interregnum. Areas still burdened by free quarter would often petition to be freed from the assessment; however, on several occasions, such communities were forced to cover both burdens. Evidence from the indemnity courts suggests soldiers were frequently called on to assist with collection. William Dawson, a sub-collector for the assessment in Little Robston, Yorkshire, assembled a group of soldiers to secure 10s and some goods from Henry Pulleyne. Pulleyne sued, based on the fact that he had previously paid the tax. William Alcock also enlisted the aid of troopers when his attempts to distrain Samuel Endon’s   The Perfect Weekly Account (26 Sep.–3 Oct. 1649), p. 617.   A Coffin For King Charles: A Crowne for Cromwell: A Pit for the People (Apr. 1649). 56  The state did eventually remove Prescott from his post, see TNA, SP 25/95 fols. 16–17, Feb. 1650. For other accounts of soldiers’ role in the collection of excise, see Ashton, Counter-Revolution, p. 76; Michael Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, p. 280; Gentles, New Model Army, pp. 134–5. 57  Mercurius Pragmaticus (For King Charls II), part 2 no. 24 (25 Sep.–2 Oct. 1649); The Man in the Moon, no. 24 (26 Sep.–10 Oct. 1649), p. 199. 58 Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, pp. 151–2. 54 55

134

Disaffection.indb 134

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

goods for non-payment provoked Endon to strike him with a pike.59 At times collectors such as Dawson and Alcock had quick recourse to soldiers to enforce the tax collection from recalcitrant civilians. In both cases the collectors faced prosecution, but this was often the only recourse for inhabitants as the identity of soldiers generally was unknown.60 Communities encountered the harsh realities of enforced interregnum taxation in their homes, streets and other spaces of sociability. In March 1650 at Leicester, an innkeeper was compelled to pay the assessment twice when constable Robert Holmes entered his establishment with soldiers to demand payment from him. According to the keeper, the soldiers demanded an additional 10d and a flagon of beer for their services. Two other witnesses supported Holmes’s claim that the soldiers had exacted money and beer along with his taxes. Holmes’s deposition suggests that the soldiers even coerced him into relinquishing his tax roll. William Goldsmith was also forced to pay soldiers for their “paines” when they came to enforce payment.61 In another case of non-payment, the Shrewsbury constable, Thomas Richardson, charged the quartering of soldiers at a local victualing on individuals who had failed to pay their portion of the assessment. Though, according to Richardson, these recalcitrant inhabitants had originally agreed to the arrangement, William Jones refused to part with his share of the cost when arrears were collected. When the quartered soldiers attempted to seize some of Jones’s goods for non-payment, he and other inhabitants allegedly caused a “tumult”. The conflict might have ended when Jones’s wife took out a loan to pay their arrears, but, nevertheless, Richardson was charged at the local court for his interference.62 These cases indicate a pattern in which some soldiers would enter local establishments and homes to exact taxes, but along with that demand a fee for their troubles and, in some cases, a flagon of beer. The use of soldiers to enforce collection complicated the practice of non-payment as a form of resistance. After Goldsmith initially refused to pay the assessment for the army, the local sub-collector brought two troopers to his home in October 1651 in order to “distrayne” him. The use of intimidation – physical and psychological – to enforce collection reveals the fallacy behind the idea that the payment of taxes can be seen as a gauge for a state’s legitimacy. Although the collection of taxes from elites may offer a clearer indication of their perception of that state’s legitimacy, soldiers limited the public’s recourse to violent obstruction and encroached on an individual’s ability to exercise practiced modes of resistance and evasion. The actual impact of soldiers on the forcible collection of taxes is virtually impossible to gauge. Mike Braddick has argued that the presence of   TNA, SP 24/30, Alcock v. Endon, May 1650; Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, p. 157.   WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/4 fol. 49, Jun. 1653. Ann Hughes notes how this can distort the picture provided by court records; Hughes, “Parliamentary Tyranny?”, p. 57. 61  TNA, SP 24/15. 62 Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, p. 155. 59 60

135

Disaffection.indb 135

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

soldiers may have limited dissent to the assessment, but soldiers failed to prevent some of the agitation wrought by the excise.63 The fear of soldiers, for example, of possible violent retribution for evasion, could influence public perceptions of the state’s power and the role actually played by soldiers in society. Venetian ambassadors made several comments regarding the use of soldiers in London to exact unpaid taxes. One ambassador noted that it was not exclusively in the physical collection of the taxes that the soldiers had an influence. In March 1655 the ambassador wrote that Londoners’ “suppressed grumblings” regarding Cromwell’s latest taxes “died away owing to the great number of troopers now in the City”. He went on to conclude that people paid their duties “from fear of consequence”.64 While soldiers’ direct role in the exaction of the excise and the assessment might have diminished over the course of the interregnum, their threatening image remained embedded in the minds of the people.65 The government’s attempt to enforce the collection of the arrears of the excise and other levies in 1659 inflamed a public that was already hostile to taxes due to an economic depression. A royalist newsletter remarked that in November two soldiers in London were almost murdered for “assisting to leavy taxes”. The author further noted that these taxes had been “layd by Parliament”, unlike some of the other duties being waged.66 The military’s monopoly over the government after the dissolution of the Rump Parliament in mid-October 1659 and the use of troopers to enforce the new Committee of Safety’s disordered agenda led to a high point in anti-military sentiment. As the royalist newsletter suggests, the troopers’ role as tax collectors could result in violent retaliation from an angry individual or crowd. It was specifically the officers who the public and propagandists most often targeted. The state’s reinstatement of tax collection along with several other unpopular policies in 1659 provided opportunities for the disaffected to vent hostilities against the officers and the army at large. Soldiers and Common Rights After the conclusion of the second civil war in 1648, Parliament turned its attention to the historic struggle between poorer commoners, adventurers, purchasers and the state over the use and treatment of fenlands and forests throughout the nation. Commonwealth and Protectorate policies toward   For further discussion on this topic, see ibid., pp. 158, 278–9.  E.g. CSPD Venetian, vol. 30, pp. 128–30; vol. 31, pp. 28, 158. 65 Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, pp. 158, 278. In his analysis of Cromwell as a possible military dictator, Woolrych notes, “If taxes were collected at all widely at sword’s point, and if the very small military element in the assessment commission was widely resented, it is surprising that more has not been heard of it”. See Woolrych, “The Cromwellian Protectorate: A Military Dictatorship?”, p. 218. 66  The Nicholas Papers, vol. iv, ed. George F. Warner (London, 1886), p. 301. 63 64

136

Disaffection.indb 136

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

drainage, enclosure and disafforestation remained strikingly similar to those implemented prior to the revolution. The enclosure movement – the privatization of property formerly available for common use – provoked many of those who relied on the land to protest this policy by destroying fences and hedges erected around the contested lands. Buchanan Sharp has argued that the breakdown in law enforcement during the civil wars allowed bitter commoners to destroy hedges, gates, fences and other symbolic manifestations of enclosure with “little fear of the consequences”.67 The relative freedom with which these protestors could reverse the progress of enclosures or drainage works during the 1640s would soon be challenged by interregnum regimes, which needed the forests and fens to support their finances. Commoners who had used civil war and revolution “to settle old scores” in the 1640s suddenly faced the return of Stuart policies of enclosure, drainage and disafforestation.68 Those who engaged in clashes over customary rights participated in a form of politics that made claims to political agency and constituted social relations between the various members of English society.69 Pre-war struggles flared once again in contested forests and fens, but the civil war and revolution transformed how parties articulated or enforced their will. At times poorer cottagers and artisans had to justify their claims to common rights in landscapes that were now occupied by army officers and troops brought in to enforce policies that undermined their claims. The presence of soldiers and officers – as enforcers, collaborators and purchasers – offered aggrieved commoners (and disaffected authors) a tangible symbol of what they viewed as the state’s arbitrary interference in customary right. Studies of enclosure and disafforestation offer plenty of evidence detailing local and state officials’ dependence on soldiers to sustain their policies in contested fenlands and forests throughout the interregnum. In response to a costly and destructive riot in Hatfield Chase, Yorkshire, the Council of State ordered the quartering of troops within the neighborhood of the level in August 1653. The Council reasoned that billeted soldiers could serve to keep the peace and punish offenders.70 In his study of fenland riots, Keith Lindley claims adventurers also frequently called upon local troopers to protect drain works from scheming commoners during the 1650s.71 Soldiers assigned to protect contested lands risked facing the wrath of the local community. In the dead of night in August 1653, a group of locals gathered to assault three or four soldiers who had been enlisted to protect the dykes at Swaffham. The adventurers’ report claimed that one of the guards was seriously wounded, while the others were beaten and suffered to assist the “meaner sort” in   Buchanan Sharp, In Contempt of All Authority, Rural Artisans and Riot in the West of England, 1586–1660 (Berkeley, CA, 1980), p. 220. 68  Ibid., p. 8. 69 Wood, The Memory of the People, p. 12. 70  CSPD 1653–54, p. 118. See also Lindley, Fenland Riots in the English Revolution, p. 183. 71 Lindley, Fenland Riots in the English Revolution, chapter 5, esp. pp. 161, 179. 67

137

Disaffection.indb 137

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

their sabotage of the drains. Eventually, soldiers were ordered to round up and prosecute the offenders, which again placed troopers at the forefront of political activities.72 By forcing the guards to support their destruction of the works, the Swaffham commoners co-opted the power that the adventurers had gained through the presence of troops. In most cases, however, the added support of military force led to the eventual triumph of the adventurers over inhabitants in several of the contested regions.73 Increased governmental surveillance and control over these tracts of land during the interregnum arose out of heightened interest in the land’s value. Since the Commonwealth and Protectorate utilized its own holdings in forests and fenlands to subsidize and support the military – either through exploiting resources or providing soldiers with property – the regimes had a vested interest in reestablishing the enclosure movement. Access to soldiers provided local and state officials a coercive tool in their day-to-day struggles with the commoners. The exercise of these powers came at a cost. The Commonwealth and Protectorate damaged their legitimacy when armed defenses of draining and enclosure projects provoked local commoners who believed the regimes had reneged on Parliament’s earlier promises to maintain their ancient rights. Despite concessions that the state made to some commoners as policies developed and adapted under the Commonwealth and Protectorate, both regimes failed to recognize the vital and various resources forests, fens and commons offered to poorer inhabitants.74 In 1659, the habitual use of soldiers to enforce the government’s policies of enclosure and disafforestation, combined with the fact that soldiers had become the landowners of parts of the contested lands, redefined these historic social conflicts. One of the forests contested during the interregnum was the state-managed Forest of Dean. Commoners who rioted against Stuart enclosures and disafforestation formed a part of the so-called “Western Rising” that plagued the regime in the late 1620s and early 1630s.75 The forest contained timber that was suitable for shipbuilding and it had been used for ironworks, which made it ripe for general exploitation. The parliamentarian army had unofficially continued to utilize the works in the 1640s, but the Commonwealth shut them down in 1650 to safeguard the forest for timber. In 1653, however, Parliament restarted the ironworks out of necessity. Major John Wade, a native man and former army officer, was given the responsibility of rebuilding the old works, while conserving wood for the Navy.76 In addition to these duties, Wade played several roles in local politics as a frequent justice of the peace,   CSPD 1653–54, pp. 115–16; Lindley, Fenland Riots in the English Revolution, pp. 179–83.  Lindley, Fenland Riots in the English Revolution, p. 183. 74 Wood, The Memory of the People, p. 190. 75 Sharp, In Contempt, p. 220; A.R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire, 1640–1672 (Woodbridge, 1997), p. 141. Warmington rejects the use of “Western Rising” to describe the riots in the Forest of Dean, which he views as unique. 76 Warmington, Gloucestershire, p. 129. 72 73

138

Disaffection.indb 138

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

deputy to Major-General Disbrowe and as a member of the local militia and assessment committees. He was active in putting down the royalist uprisings that occurred in the area in 1655 and later in 1659.77 Thus, the Forest of Dean was placed in the hands of a local officer who performed political and military functions within the area. Several commoners protested Parliament’s act enclosing much of the Forest of Dean despite the liberal concessions it provided for some inhabitants. In order to ensure the preservation of timber for the growing naval forces, the state decided to enclose two-thirds of the forest in June 1657, with one-third remaining accessible to those with common rights. Those who argued against the act in Parliament declared that the law would “usher in former oppressions” and deceive those who believed Parliament “had fought for their liberty”.78 The new law, which benefited proprietors or tenants rather than the poorer commoners who were dependent on the spoils of the forest to remain solvent, provoked strong resistance. Following the act, many cottagers and poorer inhabitants feared the rest of the forest would fall prey to enclosure in the future.79 Even if their legal entitlement to common rights had been dubious, in practice these poorer commoners had become dependent on access and inclusion.80 In April 1659, commoners resisted the enclosures by tearing down fences, destroying coppices and burning down parts of the forest. Wade’s description of the rioters, which blasted the “horrid offenders” for claiming “that to be right which is against all law and justice”, indicated that the poorer inhabitants may well have been stirred by the “boasts” and “great promises” made in the Commons.81 Wade’s language that denigrated commoners and rejected their rights echoed existent assumptions that suggested those who depended on commonage, gleaning or collecting fuel were “lazy”, “idle” or “careless” in their usage of valuable resources.82 In response to the riots, Parliament devised a committee to preserve the timber within this and other state forests.83 After the new committee considered the petition of some commoners about affairs in the Forest of Dean, the Rump Parliament ordered enclosures to be restored to the condition they were in

  Warmington, “Wade, John (d. in or before 1668?)”, in ODNB, pp. 662–3.   “The Diary of Thomas Burton: 25 December 1656”, in Diary of Thomas Burton Esq, vol. 1, Jul. 1653–Apr. 1657, ed. John Towill Rutt (London: H Colburn, 1828), pp. 228–43, British History Online; Warmington, Gloucestershire, p. 132. 79 Warmington, Gloucestershire, p. 132; Sharp, In Contempt, p. 254. 80  For a similar point about claims to common right by poorer residents who were excluded by law, see Steve Hindle, “‘Not by Bread Only?’ Common Right, Parish Relief, and Endowed Charity in a Forest Economy, c.1600–1800”, in The Poor in England, 1700–1850, ed. S. King and A. Tompkins (Manchester, 2003), p. 49. 81  Quoted in Warmington, Gloucestershire, p. 158. 82  Hindle, “‘Not by Bread Only?’”, p. 45; Wood, The Memory of the People, p. 125. 83  CJ Online, vol. 7, 648–9; Sharp, In Contempt, p. 254; Ruth Mayers, 1659: The Crisis of the Commonwealth (Woodbridge, 2004), p. 109; Warmington, Gloucestershire, p. 158. 77 78

139

Disaffection.indb 139

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

on 7 May.84 Parliament remained willing to redress some grievances, but its clear support of Wade and the more prosperous commoners provoked further agitation in the summer of 1659. The presence of soldiers under the command of the commoners’ adversary Wade and the appearance of royalist conspirators contributed to the failure of the enclosure riots in the Forest of Dean. Wade was one of two men granted total control of local troops, making further protests hazardous. One newsbook claimed that Colonel Okey brought as many as 1,500 soldiers into the Forest of Dean to squash royalist rebels.85 The proximity of New Model soldiers and Wade’s own connections with the Council of State likely influenced the disgruntled commoners’ ability to wage any large-scale open anti-enclosure riots. Meanwhile, Presbyterian-royalist plotters familiar with the complaints of the poorer inhabitants hoped to enlist aggrieved commoners in a royalist uprising in June and July 1659.86 Colonel Edward Massey, the former parliamentarian officer who had leased the ironworks in 1645, returned to Dean as a royalist conspirator with the design to exploit Parliament’s encroachment on the commoners “forest priviledges, which they say have bin extremely violated”.87 A royalist newsletter indicates that the state’s support of enclosure ultimately alienated these people. The letter, written in exile, claimed that thousands of commoners had declared “the Parliaments hard usage in supporting Major Wade will force them to turn Cavaliers”.88 Little evidence exists that suggest these royalist desires became reality, but royalist agitation in region placed the protesting commoners under more intensive scrutiny and ushered in an increased army presence.89 Royalist plotting failed to attract commoners invested in the “good old cause”, but Parliament’s rejection of their pleas and use of armed forces alienated those who wished to assert what they viewed as their ancient rights in the Forest. It would not be until far into the Restoration that the rights of the commoners would be restored with the Reafforestation Act of 1668.90 A more notorious conflict over enclosed lands entangled with anti-army sentiment transpired in Enfield Chase just outside of London. Similar to the Forest of Dean, Enfield Chase was home to several rural artisans, cottagers and laborers who relied upon the fruits of the forest for survival. Historically the Chase served as a royal deer park where local inhabitants long exercised grazing rights and exploited the woods for timber. Eager for   CJ, vol. 7, pp. 708–10; Mayers, Crisis of the Commonwealth, p. 109; Warmington, Gloucestershire, p. 132. 85 Mayers, Crisis of the Commonwealth, p. 111. 86 Sharp, In Contempt, p. 254. 87  Calendar of The Manuscripts of the Marquis of Bath Preserved at Longleat, Wiltshire (Hereford, 1904), vol. ii, 132; Sharp, In Contempt, pp. 253–4. 88  Quoted in Mayers, Crisis of the Commonwealth, p. 110 fn. 65. 89  CSPD 1659, p. 65. It is unclear how many commoners participated in the royalist revolt. See Sharp, In Contempt, p. 254. 90 Warmington, Gloucestershire, p. 198; Sharp, In Contempt, p. 255. 84

140

Disaffection.indb 140

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

“ready money”, the Commonwealth ordered that Enfield Chase be prepared for sale in November 1652. Two years later Cromwell’s Council instructed a committee to sell tracts of the Chase to provide “collateral” for soldiers and money for officers’ arrears. As the Commonwealth was unable to enact these designs quickly due to the several historic rights to the commons, the Second Protectorate Parliament had to reaffirm the ordinance and empower local surveyors to examine any and all claims on the land in 1657. Following Commonwealth policy, the Protectorate directed profits to relieve army arrears and sold tracts of the Chase to army officials who readily enclosed their acquisitions. In spite of these policies, local commoners, particularly poorer laborers, continued to exploit the Chase for fuel, food and pasture.91 The presence of the army in the late 1650s as purchasers and armed guards transformed the commoners’ struggle. With the aid of disaffected authors who readily exacerbated tensions, the fight over rights in Enfield briefly symbolized the larger struggles between commoners and an encroaching state. Once again soldiers and officers presented the perfect symbol around which those alienated by or disaffected by the interregnum state – in this case, the Rump Parliament – could rally. After years of minor incidents, in June and July 1659 several commoners revolted against enclosures in defense of their ancient rights and liberties. They demolished homes, fences and property that physically represented what the commoners viewed as a violation of commonage in the Chase. Once the Council of State got word of the clashes, it ordered Middlesex justices of the peace to “suppress” the violence and enforce the law by protecting the purchasers’ property. To assist local authorities, the Council deployed two troops to Enfield to quell any future unrest.92 Later that June, four Middlesex justices took sureties for several husbandmen and artisans who were accused of committing “misdemeanors” and breaching the peace at Enfield, and one headborough was indicted for refusing to search out those who purloined wood from the Chase.93 Despite these efforts, a larger armed struggle broke out in early July, this time between several protesting commoners and the quartered soldiers. Amidst the struggle, a trooper killed one of the commoners, and in retaliation they took nine soldiers as prisoners. Middlesex Justice

  CJ, vol. 7, pp. 722–3; A & O, II, pp. 993–9; “Volume 75: August 23–31, 1654”, in CPSD Online, pp. 325–50; A & O, II, pp. 1116–22. For a description of the purchasers, see A Relation Of the Riotous Insurrection of divers Inhabitants of Enfield (London, Jul. 1659) and A Relation of the Cruelties and Barbarous Murthers…committed by some Foot Souldiers… upon some of the Inhabitants of Enfield (London, Jul. 1659). The large number of cases in the mid-1650s is evident throughout LMA, MJ/SR 1140–1205. 92 Mayers, Crisis of the Commonwealth, p. 110; “Volume 203: June 1659, 1–10”, in CSPD Online, pp. 363–70. 93  LMA, MJ/SR/1198 rec. 287–94, ind. 294, Jun. 1659; A Relation of the Cruelties and Barbarous Murthers. Most of the accused were either artisans or husbandmen, and, therefore, people whose livelihood likely depended on access to the Chase for fuel and pasture. 91

141

Disaffection.indb 141

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Rich, who sympathized with the local inhabitants, had the soldiers confined to Newgate.94 The riots in Enfield Chase, which broke out amidst royalist plotting, provoked a pamphlet war that questioned the loyalty of the commoners and the legitimacy of the Protectorate’s policies that limited their rights. News accounts that favored the claims of the purchasers in Enfield described the actions of the soldiers as a justifiable response to an unwieldy, dangerous and disaffected “Rude and Barbarous Multitude” in language that echoed Wade’s accounts of the rioters in Dean. Authors described these inhabitants as having threatened to destroy houses built upon the contested lands. The commoners allegedly approached the houses quartering soldiers, made a “great shout”, and, having provoked a response from a sergeant, refused to negotiate. Conflict broke out and the commoners “beat down” the troopers with “scythes”, “pitchforks” and “axes”.95 Rumors of royalist plotting also colored these pro-purchaser accounts of the commoners’ motivations. One pamphlet claimed that 250 rebellious people approached the soldiers’ quarters carrying “long Poles in the Ground, with Colour on the Top … Declaring for CHARLES STEWART”.96 Royalist agitators certainly wished to stir up alienated commoners for the cause, but there is little evidence of their success. A newsletter details one royalist’s interpretation of the Enfield riots: the countrey people rise vp against the invasion of thiere commons by the souldiers, that by authority of Parliament haue ... debarred the commonners of theire rights and hereditory pasturage, a greeueance they were strangers to in the daies of monarchy, and therefore they soe publicaly expresse their desire of the retourne of it.97

This royalist went on to envision a possible connection between these rioters and the “forresters and fen men”, declaring how “[these] countrey bumpkins may soone proue more formidable then Jack Cade at Mil-end”.98 Such views depict royalist hopes, and pro-purchaser narratives manipulated fears of a royalist uprising to undermine the commoners’ claim of commonage in Enfield. Pamphlets and newsbooks sympathetic to the commoners portrayed them as loyal to the current government and the “good old cause”, but against the illegitimate policies of Cromwell, the purchasers and their hired “mercenary” soldiers. The Weekly Post remarked that the “Inhabitants about Enfield enjoyed their Rights and Proprieties” for the past 300 years. Thus, the   Ibid.; LMA, MJ/SR/1200 rec. 56–63 (damaged); A Relation of the Riotous Insurrection of Divers Inhabitants of Enfield. 95  Mercurius Politicus, no. 278 (7–14 Jul.), p. 592; The National Scout, no. 1 (9–16 Jul. 1659), p. 91. 96  A Relation Of the Riotous Insurrection of divers Inhabitants of Enfield. 97  The Nicholas Papers, vol. iv, pp. 172–3. 98  Ibid., p. 173. 94

142

Disaffection.indb 142

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

commoners’ acts in the Chase served to preserve their rights and liberties according to “ancient Customs”. Along with the Post, the pamphlet defending the commoners aimed its vitriol at Cromwell and his commissioners who had unfairly treated the rights of the “Proprietors and Commoners” rather than at the reinstated Parliament. The tract asserted that the commoners had right of access to “two parts” of the wood and soil in the Chase rather than the “one third part” allocated to them by the state’s surveyors. Throughout the purchasers are represented as inept landowners who imprudently sold wood at low rates and encroached on the remaining commons.99 According to this account, these newcomers’ acts and interference in the Chase reflect their unfamiliarity with the landscape and the customs socially inscribed within the Chase.100 Pro-commoner polemics also demonized the soldiers’ conduct in Enfield before and during the struggle. The pamphlet Cruelties and Barbarous Murthers … committed by some Foot Souldiers … upon some of the Inhabitants of Enfield explicitly condemned the troopers’ acts in Enfield. Purchasers were accused of hiring mercenary soldiers (which, as army officers, they could easily do) and providing them with drink in order to ignite a confrontation. The descriptions of violent and ill-disciplined troopers in Cruelties and Barbarous Murthers and the Post strongly resembled accounts of plundering armies from the 1640s. The soldiers allegedly plagued inhabitants as they conducted the business of everyday life. Not satisfied with taking local quarter, the soldiers feasted on slaughtered cows and sheep. In the streets and other public spaces they provoked and challenged local inhabitants to fight – taunting them with jeers of “rogues” and “cowards”. The pro-commoner pamphlets further charged the troopers with underhandedly using “poisoned bullets” during their confrontation with inhabitants in the Chase.101 After Justice Rich imprisoned nine soldiers, several officers petitioned Parliament for their immediate removal. Parliament ordered their release on bail from Newgate, but also commanded the commissioners dealing with the contested Forest of Dean to “examine the Business” of Enfield. Parliament further instructed the Middlesex justices to prosecute civilians who had rioted at Enfield. In August several men and women were charged with “matters of Riott” within the Chase at the Middlesex sessions, though its unclear if any faced indictment or conviction.102 According to reports from Sheriff Bateman and an army major, no further unrest broke out in the months following the troops’ withdrawal from Enfield. Despite these claims, purchasers continued   The Weekly Post (19–16 Jul. 1659), pp. 97–98; A Relation of the Cruelties and Barbarous Murthers, p. 3. 100 Wood, The Memory of the People, pp. 7, 111. 101  The Weekly Post (19–16 Jul. 1659), pp. 97–98; A Relation of the Cruelties and Barbarous Murthers, pp. 3–5. 102 LMA, MJ/SR/1204 rec. 207, 237–9 and ind. 275–7. The indictments came back ignoramus. 99

143

Disaffection.indb 143

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

to prosecute laborers, blacksmiths, butchers and their wives for perpetrating further violence or theft within the Chase.103 A custumal from 1694, which claimed that no cottage erected since 1674 had common rights, suggests that rights of common within the Chase had been available to even the poorest inhabitants during the 1650s.104 The physical and political influence of the army in struggles over enclosures in the Forest of Dean and Enfield Chase altered dynamics between purchasers, the state and protesting commoners. Unrest in both woodlands provoked royalists to manipulate these grievances to promote their own interest, but often without much benefit to those who fought to retain their rights and privileges in these forests. By rejecting the Protectorate’s policies in Enfield and the Forest of Dean, the commoners exploited the fall of the Cromwellian regime to deny the legitimacy of acts permitting enclosures by the state or purchasers.105 The manipulation of the state’s forces to maintain order in Dean and Enfield further undermined Parliament’s claims to support the “good old cause” that had promised to protect and support the ancient rights of the commonality. The role of officers as landowners or, in the case of Major Wade, state appointed officials, increased popular hostility to the army’s interference in local politics, particularly among the poorer cottagers, artisans and laborers who had the most to lose. These poorer men and women symbolized those victimized by the “politics of exclusion” – inhabitants who had been cut out of the “customary economy” and their local community.106 Following the abolition of the monarchy, Commonwealth and Protectorate leaders struggled to negotiate the continuance of Stuart policies of enclosure while claiming to represent the ancient rights of the common against a greedy king. Parliament’s use of troops to quell disorder within forests and fens in 1659 had the adverse effect of alienating commoners who relied on access – including those who adhered to the “good old cause”. Army officers and troopers increasingly represented the state’s use of force to establish its power despite its claims to represent the rights and privileges of the commons. The presence of soldiers and officers both provoked and suppressed violence, but it also allowed commoners and disaffected pamphleteers to transform historic clashes over common rights into larger debates over the policies and practices of the Commonwealth and Protectorate regimes, and the army that supported them.   CJ, vol. 7, pp. 720–3,726; LMA, MJ/SR/1205 rec. 117–23.  Wood, The Memory of the People, p. 167. 105  Clive Holmes argues that commoners tended to accept draining projects granted by Parliamentary Statute, reflecting their belief in Parliamentary supremacy. These cases provide examples that suggest Cromwellian policies were questioned – particularly in 1659 following the end of the Protectorate. See his “Drainers and Fenmen: The Problem of Popular Political Consciousness in the Seventeenth Century”, in Order and Disorder in Early Modern England, ed. Anthony Fletcher and John Stevenson (Cambridge, 1985), p. 179. 106  Hindle, “Not by Bread Only”, p. 62. 103 104

144

Disaffection.indb 144

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

Policing Behavior Just as the enclosure movement predated the civil war and revolution, the drive for social reform existed long before the battle of Edgehill. Whether or not the “puritan revolution” of the 1640s enabled the Commonwealth and Protectorate to fulfill individual, communal and national aspirations for an orderly and godly society remains debatable, as does the impact of the military on the reformist agenda. Commonwealth and Protectorate officials certainly empowered troops to assist with the enforcement and policing of social regulations, but often they only served at the behest of local officials.107 Unsurprisingly, garrisoned cities experienced more army involvement in local affairs than many other localities. Several infamous major-generals exploited their positions of authority with the approval of the Protectorate to enhance reform in their respective counties, but the major-generals’ power over justice was largely one of influence. Bernard Capp found that the number of justices removed from office and new appointees during their “reign” indicates that their sway was significant, but only in certain regions.108 An examination of local court records would suggest that soldiers were despised for their disorderly behavior rather than their physical presence within society. In her examination of indemnity records, Ann Hughes stipulates that these courts do not represent the “worst oppression” practiced by soldiers, as those were frequently beyond the scope of the court.109 Andrew Coleby’s study of Portsmouth reveals that people remained hostile to the army’s role in local political repression even though the borough approved of local garrisons that offered protection against invasion.110 Soldiers could not be sued for their appearance in the streets, alehouses and other social spaces within a community where their presence often caused tensions to rise. While recent scholarship provides new insights into enduring historical questions related to moral reform, this section considers how the presence of soldiers, as enforcers or mere bystanders, interfered with quotidian negotiations of social life. Though the existence of a standing army did not bar several individuals and communities from mediating local implementations of social policies, the existence of armed troopers – as a threat and physical reality – could shift the outcomes of struggles over governance in the spaces of everyday life. Knowing that interregnum forces could be easily tied to the regimes that relied on them, royalist authors exploited these struggles in attempts to redefine localized disaffection as outpourings of royalist support. The regular presence of armed guards in London during the interregnum make it an ideal – if somewhat unique – place to consider the influence  Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, p. 1.  Capp, England’s Culture Wars, p. 56. 109  Hughes, “Parliamentary Tyranny?”, p. 70. 110 Andrew Coleby, “Military–Civilian Relations on the Solent, 1651–1689”, The Historical Journal, 29:4 (1986), 956. 107 108

145

Disaffection.indb 145

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

of military presence on the micro-politics of everyday life. London housed the largest garrison in the country for most of the interregnum. Though some of the soldiers failed to model “godly” behavior by brawling in the street, fornicating and overindulging in drink, local officials often called on troopers to regulate interactions amongst the metropolitan populace.111 Contested policies, such as the 1644 ordinance “for the better observation of the Lords-day”, brought soldiers into conflict with civilians. Not only did this sabbatarian legislation further restrict travel on Sundays, but it also severely limited the recreational activities that could be practiced legally on this day of rest.112 The constraints of the ordinance, which infringed on what little free-time had been allotted to many artisans, servants, laborers and apprentices, incited subversion and resistance amongst youths. In 1648, the presence of the militia policing Moorfields resulted in unrest when apprentices and other locals defended their use of these popular playing grounds.113 The youths’ reaction to the troopers’ disruption of their games arose from their frustration with the deployment of trained bands to police violations of the city’s and state’s reformist agenda. Despite the soldiers’ infamous interference at Moorfields, people continued to use the fields surrounding London on the sabbath. In June and July 1649 people were charged with playing in Lincoln’s Inn and Clerkenwell Fields. The confrontation between the parish officers and people within Clerkenwell turned violent. The officers claimed that 200 to 300 people broke out in riot, “hooting and hallowing after the sayd officers pursuing them and throwing stones at them”. Some of the officers were injured before the crowd eventually drove them out of the fields.114 Though local and national authorities had called on the militia to quell troublesome London crowds during the early Stuart period, meanings ascribed to the use of troops to prohibit popular recreations – and apprentices’ violent rejection of their interference – altered in the 1640s. The active involvement of apprentices and other subordinates in street protests and petitioning campaigns during the civil wars invited their direct involvement in questions of governance. While some authorities and civilians might consider the unrest of apprentices an unavoidable part of “youthful misrule” which, though troubling, was a temporary inversion of the patriarchal order, in the divided society of revolutionary England, the potency of popular justice increased the crowd’s claims to legitimacy.115 The meaning behind the act of youthful resistance was far more important than the act itself. Armed  Capp, Culture Wars, p. 134; Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, pp. 109–10.   A & O, I, pp. 420–2. 113  A Full Narration of the Late Riotous Tumult within the City of London (London, 1648); Mercurius Elencticus, no. 20 (5–12 Apr. 1648); The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, no. 255 (4–11 Apr. 1648), pp. 902–3. 114  LMA, MJ/SR/1030 rec. 117, 5 Jun. 1649; MJ/SR/1032 rec. 203 & 204, 7 Jul. 1649. 115  K.J. Lindley, “Riot Prevention and Control in Early Stuart London”, Transactions of the Royal History Society, 33 (1983), 121–6; Shepard, Meanings of Manhood, pp. 108–12. 111 112

146

Disaffection.indb 146

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

bands and troopers were not merely crowd police – their deployment served to restrict the political voice of those who rejected the strict enforcement of sabbatarian legislation. Use of the militia and garrisoned soldiers in London to patrol the sabbath continued into the interregnum. In April 1651, several men were accused of beating a trooper who entered Moorfields. During the period in which Major-General John Barkstead attempted to intensify social control throughout the London area, soldiers once again charged men with participating in a “tumult” in Clerkenwell Fields on a Sunday. Similarly, a brawl ensued during a Sunday feast in Bingley, Yorkshire when troopers confronted the participants. All of these cases ended in an assault.116 Despite the apparent danger, these individuals rejected armed enforcement of policies that threatened their conception of time, space and culture. The usefulness of the soldiers’ strict enforcement of the sabbath was also called into question by Henry Walker’s state-licensed newsbook, Perfect Occurrences of Every Dayes Journal in Parliament, in June 1649. Several troopers patrolling the Thames in search of watermen breaking the sabbath threatened to shoot rowers who refused to comply. Defying the troop’s warning, a couple of watermen continued to row until the guards shot at their boats, injuring one passenger. Before the scuffle had ended “a most sad accident” had occurred. A child who had been innocently walking to church on the other side of the river was shot and killed by one of the guards.117 The accounts of both events suggest that the soldiers’ overzealous enforcement of regulations had provoked, rather than diminished, disorder and disaffection. The steady presence of soldiers in the metropolis also allowed officials to deploy troops to uphold legislation abolishing stage plays. While Parliament had first targeted stage plays in the early 1640s, it intensified regulations against these performances in February 1648. According to the new legislation, all actors were considered “rogues” and punished as such. Those caught performing were to be whipped in their local marketplace and forced to enter into recognizance with two sureties or be imprisoned. Even spectators were to be fined five shillings.118 The ordinance further decreed that not only local officials, but also soldiers were to ensure its thorough execution. During Christmas week in 1648–49, soldiers arrested all the players in Drury Lane and Salisbury Court. The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer reported that other areas of the city had been similarly searched and that the troopers led the costumed players to Whitehall.

116 LMA, MJ/SR/1067 rec. 51, 29 Apr. 1651; MJ/SR/1169 rec. 252–4, 6 Jul. 1657; WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/5 fol. 133–133b, 15 Aug. 1658; TNA, KB 9/882, fol. 165, 15 Aug. 1658. 117  Perfect Occurrences of Every Dayes Journall, no. 127 (1–8 Jun. 1649), p. 1088; Reece, The Army in Cromwellian England, p. 109. 118  A & O, II, pp. 1070–2.

147

Disaffection.indb 147

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Royalist newsbooks readily presented interfering soldiers as objects of ridicule as well as popular hostility. In January 1650, the royalist pamphleteer John Crouch described a scuffle between a group of Londoners and a troop of soldiers in his scurrilous newsbook The Man in the Moon.119 Crouch related how “two or three Companies” of “Rebell” soldiers had seized a group of stage players on St. John’s Street. Having deprived the players of their garb, the troopers marched them to Westminster for breaking Parliament’s ordinance against stage plays. One soldier stayed behind the crowd with design of gaining “some plunder”, at which time he happened across a “skimmington” riding near Smithfield Market. This popular shaming ritual involved a man imitating the army’s Lord General Thomas Fairfax on horseback. The “General” held a skimming ladle while “Baskets” of Colonel Thomas Pride’s “Graines” were held out in front of him. Fairfax’s “Doxie” sat behind him, her face to the horse’s tail. As the procession passed the baffled soldier, a performer tossed a ladle of grain into the trooper’s face. Enraged, he brandished his sword and “began to swear and vapour” until a “Butchers Boy” confiscated his weapon and compelled the trooper to “swallow his Graines and be thankfull”. Crouch ended his narrative, stating: if this Souldier scape . . . there will questionlesse come forth an Act for a Thanksgiving for this wonderfull Victory over the poore Players, and the Souldiers deliverance, and a double Excise upon all Beefe and Mutton for the future; that Butchers hereafter may learne to keep their Apprentices, and not suffer them to beat Souldiers as they passe upon their occasions.120

Detailing the possible consequences of the audacious apprentice’s behavior, Crouch concluded his account by referencing Londoners’ frustration with the army and its role in social regulation. Despite the efforts of the state and its “Janizaries”, young boys would continue to act out their detestation of the new regime.121 Crouch’s use of social inversion to undermine the authority of the army grandees also suggests that the act of the butcher’s boy was heroic. Embedded in his criticism of the policies of the new Commonwealth is a celebration of the lowly apprentice’s political activism. In the scene depicting the soldiers’ harsh treatment of the actors on St. John’s Street, Crouch portrayed the troopers as arbitrary enforcers of the state’s cultural regulations despite the resistance of the commonality. Two other newsbooks, one royalist and one licensed by the republican regime, also reported the confrontation between the troopers and the players, suggesting Crouch’s account was based on an actual conflict.122 Crouch used this   The Man in the Moon, no. 40 (23–31 Jan. 1650). For Crouch’s position as author, see Jason McElligott, “John Crouch: A Royalist Journalist in Cromwellian England”, Media History, 10:3 (2004), 139. 120  The Man in the Moon, no. 40 (23–31 Jan. 1650), pp. 313–14. 121  Ibid., p. 314. 122  Several Proceedings in Parliament, no. 17 (18–25 Jan. 1650), pp. 227–8; Mercurius Pragmaticus (For King Charls II), part 2, no. 39 (2–29 Jan. 1650). 119

148

Disaffection.indb 148

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

opportunity to criticize the soldiers’ role in the social reform movement. Crouch was by no means merely relating the news: he was capitalizing on the anti-army fervor within the city. By focusing his satire on troopers, Crouch offered his readers an easily identifiable state agent as the recipient of both his, as well as Londoners’, hostility. The implications were clear – the traditional modes of governance by local officials had given way to stricter policing by state-supported soldiers. The commonality should resist. Crouch’s version of the players’ arrest, while unverifiable, may well have been influenced by real experiences within the city. In November 1650, several months after Crouch published this news story, the Westminster barber Charles Cutts was arrested in costume while on his way to perform in a stage play. Other cases occurred throughout the 1650s.123 The Case of Tom Pride The army’s involvement in policing forms of sociability was a recurrent theme in royalist propaganda throughout the interregnum. As detailed in Chapter 2, royalist authors exploited Colonel Thomas Pride’s unique position as an army official and local magistrate who took advantage of his newfound power to promote his brew. Pride’s positions as brewer and social regulator enabled royalist satirists to depict him as a hypocritical politician, but it was his rank as colonel and his involvement in the purge that made Pride emblematic of the army’s dominance in local and national politics. When troopers entered alehouses and cleared playing fields on Sundays, two significant policies of the state were on display: the strict regulation of the sabbath and the implementation of a continuous standing army to uphold the regime and its policies. Jeering royalist accounts of Pride’s increasing interference in the London drink trade were also used to mock the Lord Mayor and city officials as “cuckholds” to the army. Propagandists depicted Pride’s rise in city politics as the perfect symbol of the army’s usurping of the city’s power, and implicitly, the country’s: “Quoth Pride, I will the City tame, / and keepe the Knaves in awe, / Cromwell did bid me doe the same, / my Sword observes no Law”.124 One issue of Mercurius Pragmaticus jeered that “a L. Mayor will be out of date as much as a King with in this few Moneths, nor wil any other Officer bee needfull, save Pride”. He continued, insisting that it was the city’s role as “Traytors” and “Rebells” that had forced them to become “Prides servants”.125 Though the city retained “the Title of Sheriffe and Lord Mayor”, teased Mercurius Pragmaticus, the soldiers now had subsumed these officials’ power. He went on to predict that shortly the only protection offered to “the People” will be “a guard of State Vermine   LMA, WJ/SR/1059 rec. 44. See also ibid., MJ/SR/1103 rec. 54 and 54, 22 Feb. 1652/3; MJ/SR/1167 rec. 327, 27 May 1657; CLA/047/LJ/01/0125, 8 Jan. 1654/5; CLA/047/ LJ/01/0135, 26 Dec. 1656. 124  The Man in the Moon, no. 44 (20–27 Feb. 1650). 125  Mercurius Pragmaticus (For King Charls II), no. 47 (19–26 Mar. 1650). 123

149

Disaffection.indb 149

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

whose power will bee to murther whome they please, and rob others with the pretence of resisting their authority”.126 Royalist propagandists exploited the soldiers’ enforcement of social reform in London as evidence of the army’s power over English society. Pride’s notoriety and his established role as a social policeman made him the perfect target for propagandists. Pride remained involved in politics in the metropolitan area throughout his career. After 1650, he deepened his participation in the policing of recreational activities. During the Rule of the Major-Generals, Pride was High Sheriff of Surrey and closely connected with London’s deputy Major-General Barkstead. Pride played a large role in the suppression of cock, bull and bear matches in both London and Southwark. Although the original order for their suppression came in May 1653, these activities continued with enough frequency that Pride had the bears from the “bear-garden” in Southwark shot by his soldiers in February 1656.127 By directing widespread hostility toward state policies onto army officers such as Pride, royalist authors more firmly connected popular disaffection to royalist opposition. Solidifying the image of army officers as law enforcers, royalist authors recycled the image of Pride as an oppressive social regulator in the chaotic months leading up to the Restoration despite his death in 1658. Pamphleteers jeered at his “assassination” of the bears alongside other unpopular interregnum policies in order to reflect, focus and amplify generalized hostility to cultural regulations. A 1660 broadside ballad entitled The Rump Ululant references the grievances of plunder, taxation and the eradication of cultural practices in one stanza: We rob’d The whole of food to pamper out the few, Excis’d your wares, And tax’s you round sixpence the pound, And massacred your bears.128

In another ballad, Pride allegedly murdered these beasts on account of their political allegiance, explicitly linking the bears with royalism: The crime of the Bears, was, they were Cavaliers, And had formerly fought for the King; And pull’d by the Burrs, the Round-headed Currs, That they made their ears toe ring.129

A mock account of Pride’s final words presents a less overt association between his assault on animal-fighting and the war against royalism. In his   Mercurius Pragmaticus (For King Charls II), no. 44 (26 Feb.–5 Mar. 1650).   CSPD 1653–54, p. 233; Durston, Cromwell’s Major-Generals, p. 57. 128  The Rump Ululant, or Penitence per Force… (London, Feb. 1660). 129  Alexander Brome, “On Col. Pride”, in Rump, or, An Exact Collection of the Choycest Poems (London, 1662), p. 302. 126 127

150

Disaffection.indb 150

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

confession, Pride declares “I thought it our interest to let nothing live that would fight: and therefore we made an Act against Cock matches”, a statement implying that any form of dissension was necessarily a threat to the state. He implicitly referred to the execution of Charles I, declaring that “others have kill’d far greater things with less Commission”. The author claims that Pride felt more remorse for the bears’ execution than for any of his other deeds. Pride confesses “‘tis my Conscience speaks: And the first thing is that upon my spirit is the Killing of the Beares, for which the people bait me, and call me all the names in the Rain-bow”.130 Here, the puritan assault on traditional recreations is yet again associated with an attack on royalism. By carefully intertwining Pride’s interference with cultural and social practice with his political and martial adventures, the author is able to present the colonel as a symbol of the army’s coercive powers. Throughout the interregnum, royalist authors had continued to forge a connection between the practice of popular culture and the cause of the Stuarts by focusing popular grievances on recognizable figures such as Pride. During the period of the Restoration, the old themes of Pride as a brewer or a drayman persisted, alongside the jeering depictions of him as the murderer of the bears.131 In the pamphlet, A New Meeting of the Ghosts at Tyburn, Pride’s ghost encounters those of several of his former colleagues, including Cromwell and John Bradshaw. The author presents the consequences of Pride’s ill-fated decision to overstep the social order. Pride laments, I of a Brewer, too high did swell, But then at last too low I fell, Better it was for to sell grains, Then to endure such wofull pains As I do in this wofull place, I wish that I had had more grace.132

After the Restoration, Tory propaganda would focus on Pride’s social status, a theme that suited their political rhetoric. The case of Thomas Pride provides a detailed example of how royalists focused anti-regulation sentiment permeating London in their propaganda to advance their own cause. The intermittent involvement of soldiers and officers in policing of alehouse hours and dispersing of crowds certainly provoked several Londoners to resist local officials’ use of troops to enforce its will. Royalists channeled this resistance in their depictions of soldiers as outsiders whose presence in streets, markets, fields and victualing houses manifested the state’s interference in popular customs of sociability.

  The Last WORDS of THOMAS Lord PRIDE (London, 1659?), p. 1.  Brome, The Rump, “On Pride”, pp. 299–302 and “The Protecting Brewer”, pp. 331–2. 132  A New Meeting of GHOSTS at TYBURN (London, Mar. 1660), p. 6.

130 131

151

Disaffection.indb 151

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Policing Opinion Soldiers’ intrusion into popular spaces of sociability – from public markets to private households – did not solely affect contested cultural practices. Indeed, when local or state officials called upon soldiers to disperse football matches, feasts, horseraces and cock matches, often their primary objective was to eliminate the threat of unrest and uprisings. Officials dedicated to social reform regularly connected the creation of a godly society to the maintenance of an obedient populace. On and off throughout the interregnum soldiers were charged with rooting out possible conspirators, traitors and the dangerously disaffected. Officials deployed soldiers to monitor inns, market squares, fairs and alehouses in search of seditious pamphlets and opinions. At sundry times and in different communities, those who opposed state policies risked conflict with armed forces. The power of disaffected speech and ritualistic protest altered under the threat of surveillance. The Commonwealth and Protectorate’s desire to quash potential insurrections necessarily encroached on traditions of popular politics and the negotiation of state policies in a given site or locality. Soldiers who joined companies of tipplers and neighbors at inns and alehouses influenced interpersonal struggles and could change their outcomes. In such cases, soldiers came to represent meddling policies that impacted the micro-politics of everyday life. In the commotion following the execution of Charles I, Commonwealth officials relied heavily on soldiers to root out royalist sympathizers and conspirators who threatened the stability of the new regime. Following the reestablishment of censorship, the Council of State ordered army officers and their troops to uncover and confiscate seditious materials. The perceived significance of policing this literature is reflected in a letter of thanks written by the Council in May 1649 to Major Boteler and Captain Strike, who had apprehended three men “for spreading a seditious paper”. The Council ordered the officers to continue their endeavors to prevent the dissemination of dangerous documents.133 Rank-and-file troopers also aided in policing seditious print. In September 1649 in Pickering, Yorkshire, two soldiers confronted a Mr. Boyes regarding a “booke” he had in his possession. After examining the book, The Tablet or Moderation of Charles the First Martyr, the soldiers deemed it to be “very prejudicious to the Government” and compelled Mr. Boyes to explain how he obtained the scandalous work.134 Interregnum officials also relied upon the army to monitor scandalous speech. The Commonwealth’s act for settling the militia from July 1650 required commissioners to unearth “conspiracies” that threatened the authority of the state “whether by words or actions, spoken, printed, preached written or published”.135 The captain of   TNA, SP 25/94 fol. 146.   Ibid., ASSI 45/3/1 fols.19 and 20. 135  “July 1650: An Act for Setling of the Militia of the Commonwealth of England”, in A & O Online, pp. 397–402; quoted in Cressy, Dangerous Talk, p. 198. 133 134

152

Disaffection.indb 152

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

the president frigate reported the dangerous utterances of a Bristol man to the Council of State. John Knight allegedly called the captain’s men “parliament Doggs” and “Rogues”, a slur supported by several other individuals present. The Council, angered that Knight and his company had not been punished, wrote to the mayor of Bristol and ordered him to rectify the situation quickly and report back.136 In response to the military’s employment in the clampdown on seditious literature in 1649, royalist authors reported their own versions of soldiers’ actions. Certain authors chose to detail troopers’ interference in the book trade as confrontational and cowardly in accounts that applauded the resistance of the commonality. In July 1649 The Moderate Messenger relayed a report of a soldier’s attack on a woman hawking ballads near Cripplegate. The report claims that the woman was singing one of her ballads when a soldier assaulted her and ripped up the printed ballads. Local butchers supposedly ventured out of their shops to aid the distressed woman. After the scuffle attracted four more troopers the threat of a riot loomed, but the soldiers’ anger soon dissipated and the crowd dispersed. One of the troopers who pursued the crowd fell from his horse, much to the amusement of onlookers. A spectator mockingly remarked that “it was the liberty of a freeborn subject to lye wher he pleas’d”, which alluded to Leveller principles espoused by some members of the rank-and-file.137 Royalist newsbooks frequently told tales of troopers assaulting “poor” female hawkers. These accounts attempted to undermine the state’s aggressive policy against seditious authors by challenging the soldiers’ masculinity with language that championed the activism of determined women. The Man in the Moon relayed a tale of an “Amazonian” woman’s encounter with troopers at a bar in Holborn. They seized her for selling a royalist newsbook, but she retaliated “by applying beaten pepper to their eyes”. She overpowered the men, confiscated their weapons and forced them to pledge a health to the king. The report concludes with a jeering indictment of the character of the new state: “you may see what valiant Puppies your new Kings be, when one woman can beat two or three of them”.138 As in the previous account, the author of this newsbook employed sexual slander to deflate the legitimacy of the state’s use of soldiers to monitor literature. The contradictions within this account of female activism were likely intentional – acts of gender reversal signified a breakdown of the social order, but female agency could also promote the dissemination of print such the The Man in the Moon. Regardless of whether these reports of women’s heroics were fake or fictionalized, these authors portrayed soldiers’ feeble attempts to enforce state policies as indicative of the Commonwealth’s fallibility in the face of popular resistance.

  TNA, SP 25/94 fol. 87, 13 Apr. 1649.   The Moderate Messenger, no. 14 (23 – 30 Jul. 1649), p. 93. 138  The Man in the Moon, no. 12 (27 Jun. – 4 Jul. 1649), p. 138. 136 137

153

Disaffection.indb 153

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Troopers also patrolled marketplaces and streets, which could limit the public’s ability to oppose policies in these traditional sites of power. A Perfect Diurnall reported the posting of a seditious paper that declared allegiance to Charles II on Durham’s market cross in January 1650. Hours after its appearance, garrison soldiers marched into town, confiscated the document and searched for its authors.139 The Venetian ambassador wrote of the soldiers’ presence in the streets of London during feast days, a time in “which the people of this city are accustomed to enjoy great liberty”. He viewed the pervasiveness of these troopers as “a warning to the people to be obedient”, and to “restrain the people from rash action at the instigation of false and licentious libels”.140 The state also employed troopers to monitor the reading of significant proclamations throughout England, particularly in London. The soldiers’ presence at these readings simultaneously forced local officials to read state declarations promptly and all but guaranteed that the public would receive the news passively. As Chapter 1 detailed, when the magistrates and ministers of Exeter refused to read the act for the observation of a fast day, officers compelled the town crier to publish it in the marketplace. According to a newsbook account, the army officers also ensured that this solemn fast passed in “all outward conformity”.141 When a crowd gathered in Chester’s marketplace to express support for a “Malignant” mayor, the garrison governor sent in 200 troops to quell the protesters – by force if necessary. Nedham’s Politicus reported that the soldiers, having subdued the “rude Multitude”, tore down the king’s arms and other royalist “baubles” affixed in the hall.142 The fear of royalist conspiracy that arose in the mid-1650s resulted in the tighter regulation of potentially subversive meeting spaces. Cromwell temporarily banned horse races, and outlawed cock matches as well as bull and bear baitings. The number of troops deployed in London increased during times when there was an intense fear of uprisings, such as in early 1655 and spring 1658. In addition to patrolling the streets, soldiers searched private houses, confiscated horses and detained possible conspirators.143 In March 1655, four captains and a major visited John Morgan’s alehouse in Ellesmere under the pretense that they were looking to buy land. The officers also watched over Morgan at Wrexham fair, and again at a market where he had torn off an official proclamation that had been posted on the market house.144 In these cases the Protectorate deployed officers to eliminate the threat of royalist uprisings, but this tactic also encroached on the liberties of even the lowest   A Perfect Diurnall (12–21 Jan. 1650), p. 48.   CSP Venetian, vol. 30, 30 Apr. 1655. 141  A Perfect Diurnall of Some Passage and Proceedings of and in Relation to the Armies in England and Ireland (17–24 Jun. 1650), p. 313; The Impartial Scout (21–28 Jun. 1650). 142  Mercurius Politicus, no. 19 (10–17 Oct.), pp. 318–19; Capp, England’s Culture Wars, p. 37. 143 See CSP Venetian, vol. 30, pp. 18, 28, 198; vol. 31, pp. 171–2, 181, 201–3; Thurloe, vol. 3, p. 289. 144  Thurloe, vol. 3, pp. 223–30; 255. 139 140

154

Disaffection.indb 154

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

members of society. The increased presence of soldiers, who were frequently quartered in alehouses, inns and taverns and visible in streets, markets and parish churches, made these spaces dangerous for the discussion of current events. The search for conspirators brought officers and their troops into spaces of sociability, demonstrating the Commonwealth and Protectorate’s attempts to observe the disaffected. Those under state surveillance risked being implicated if they vocalized any dissatisfaction with state policies. Commonwealth officials may have called on the army to root out major threats to the state, but the use of soldiers to eliminate disaffection also restrained more mundane negotiations of authority. Troopers who policed speech in the spaces of everyday life often melded the role of “honest” civilian informant and official. The regularity with which garrisoned or marching soldiers appeared as informants suggests that some embraced the obligation to inform more particularly, such as when a soldier in Exeter felt obliged to report that Margaret Style, the wife of a laborer, had sworn three oaths in St. Mary’s Steps in May 1651.145 The authoritative voice and presence of a soldier could also interfere with interpersonal squabbles that commonly occurred at public venues, such as inns. Robert Allen, a trooper garrisoned in Exeter, was biding his time in the guard’s room at George Pelliton’s inn on a Friday night in December 1655 when he overheard a loud, violent disagreement emanating from the inn’s beer cellar. Upon entering the room, he found two men, John Goodman and Hugh Williams, fighting and he attempted to intervene. According to Allen, the skirmish only stopped after Williams walloped Goodman on the head with a quart flagon, which caused Goodman to rest his head on a hogshead and cry out that he was badly hurt. This struggle, which may well have remained between Williams and Goodman but for Allen’s arrival on the scene, was reported to the local authorities. Allen was quick to note that he overheard Williams make two oaths – a damaging statement which threatened to undermine Williams’s claim that it was Goodman who threw the first blow.146 Soldiers who engaged with companies of drinkers, traders and revelers in spaces of sociability and trade provided disaffected drinkers and those alienated with state policies a target for their hostility, but they also served as key witnesses against those who chose to rail against the state in the spaces that soldiers inhabited. Thanks to the reports of two soldiers, for example, William Short of Bristol faced time in the Exeter gaol after sharing his dislike of Protector Cromwell amidst the company gathered at an inn in 1655. Short had joined the company of John Pearse and Thomas Killington, two troopers camped out at Richard Templer’s establishment. After offering to drink a “jugge” of beer with them – which prompted the drinking of healths – Short allegedly declared “there is to begin A Health to the Confusion of the   DHC, ECA, Book 64, fol. 176.   DHC, ECA, Book 64, fol. 306–306b.

145 146

155

Disaffection.indb 155

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Lord Protector”.147 Perhaps Pearse and Killington provoked Short’s toast or perhaps it was just an ill-judged grumbling, but regardless the presence of the two troopers altered the meaning and reception of his words within that Exeter inn. Soldiers not only provided men such as Short a target for their hostility to the Protector and his regime, but they also served as key witnesses against those who chose to rail against the state in the spaces of sociability soldiers inhabited. Although the presence of soldiers shifted the power dynamics within spaces of sociability and trade, some disgruntled individuals risked retribution to express their opinions to men who they viewed as representatives of state power. The fact that the mere presence of soldiers could provoke scandalous speech explains why troopers frequently appeared as witnesses in cases against seditious offenders. Not long after Pride’s Purge in December 1648, Alice Mitchell, the wife of a Middlesex laborer, was charged with “reviling and calling certaine soldiers … Parliament Rogues”. Thomas Cowley taunted soldiers in the line of duty, stating “hang the Lord Protector”. The soldier John Monday accused William and Anne Pembridge of cursing, swearing and assaulting him, likely at their victualling house in East Smithfield.148 As Colonel Hacker’s regiment marched past James Williams of Carleton, he allegedly goaded a soldier by shouting “Thou prettie face, hast thou noe better fortune then to fight against the King … one off these days, they [Parliament’s supporters] would all bee hanged”. He also called the regiment “trayterley rogues”.149 In an alehouse at Portsmouth in February 1655, Joan Jones told a trooper that “he and the rest of the soldiers there were a company of Roundhead dogs”.150 Trooper William Tyler charged John Barlow of Hillingdon with uttering threatening words against the Lord Protector in April 1657.151 While drinking amongst soldiers, Gabriel Benfield provokingly called all “Commonwealth” soldiers “Rogues”. He continued, declaring that “there was not an honest man in the army”. Finally, he stated that Oliver Cromwell was “damned” and his soul was in “hell”.152 For a select few, the presence of soldiers often provoked them to slander the state directly. A royalist newsletter from 1653 recounts a conflict at Temple Bar in London that allegedly occurred during the proclamation of Cromwell as Lord Protector. An “ordinary fellow” approached a mounted troop who had attended the herald and inquired about the subject of the pronouncement. When a soldier explained that they were proclaiming “his highnesse”, the man readily declared, “he . . . protects none by such rogues   DHC, ECA, Book 64, fol. 299b.  LMA, MJ/SR/1020 rec. 57, 15 Dec. 1648; MJ/SR/1127 rec. 181, 4 Jul. 1654; MJ/ SR/1046 rec. 239–40, 20 Mar. 1650. 149  TNA, ASSI 45/4/1 fol. 189, 2 Sep. 1651. 150  Borough Session Papers, 1653–1688: A Calendar, ed. Willis and Hoad (London, 1971), p. 5. 151  LMA MJ/SR/1163 recs. 90 & 91, Apr. 1657. 152  LMA, MJ/SR/1193 rec. 42, 22 Feb. 1659. 147 148

156

Disaffection.indb 156

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

as thou art”. The trooper charged at the disaffected civilian, yet, according to the royalist newsletter, the man managed to pull the soldier off his horse and “beat him soundly”, much to the pleasure of causal onlookers.153 In May 1658, the Venetian ambassador reported the increase of guards due to the threat of a possible uprising. The troops marched for two days and nights in the city and “adjacent places” – actions that unsettled “everyone”. The ambassador relayed a scene in which several people demanded of the London guards “what the fuss was about”, although the ambassador claimed they were just “affecting ignorance of what had been discovered”. When the soldiers explained their presence, several people allegedly shouted, “Kill, kill this villain of a Protector”. As the ambassador remarked, it was “an audacious utterance affording food for reflection”.154 Even former soldiers became the target of anti-statism. In June 1652, John Barnard, a former soldier for Parliament, visited the house of William Thurgood while attending the fair at Bardfield. After calling for a “cupp of beere” to enjoy in the company of a friend, Barnard fell into a conversation with Phillip Morrice and it turned to his experience fighting in Parliament’s army. According to Barnard, Morrice called him a “Roundhead” and questioned whether or not he would “hould to his cause”. Barnard claimed he would maintain the “cause” his entire life, which provoked Morrice to brandish a knife and stab at him twice. Barnard alleged Morrice would have killed him had not his doublet shielded his stomach from the blade. This chance encounter at a crowded victualling house during a busy fair day resulted in Morrice’s violent articulation of his disaffection at a former soldier who represented the “cause” that led to the regicide and the Commonwealth.155 Slurs launched at soldiers in the streets, markets, alehouses and inns were provoked by mundane irritations, major grievances or even professed royalism. Whether aggrieved individuals or communities found the presence of soldiers simply irksome or oppressive, the objectification of troopers and officers as manifestations of undesirable policies or consequences of revolution unified these grievances in characterizations of the encroaching or meddlesome soldier. Royalist pamphleteers readily exploited the soldier as a symbol of tyranny in their narratives of army–civilian interactions. Within royalist print, skirmishes with soldiers became evidence of popular disillusionment and the people’s desire for the return of a monarchy that protected the rights of the commonality. The Case of Hewson the Cobbler One of the most vivid examples of resistance to the army’s erosion of popular liberties that was exploited in the royalist press involved physical and   Thurloe, vol. 4, p. 641.   CSP Venetian, vol. 31, pp. 201–3. 155  ERO Chelmsford, Q/SBa 2/80, 18 Jun. 1652.

153 154

157

Disaffection.indb 157

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

symbolic assaults on several regiments of troop and the infamous Colonel John Hewson during the last few months of the interregnum. Following the rise of the army-controlled Committee of Safety in October 1659 there was a large outpouring of popular hostility to the new regime. The new leaders, confronted with street libels and massive petitions, faced a public relations crisis. To defuse this resistance the Committee attempted to enforce compliance through stifling public opinion. When word spread of an impending proclamation forbidding the formation of “dangerous” petitions, London apprentices mobilized to impede this latest threat to their political agency. The confrontations between the apprentices and the army began on 5 December 1659 when several apprentices gathered near the Old Exchange under the pretense of playing football. The youth had heard rumors claiming that the sergeant-at-arms, Colonel Dendy, would be arriving to read the Committee of Safety’s proclamation. As Dendy and his guard approached the Exchange they were met first with taunts, and then with violence. Along with other protestors, the apprentices launched tiles from rooftops as well as “great pieces of ice from the gutters” at the soldiers. Samuel Pepys noted that the “boys flung stones, tiles, [and] turnips” while hooting at the troopers as they marched toward the Old Exchange. Eventually the soldiers turned on the crowds and began to shoot at those attacking their troop from the rear. Between four and seven apprentices were killed, with an additional twenty wounded.156 This deadly confrontation between the soldiers and the apprentices only served to inflame tensions between civilians and the army. During the riot, but especially in its aftermath, the apprentices’ animosity toward the soldiers was concentrated on a specific figure: Colonel John Hewson. According to Thomas Rugg’s diary, the crowd specifically targeted their agitation at Hewson and his regiment: Hee was a cobbler (the colonel) by his trade . . . and [once] the aprentises got [it] they very well employed theire mouths. Hee had but on[e] eye, but they called him blind cobler, blind Hewson, and did throw ould shewes and old slipers and turnapes topes, brick battes and stones and tiles att him and his souldiers.157

After the inquest of the dead apprentices ruled death by murder – a major political victory that underscored the existence of widespread hostility to the army – a grand jury targeted Hewson as the guilty party. The Rump Parliament absolved Hewson from the crime; however, crowds took to the streets of London to articulate their belief in his guilt and to display their resentment of the army.158 Apprentices and other malcontents set up effigies of Hewson made of snow in Fleet Street and St. Paul’s churchyard. According to Thomas Rugg, the “younge men” gave each snowman “one eye … an old   The Clarke Papers, vol. iv (London, 1899), p. 165; The Weekly Post, no. 3 (29 Nov.– 6 Dec. 1659); Rugg, pp. 13–14; Pepys quoted in Harris, London Crowds, p. 43. 157  Rugg, pp. 13–14. 158 Harris, London Crowds, p. 45. 156

158

Disaffection.indb 158

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

face and a haulter or rope about his neck”. In addition, they placed “many old shewes” at its feet, “a horne on [its] head” and wrote on its chest “This is old Hewson, the cobbler”. Samuel Pepys also described a similar scene in Cheapside, in which “a Gibbet [was] set up, and the picture of Huson hung upon [it] in the middle of the street”.159 Colonel Hewson, the blind former cobbler, became the symbol of the inefficient and haphazard army-rule first in the streets of the metropolis, and then in the royalist press – but the meanings ascribed to this resistance transformed in print. Following the symbolic conviction and execution of Hewson in the streets, royalist authors venerated the youths’ active resistance to the army and the unpopular Committee of Safety. However, the royalist authors portrayed this moment of social inversion as licensed misrule that the apprentices exercised to restore, rather than reject, the social order. Although the royalist press would be quick to label these acts of opposition against the colonel and his regiment as evidence of popular royalism, the acts and petitions of the apprentices in December and January of 1659–60 did not clearly advocate a return to monarchy. According to the petition the apprentices’ defiantly presented to London’s Common Council on 5 December, their main grievance rested on the army’s unlawful monopoly of power, while another bemoaned the army’s “barbarous Usage” of the apprentices on 5 December.160 Royalist representations of the apprentices’ actions offered calculated and explicit attempts to fashion the disaffected crowds as royalist sympathizers who, despite their subversive acts, longed for a return to the traditional patriarchal order. While some of the apprentices who taunted Hewson and his soldiers may have desired a Stuart restoration, royalist authors crafted their accounts of the apprentices’ assaults on Hewson to promote a distinctly conservative agenda. The perversity of Hewson’s rise from a cobbler to a colonel, common councilman and Member of Parliament was a persistent topic in royalist propaganda during the winter of 1659–60. Rugg noted that several “jeering books” were dispersed during January 1660, including one satirizing Hewson.161 Throughout the 1640s royalist propagandists directed their scorn toward the “mechanic” backgrounds of Parliamentarians, and, therefore, authors were able to recycle this tested trope in their critiques of Hewson.162 Satirizing   Rugg, p. 27; Harris, London Crowds, p. 45; The Diary of Samuel Pepys, vol. 1, p. 28.  Harris, London Crowds, pp. 44–5; To the Right Honourable our Worthy and Grave Senators the Lord Mayor. . . The Further Humble Petition and Remonstrance of the Free-men and Prentices of the City of London (London, 1659); To the Right Honourable, our right VVorthy and Grave Senatours, the Lord Mayor. . .The Most Humble Petition and Address of Divers Young Men, on the Behalf of Themselves and the Apprentices in and about This Honourable City (London, 1659). 161  Rugg, p. 26. The work Rugg refers to is Colonel Huson’s (or the Cobler’s) Confession (London, 1660). 162 See, for example, Mercurius Elencticus, no. 45 (27 Sep.–4 Oct. 1648); Mercurius Elencticus, no. 52 (15–22 Nov. 1648), p. 503. 159 160

159

Disaffection.indb 159

19/09/2017 11:25

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Hewson’s former occupation, the broadside ballad entitled “A Hyme to the Gentle-Craft or Hewson Lamentation” asked its audience to: Listen a while to what I shall say Of a blind Cobler that’s gone astray Out of the Parliaments High way, Good people pity the blind.

In a satirical pamphlet styled as Hewson’s confession, Hewson laments “[h] ad not I better have sticht my ambition to my in-sole & tackt them close to the Last, than thus at length to become my own hangman?”163 Both authors turned to the popularized caricature of “Hewson the cobbler” to denigrate his actions in print, which suggested that the apprentices’ hostility to the colonel also rested in the cobbler’s subversive rise to power. Other writers exploited the rumor that one of the young apprentices killed was a cobbler, thereby depicting Hewson as disloyal and drunk with his own power. In The Out-Cry of the London Prentices, the author writes purposefully from the perspective of the apprentices, who demand that justice be served upon Hewson for his actions. The apprentices argued that Hewson’s crimes were so heinous that he “spares no body, even as he killed his brother Cob”.164 Unlike the early petitions and remonstrance put forward by the apprentices in December 1659, these anonymous accounts place the apprentices’ acts within a conservative, royalist narrative. Once again we see how certain royalist authors were able to piece together the various motivations of the apprentices’ assault on Hewson and his fellow soldiers into a royalist mosaic. Similar to royalist relations of assaults on excise-men, most of these satiric depictions of the “cobbler” emphasized the popular origins of the assault against Hewson. One pamphleteer devised a mock “Confession” from Hewson and presented him “in a melancholly posture with an Halter about his neck”, mimicking the apprentices’ actions in the streets of London.165 The author of The Out-Cry presented a satirical account of the apprentices Arraignment and Execution of Hewson, highlighting their pivotal role in discerning Hewson’s guilt. In order to “humble his haughty spirit”, the apprentices charged Hewson with marching “up and down the streets: and crying ‘old Shooes and Boots’”. Following official procedures, the apprentices also demanded that Hewson face public punishment within London for his crimes. They ordered him to stand in the pillory, where he was to remain until “he hath had as many rotten Eggs flung at him, as he hath sowed stiches in Shooes   A Hymne to the Gentle-Craft, or Hewsons Lamentation (London, Jan. 1660); Colonel Huson’s (or the Cobler’s) Confession, p. 3. See also Neil Durkin, “His Praeludiary Weapons: Mocking Colonel Hewson Before and After the Restoration”, in Subversion and Scurrility: Popular Discourse in Europe from 1500 to the Present, ed. Dermot Cavanagh and Tim Kirk (Aldershot, 2001), pp. 106–25. 164  The Out-Cry of the London Prentices for Justice to be Executed Upon John Lord Hewson (London, Jan. 1660), p. 6. 165  Colonel Huson’s (or the Cobler’s) Confession, p. 3. 163

160

Disaffection.indb 160

19/09/2017 11:25

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

and Boots”. He was then to be whipped in a cart, placed in another pillory after having soldiers throw stones at him and have his tongue bored “for his wicked perjuries”. Finally, the apprentices declared that he be convicted and hung at Tyburn, where he was to remain “as long as Shooe-making is used in London”.166 By twisting the apprentices’ culture of retribution to legitimate the old social order, authors of such pamphlets attempted to trace the popular origins of royalist resilience and resistance during the pivotal months surrounding Charles II’s Restoration in May 1660. In these narratives the apprentices’ resistance to the army becomes evidence of their traditionalism, which implicitly limits their exercise of political agency to this liminal moment before the patriarchal order is restored. While some authors continued to award the actions and opinions of England’s industrious commonality legitimacy – particularly in the face of army control – in these royalist accounts it was the king who not only upheld and defended the ancient rights and liberties of England, but also the normative social order. As royalists continued to draw upon Hewson’s notoriety during the summer and autumn of 1660, they obscured the actual motivations of the apprentices in publications constructed to suit the new political climate of the Restoration. In addition to being a blind cobbler, Hewson manifested several additional grievances, such as his radical religious beliefs and his staunch defense of liberty of conscience. In The Lamentation of the Safe Committee, Hewson and Fleetwood discussed their decisions that led to the “Hangmans-FAYRE”. After Fleetwood declared that the two of them had “Divilish failings” in their alteration of the Church, Hewson replied, “Aye brother Fleetwood, so we had, but for good sums of money we would have endeavored too, to have altered the foundation of England”. Fleetwood also asked Hewson what type of “Churches” he would have set up. Hewson retorted, “Churches, none at all”.167 Another pamphleteer explicitly represented the apprentices’ anger toward Hewson as evidence of their support for the monarchy. A Charge of High Treason presented a list of the apprentices’ charges against Hewson, which included the “most horrid and execrable Murder” of Charles I, banishing the royal family and making it treason to support Charles II. The apprentices also indicted him for selling crown and church lands, destroying the “Royal Arms”, and breaking the great seal of England. Printed in September 1660, the pamphlet manipulated its account of the apprentices’ hostility to Hewson to condemn his role in the regicide and the political revolution that followed. The apprentices’ grievances were thus completely restructured to suit the author’s purpose.168 Royalists depicted Hewson as a symbol of all the evil effects of the civil wars and interregnum:   The Out-Cry, p. 5.   The Lamentation of the Safe Committee. Or, Fleetwood’s Teares, Hewson’s Last, Desborough’s Cart, Met Together at Hangmans-FAYRE (London, 1660), pp. 3–4. Thomason dates the pamphlet from August 1660. 168  A Charge of High-Treason Prepared by the London-Apprentices, pp. 2–5. 166 167

161

Disaffection.indb 161

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

tyranny, corruption, greed, the collapse of the Church and the reversal of the social order. To suggest that these were the motivations of the apprentices’ hostility toward Hewson and the army more broadly represents a complete refashioning of their actions. Furthermore, their manipulation of popular complaints reflected the complex nature of the Stuart Restoration, a popular event widely celebrated by people with varied goals, beliefs and ideologies. In the months following the Restoration, royalist propagandists would persistently churn out pamphlets that used the language and actions of popular political culture to solidify and legitimize their views for Charles II’s regime. As in earlier depictions of Colonel Thomas Pride, pamphleteers depicted Hewson as a symbol of both the tyrannical power of the army and its crimes against the monarchy. The author of The Out-Cry also drew a connection between these two hated colonels, noting that Hewson “had the same quarrel against the Prentices, as his Comrade Tom Pride against the Beares” – namely that they were cavaliers.169 Detailing the unpopular actions of Hewson and Pride, such pamphlets not only attempted to legitimate resistance to the state, but also to craft an image of a royalist commonality united through grievance. While royalist rhetoric celebrated the triumph of the apprentices over Colonel Hewson during the winter of 1659–60, it was ultimately the apprentices’ violent protest against the troops at the Old Exchange on 5 December 1659 that drove the barrage of cheap print satirizing Hewson. This outbreak of violence was the result of Colonel Dendy’s proclamation forbidding people to formulate “dangerous” petitions, a liberty traditionally granted to Englishmen and women. When local and state officials used soldiers to stifle the expressions of disaffection that arose out of the turmoil of civil war and revolution, they risked the legitimacy of the interregnum experiment. Popular annoyance and agitation with soldiers, officers and the army had complex and diverse origins. Following the end of the first civil war in 1646, public antipathy toward the standing army arose largely from the quartering of soldiers, looting, troopers’ disorderly behavior and relentless levels of high taxation that supported its maintenance. Commonwealth, Protectorate and army officials attempted to alleviate these grievances by endeavoring to eliminate free quarter, systematize tax collection and discipline the rank-andfile. By the mid-1650s, civic officials and army officers had little patience for disorderly troopers who used their role in society as a guise for personal profit. Yet soldiers’ continued presence in streets, markets, alehouses, inns, churches, courts and homes necessarily changed everyday patterns of interaction within the communities they encountered. In the collection of taxes, the protection of enclosures, the enforcement of the moral reform and the policing of opinion, soldiers curbed people’s ability to voice disaffection and negotiate intrusive or unwelcome policies. Interpersonal relations and interactions shifted in   The Out-Cry, p. 3.

169

162

Disaffection.indb 162

19/09/2017 11:26

MEDDLING SOLDIERS

the presence of armed soldiers as people adapted their behavior and used soldiers as witnesses or advocates to advance personal agendas. Whether or not garrisoned or marching soldiers were directly ordered to police suspicious or ungodly behavior and troublesome speech, their presence in the spaces of everyday life could raise tensions and impact mundane as well as momentous power struggles. Social pressure and the desire to find “good company” in their new communities could influence soldiers’ discretion and comportment, but the power to “police” was on the side of troopers. The existence of soldiers and the potential for their deployment compromised people’s recourse to the acts of defiance that characterized responses to encroachments on personal or communal agency. Those whose experience of everyday life transformed under the watchful eye of soldiers and officers informed and identified with the sentiments expressed in political rhetoric that questioned the interregnum state’s legitimacy and its potential for tyranny. The army’s unintended influence on the micro-politics of everyday life also provoked tensions and grievances that conglomerated around the figure of the “soldier”, who came to represent a series of grievances that emerged time and again during the 1650s. Public resentment projected at the army was often transmitted through print in mock dialogues and ballads deriding intrusive officers and gluttonous troopers. Royalist pamphleteers were quick to satirize army officials who manifested popular criticisms aimed at the army, officers and the state. Colonel Thomas Pride was branded as a zealous enforcer of unpopular social legislation within rhetoric that also reminded readers that Pride purged Parliament of members willing to negotiate with Charles I. In their depictions of Colonel Hewson, certain loyalist writers capitalized on the apprentices’ derisive language to refer to the colonel’s origins and to emphasize the interregnum regimes’ destruction of the established social order. The political turmoil that followed the army’s blockade of Parliament in October 1659 unleashed new expressions of anti-army sentiment. Those hostile to the army’s control of politics at Westminster, in London’s streets or in local alehouses articulated their disaffection in verbal, physical and printed assaults against soldiers and officers – figures who represented the latest threat to English liberties. Although the breakdown of the government provided increased opportunities for those alienated by army rule to express surmounting grievances, the persistence of a pliable popular distrust of soldiers and their officers fueled the flames of this resistance.

163

Disaffection.indb 163

19/09/2017 11:26

Disaffection.indb 164

19/09/2017 11:26

4

The “Unnatural” Excise-man

Let all Excisemen hereby warning take To shun their Practice for their Conscience Sake.1 Facing the increasing costs of war against Charles I, parliamentary leaders reluctantly established the excise tax in 1643. The tax was levied on commodities such as pewter, salt, cloth and – to the vexation of all – on meat, beer, ale and cider.2 Unpopular from the outset, the excise provoked angry grumblings, protests and an array of printed polemics against the new tax throughout the mid- to late 1640s and the 1650s.3 Alongside the creation of the excise was a figure fit for derision: the newly anointed “excise-man”. In ritualistic encounters with the excise-man, Englishmen and women treated the collector as an intrusive agent who drained resources, threatened customary politics and unsettled social relations. Drawing upon this vast reservoir of popular hostility and resistance, disaffected authors helped to launch the caricature of excise-men into the popular political imagination. In one such satirical pamphlet, The Excize-Mens Lamentation, the state’s infamous tax collectors ask God to pardon the “miserable Excize-men” for their “high, unjust and illegal proceedings”. Mimicking the language of the Lord’s Prayer, the greedy collectors “confess” that they have accumulated “vast and great sums”, which they “wickedly, fraudulently and deceitfully gained by an unlimited and out-stretched Conscience”. Ever indiscriminate, the excise-men acknowledge that their practices have been “rigid and harsh both to the Rich and Poor”. Their lamentation ends with a plea begging the “Lord” to dissuade the excise-men from their “ways of wickednesse”, and to provide them with “hearts to dread him”.4   A Dialogue Betwixt an Excise-man and Death (London, 1659).   A & O, I, pp. 202–14, 315–16, 364–6. 3  For a detailed analysis of the Smithfield Riots, see Michael J. Braddick, “Popular Politics and Public Policy: The Excise Riot at Smithfield in February 1647 and its Aftermath”, Historical Journal, 34:3 (1991), 597–626. Other riots broke out in Norfolk, Cheshire, Wales and Somerset. 4  The Excise-Mens Lamentation: Or An Impeachment in behalf of the Comons of this Nation (London, 1652), pp. 3–4. 1 2

Disaffection.indb 165

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Following the excise-men’s confession, the anonymous author notes that, despite their “lamentation”, many collectors remain very “rigid and cruel to the poor”. Detailing a recent encounter between “a Farmer of Excize” and the inhabitants of Monmouth in 1652, the author claims that John Crowe’s “cruell proceedings” provoked the “poor people” to scour the local inn in search of this intrusive outsider. The report maintained that Crowe was able to escape his quarters only to run into a “Tub of Feathers”. Rather than assault the excise-man after capturing him, the agitated crowd made Crowe “swear on the Bible, that he should become an honest man”. He was subsequently allowed to go his way, and though the protesters “dismissed him without wounds”, they effectively “frightened him out of his wits”.5 Those involved in this incident initially embraced violence, yet the Lamentation’s account suggests that the protesters’ ultimate goal was to make the exciseman repent his unjust, illegal and evil deeds and to desist from disrupting community relations. The author’s description of the crowd’s interaction with Crowe paints the excise-man as a troublesome interloper whose arbitrary tactics demanded retribution through the collective force of the commonality. Indeed, the author prays “that the soldier may be resolv’d [that] the Oppression is intolerable, and that the Commonalty may be confirmed where the Knave lies; for till this fair reckoning be made, it is impossible but there must be an inward core and grudg between man and man”.6 In his satirical assault on the “sins” of excise-men, the author of the Lamentation dramatized the encounter between the Monmouth community and the pernicious Crowe to craft a general condemnation of the avarice and injustice of all collectors. Presenting an honest account was not a priority – evidence not only suggests that it was local authorities rather than the “commons” who headed the Monmouth protest, but also that Crowe was particularly corrupt and unrepresentative of excise collectors.7 The Lamentation distorted its account to align its rhetoric with the discourse of the excise-man – a construction melded from social grievances, fictionalized accounts and disaffected sensibilities. Throughout the interregnum, the character of the excise-man was formed and re-formed by a medley of authors, audiences, individuals and communities who focused an array of fears, hostility and resistance onto this recognizable figure. The same year as the Lamentation was published, several petitions, broadsides and cheap pamphlets detailed the arbitrary practices and ineptitude of excise-men in earnest polemics and humorous narratives. Like our anonymous author, they frequently drew upon real, dramatized and fictive interactions between the excise-men and poor or relatively powerless members of English society  Ibid., p. 4.   Ibid., p. 5. 7 M.J. Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation in Seventeenth-Century England (Woodbridge, 1994), pp. 189–90; D’Maris Coffman, Excise Taxation and the Origins of Public Debt (Basingstoke, 2013), pp. 48, 98. 5 6

166

Disaffection.indb 166

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

to portray excise-men as arbitrary, unjust and “unnatural”.8 The ritualistic assaults on collectors in the streets, markets, inns and taverns, combined with their representations in print, suggested that excise-men’s methods – indeed, their very existence – threatened the customary politics that communities and individuals practiced to negotiate power relations in their everyday lives. The significance of popular resistance to the collection of the excise is hotly debated among historians. While most interregnum scholars recognize the excise as controversial, D’Maris Coffman, a historian of public finance, questions the importance political historians have placed on the disorder wrought by the excise riots.9 The excise became a highly successful source of revenue during much of the 1650s, and the Restoration regime continued to wage the tax on “drink” with relative ease. In his study of parliamentary taxation, Mike Braddick argues that the large-scale riots against the tax had a limited impact on policy decisions. Though the Long Parliament and the Commonwealth altered its excise policies amidst resistance, such as removing certain unpopular excises and largely shifting its collection from the consumer to the producer, Braddick claims such alterations were in response to broader political pressures facing their regimes’ authority.10 While hostility to the excise and its collectors continued to crop up throughout the 1650s, Braddick asserts that popular opposition was focused on particular excises and on the practices of the excise collectors rather than the state’s overall excise policy. Several groups directly impacted by the excise – brewers, soap-makers and women, for example – remained hostile to the tax and its collectors over the course of the 1650s, but Braddick views such resistance as localized, sporadic and unable to eradicate the excise as a source of state revenue. In her recent work on the excise tax, Coffman contends that the outbreak of violence in the late 1640s and early 1650s posed a veritable, impossible-to-ignore threat  See, for example, A New Way to Pay Old Debts (London, 1652); John Booker, The Bloudy Almanack (London, 1652), p. 3; The Vindication of Christmas, or His Twelve Years Observations Upon the Times… (London, 1652); A Pill to Purge Melancholy: Or, Merry Newes from Newgate… (London, 1652); James Ibeson, To the Supreame Authoritie, the Parliament of the Common-wealth of England (London, 1652); Edward Whalley, To the Supreame Authoritie the Parliament of the Common-wealth of England (London, 1652); G.H., We Have Brought our Hogs to a Fair Market: or Strange Newes from New-Gate (London, 1652). 9  For an assessment of the riots, see, for example, John Morrill and John Walter, “Order and Disorder in the English Revolution”, in Order and Disorder in Early Modern England, ed. Fletcher and Stevenson (Cambridge, 1985), p. 157; Braddick, “Popular Politics and Public Policy”. For a more general discussion of the excise, see Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, chap. 4; Coffman, Excise Taxation, pp. 47–58; Coffman, “The Earl of Southampton and Interregnum Finance”, in Royalists and Royalism during the Interregnum, pp. 235–56; Edward Hughes, Studies in Administration and Finance, 1558–1825 (Manchester, 1934), pp. 116–66; William J. Ashworth, Customs and Excise: Trade, Production and Consumption in England, 1649–1845 (Oxford, 2003). 10 Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, pp. 191–2; Braddick, “Popular Politics and Public Policy”. 8

167

Disaffection.indb 167

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

to the legitimacy of Parliament and the Commonwealth, but she agrees with Braddick’s claim that most grassroots resistance was localized and concentrated around specific excise collectors whose practices went beyond the pale. Indeed, Coffman argues that hostility to the excise collectors may have been even more limited than Braddick believes, and less significant than the obstruction of the monthly assessment. Often grassroots resistance and printed attacks on the character of excise-men centered on specific collectors – such as Crowe – whose arbitrary and illegal practices did not necessarily reflect national trends. While Coffman recognizes the import of popular resistance to the tax and its collectors, she argues that historians have overgeneralized and overemphasized the extent of popular dissent.11 Shifts in policy, the behavior of collectors and personal liability undoubtedly influenced popular resistance to – as well as compliance with – the exciseman. But the methods disgruntled individuals, communities and disaffected authors employed to exterminate this “pest” from their society also indicate that these physical and literary attacks were inflected with deep cultural meaning. Rumors of previous riots or encounters may have only occasionally provoked other large protests, yet they also inspired speech acts or ritualistic violence against excise-men. Angry individuals launched hostile epithets at the unwelcome collectors, utilizing culturally weighted terms such as “rogue” or “caterpillar”. By defining the excise-man as dangerous and diseased, people dehumanized the collector to justify his violent removal from local society.12 The ritualistic elements of both crowd violence and smaller, interpersonal conflicts with the excise-man underscore the pervasive belief that the exciseman represented a social and political threat that had to be eliminated by the hands of the oppressed. By implementing popular retribution against collectors – whether “private” farmers or sub-commissioners – communities employed violence and slander to legitimate their rejection of state directives. The excise-man came to represent far more than the tax; this figure represented the threat centralizing policies posed to the everyday negotiation of power amongst members of local society. Polemics against the excise tax reiterated and amplified the image of the excise-man as a social “canker” that had to be expunged from English society. Many pamphleteers who accepted the necessity of the tax frequently wrote against its unfair distribution or methods of collection. Exploiting fears of social disorder, disaffected pamphleteers claimed that the excise-man plagued communities like a social disease. Focusing on the excise-man as a major source of the nation’s evils, royalist propagandists portrayed this infamous 11 Coffman, “The Fiscal Revolution of the Interregnum”, pp. 67–8; Coffman, Excise Taxation, pp. 49–54; 97–8. 12  For a discussion of the process of “dehumanization” in early modern Europe, see Natalie Zemon Davis, “Rites of Violence”, in Society and Culture in Early Modern France (Stanford, CA, 1975), p. 181; Alexandra Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500–1700 (Manchester, 2006), pp. 127, 147.

168

Disaffection.indb 168

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

figure as a symbol of state oppression, greed and corruption. Some printed attacks on the collector – like the Lamentation – went so far as to encourage violent resistance to the collectors. Implicitly and, at times, explicitly, such polemics accused the regimes of actively working against the interest of the people. These disaffected authors often drew upon the discourse of the sovereignty of the commonality to suggest that the English commons had an obligation to rise against those who threatened the “commonweal/th”. The breakdown of the excise farms coupled with the economic recession of 1659 enabled a resurgence of rhetoric criticizing both the excise and its detestable collectors. Parliament’s insistence on the continued collection of the inflated excise rents established during the last years of the Protectorate provoked new attacks on the profiteering excise-man. Though these policies caused the ultimate failure of the tax farms more than any general “tax strike”, within popular print and rhetoric the acts and exactions of the excise collectors continued to be stigmatized as the source of England’s economic troubles.13 Refashioning the language of disaffection employed throughout the 1650s, royalist and other anti-state propagandists exploited popular hostility toward these “pests” to undermine the legitimacy of the fledgling interregnum experiment. The Excise-Man in Context: A Brief History of the Excise and its Opponents To help solve the Crown’s ever-looming financial crisis, in late 1627 Charles I’s Privy Council considered levying an excise tax. Parliamentary opponents such as Sir Edward Coke vociferously attacked Charles’s attempts to levy the tax as against common law and the new Petition of Right.14 Just a few days after Charles endorsed the Petition in June 1628, Sir John Strangways noted that “this excise does overthrow all the propriety of our goods, which has been a great work in this Parliament”. Coke further claimed that the excise was “personated under the name of impositions”, a form of taxation without parliamentary approval which the Petition of Right had made illegal. These hostile reactions to the tax ultimately forced the king to withdraw his proposals.15 In the Short Parliament of 1640, Oliver St John presented Charles’s attempted collection of the excise in 1628 as evidence of his tyranny, and when the excise was proposed as a method of taxation again in 1641, John  Coffman, Excise Taxation, pp. 148–51.  Coffman, Excise Taxation, pp. 26–7. Coffman’s work skillfully analyzes the ideological arguments against the excise, and the decline of “common law” arguments over the course of the 1650s. 15  Commons Debates, 1628, Vol. IV, ed. Keeler, Cole and Bidwell (New Haven, CT, 1978), pp. 158, 164, 192, 290 fn. 15; Conrad Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, 1621–1629 (Oxford, 2003), pp. 381–2, 386; Hughes, Studies in Administration and Finance, p. 117. 13 14

169

Disaffection.indb 169

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Pym lectured his fellow MPs about the illegality of Charles’s attempt to tax without their consent.16 From its first mention in 1627, the excise tax provoked parliamentary debates over the legality of levying taxes without the consent of a free and full Parliament – debates that would be revived after 1649.17 Despite its evident unpopularity outside the halls of Whitehall, Parliament chose to levy an excise on several commodities in July 1643 to support its war effort. Within a few months, officials approved the highly unpopular excise on meat and beer.18 The tax on manufactured commodities and imports arguably replaced earlier subsides and duties, but the excises on meat and beer were innovative.19 The decision to wage the excise came just one year after Parliament responded to rumors of such a tax with a declaration deeming the reports “false” and “scandalous”.20 Initially, parliamentary officials claimed that the excise was a necessary evil for a good cause because it was the only tax that could be levied on their royalist enemies.21 Since Parliament was in control of London and many of the seaports, an excise could be levied on all goods that came from, or even passed through, these areas. Once the war was over, Parliament could not give up the collection of the tax due to the public debt it had accrued. The Commonwealth and Protectorate remained dependent on the excise to guarantee the payment of arrears and to sustain public revenue. Despite hostile reactions to the excise, the tax became a productive method of state finance. Between 1650 and 1660, Parliament was able to collect approximately £375,000 per annum.22 Throughout the Commonwealth and Protectorate, Parliament and the Council of State often revamped the tax’s administration to increase their yields. The Long Parliament and the Commonwealth elected to eliminate the excise on certain commodities such as meat, salt and, later, on home-brewed ale and inland woolens.23 In 1649 officials introduced gaugers, who were charged with measuring brewers’ and victuallers’ yields. The Commonwealth   The Judiciall Arraignment, Condemnation, Execution & Interment of the late pernicious endenized DUTCH DEVIL EXCIZE (London, 1653), pp. 2–4. 17  Ibid. 18   A & O, I, pp. 202–14, 315–16, 364–6. 19   Coffman, “Interregnum Finance”, pp. 245–6. 20   Judiciall Arraignment, p. 5. 21 Hughes, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, p. 252; Coffman, Excise Taxation, pp. 28–9. Coffman notes that some authors argued that the excise was not only necessary, but also it was an “equitable” tax that fell on all, though on the rich more than the poor. 22  See, for example, Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, p. 169; James Wheeler, The Making of a World Power, p. 167. 23  For the lifting of the excise on home-brewed ale, see Friday 12 December, 1651. Votes of Parliament Touching the Excize of Beer and Ale (London, 1651). Braddick suggests the salt tax was never completely eliminated. In January 1653 Parliament stopped the collection of inland woolens in response to a petition from clothiers until the Excise Committee could investigate it further. Coffman claims it was never reestablished. See CSPD 1652–3, p. 129; Coffman, Excise Taxation, p. 144. 16

170

Disaffection.indb 170

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

further streamlined the collection of the tax in another attempt to guarantee the state’s revenue. Put simply, Parliament had the excise waged at the point of production instead of the final place of purchase (e.g. the marketplace) in part because this would limit direct contact between the collectors and the large number of consumers.24 In September 1650 the Commonwealth introduced brokerage to increase the tax’s yield, and the commissioners farmed large swaths of the excise including much of the lucrative tax on beer, ale and cider. Hoping to place the burden of collection on an unpaid individual, in 1649 the brewers of London petitioned Parliament to employ petty constables for the levying of the excise and thereby eliminate what they saw as self-serving excise-men.25 The Commonwealth rejected the brewers’ plea, but its sub-commissioners continued to collect the tax directly alongside farmers, who were often involved in commerce, and the new excise commissioners and the Committee for Regulating and Improving the Excise oversaw the whole. In another significant move, the Commonwealth moved the power to appoint excise farmers from the commissioners to local justices in 1652.26 The struggle for power and control over the excise establishment would continue into the Protectorate, when Cromwell extended his control over its administration while his parliaments attempted to curb the powers of the excise officers. Arguably it was only when the Protectorate, in a bid to dramatically stretch the rents of the farms on beer, ale and cider, required the gaugers to measure production meticulously that the entire system would begin to unravel. These policy shifts, many of which enabled state administrators and collectors to negotiate the excise with those hardest hit by the exaction, help to explain the overall success of the tax during the Commonwealth and the beginning of the Protectorate. Historians have argued convincingly that these administrative changes contributed to the decline of large-scale crowd violence, yet ample evidence reveals that hostility to the excise-man remained. Why did the figure of the excise-man loom large in popular mentalities, and how did his image and notoriety inform interactions between communities and collectors? While farmers and sub-commissioners may have collected the excise more efficiently after 1650, the figure of the excise-man remained as abhorrent as ever. An Unjust Tax: Polemics against the Excise While the war of words against Parliament’s collection of the tax had already begun, the debate over the levy after the civil wars provided ample fodder for all those who aimed to undermine the state’s authority. Some people  Coffman, Excise Taxation, p. 81; Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, pp. 174–5. There were, as always, exceptions to this new rule of collection. Customs excises, for example, were often waged on the first buyer. 25  Perfect Occurrences, no. 137 (10–17 Aug. 1649). 26 Coffman, Excise Taxation, p. 107.

24

171

Disaffection.indb 171

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

previously willing to accept Parliament’s collection of the excise began to question this policy, particularly following Pride’s Purge in December 1648. The rhetoric used by former allies of Parliament such as the Levellers and William Prynne aimed to demonstrate the injustice of extending the tax beyond the war years. Further, the derisive nature of the royalists’ attacks on the excise aspired to undermine the legitimacy of the state by ridiculing its treatment of the poor. There were specific areas of intersection between these groups and their propaganda, and together they aided in the construction of an ideology that justified resistance to the tax and those who enforced its collection. Leveller pamphlets from the 1640s targeted the excise as a source of animosity within war-torn England. Well before the revolution in 1649, the Leveller leader John Lilburne began publishing pamphlets against the excise tax and its corrupt officials. In England’s Birth-right Justified, Lilburne called for the eradication of the excise and a thorough investigation of tax officials’ procedures.27 Despite this critique against the excise, the Levellers never maintained a cohesive policy regarding the tax during the civil wars, as any consistent attack on it risked alienating the rank-and-file soldiers who depended on the excise for the relief of their arrears. Thus, as Michael Braddick has argued, the Levellers failed to take adequate advantage of the popular hostility surrounding the tax and its collectors during 1647.28 Despite these risks, several Levellers publicly debated Parliament’s taxation policy – especially its ill effects on the poor. The Case of the Armie Truly Stated directly criticized the excise and other “publique burthens” in October 1647. Recognizing that the people viewed the army as responsible for heavy taxation, the Agitators’ polemical tract declared that “the people are not righted, nor satisfied in point of accompts … so that we apprehend our own & the peoples case, little (if any) better, since the Army last hazarded themselves for their own and the peoples rights and freedoms”. The pamphlet specifically referred to the “Excize” as one of many grievances that had not been “removed or lightened” further claiming that the continuation of monopolies, tithes and the excise had caused the “decay [of] … the love and affection of the people to the Armie”. 29 The tract called for the excise’s removal from “Beere, Cloath, Stuffes, and all manufacturies, and English commodities”, and also demanded the better regulation of any excise that remained as a necessity. Another criticism of the excise grounded in its detrimental effect on trade was presented in a petition attributed to the Levellers in 1647. The petition claimed that the excise “lies heavy only upon the Poorer” and thus discourages these “most industrious

  Pauline Gregg, Free-Born John, pp. 131–2.   Braddick, “Popular Politics and Public Policy”, p. 622. 29  The Case of the Armie Truly Stated (London, 1647). 27 28

172

Disaffection.indb 172

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

People” in their trades.30 To alleviate the problem, the petitioners suggested that Parliament eliminate the excise and limit itself to collecting subsidies “according to the proportion of mens estates”. 31 These examples of Leveller strategies for combating the excise illustrate the inherent ambiguity of their position. Rather than exploit the popular hostility surrounding the excise to attack Parliament’s legitimacy, the Levellers desired to influence Parliament’s taxation policy in order to lessen the burden on the people. The triumph of Parliament after the political revolution in 1649 emboldened John Lilburne to describe explicitly how taxes had stunted trade – notably the trades of many of Parliament’s supporters. In England’s New Chains Discovered, published and delivered to Parliament that March, the excise was listed as a “grievance” along with tithes and customs. Comparing these exactions to Charles’s infamous ship money, Lilburne referred to these taxes as “[t]hose secret thieves, and Robbers, Drainers of the poor and middle sort of People, and the greatest Obstructors of Trade”.32 Once again, he focused not on the potential illegality of the tax but rather on its burdensome nature to traders and the poor. Although the burden of the excise appears to be a minor complaint within England’s New Chains Discovered, other soldiers as well as royalist propagandists amplified this grievance. Several other printed petitions from “divers Wel affected Officers and souldiers of the army” demanded the eradication of the excise, tithes and the establishment of “wholesom Lawes in our own language”. The same week, reports began to pour in that described how soldiers posted “Petitions call’d Leiut. Col. John Lilburns” in Hitchin, which encouraged people to stop paying the excise and to resist giving soldiers free quarter.33 According to the royalist newsbook Mercurius Pragmaticus, the soldiers claimed that the excise was “imposed vpon them by an illegall, arbitrary, and unjust power of their fellow Comons”.34 Pragmaticus used the soldiers’ actions against the levy to display both the insubordination of Parliament’s forces as well as the illegal nature of its proceedings. The amount of press that these cases received from the newsbooks misrepresents the Levellers as champions in the fight against the excise; in reality, these uprisings represented only some of the most radical views of the Levellers. Certain royalist newsbooks chose to expand upon the significance of these soldiers’ attacks on the excise, emphasizing criticisms that assaulted the legitimacy of the Commonwealth. Once Cromwell effectively suppressed the Levellers in May 1649, the royalist newsbooks continued to launch political 30  To the Supream Authority of England, The Commons Assembled in Parliament…The Earnest Petition of many Free-born People of this Nation. Printed in George Masterson, A Declaration of Some Proceedings of Lt. Col. John Lilburne (London, 1648), p. 30. 31  Ibid., pp. 31–2. 32  John Lilburne, England’s New Chains Discovered (March 1649), sig. A 2. 33  A Perfect Diurnall of Some Passages of Parliament, no. 292 (25 Feb.–5 Mar. 1649); The Moderate Intelligencer, no. 207 (1–8 Mar. 1649). 34  Mercurius Pragmaticus, no. 46 (13–20 Mar. 1649).

173

Disaffection.indb 173

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

criticisms typically associated with these radical republicans. In January 1650, The Man in the Moon blasted Parliament’s use of “the unsupportable Excise”. The newsbook’s author, John Crouch, bemoaned the excise’s effects on society, explaining “how all conditions of people both rich and poor are involved into irrevocable slavery, being both in lives and estates over-aw’d by the Sword of Arbitrary Usurpers, who at our own charges tyrannize over us”.35 The Man in the Moon asserted that Lilburne and his “party”: professe they will rather fight for the Turk then for such savage Monsters, that stand to nothing they have formerly sworne to maintaine, but rule by Tyranny, and lade the free people by such heavy Oppressions, new Excises, and illegal Taxes, as they like hath not been known before today.36

Royalist newsbooks such as Crouch’s capitalized on the popular grievances supported by the Levellers to demonstrate Parliament’s usurpation of the power of the commonality. When Cromwell continued to collect the excise during the Protectorate using his discretionary powers, the former parliamentarian, William Prynne, a member of the Presbyterian faction that objected to the execution of Charles, waged printed attacks on the excise that condemned it as an illegal exaction by an arbitrary government. The illegality of the tax loomed large in his 1653 pamphlet, The Iudiciall Arraignment, Condemnation, Execution & Interment of the late pernicious endenized DUTCH DEVIL EXCIZE. It began with a discussion of Charles I’s initial request for an excise tax in 1629. Under the influence of corrupt advisors such as Buckingham, Charles formed a commission to impose an excise during a time of severe necessity. In response, the Commons “unanimously voted it, to be against the Lawes of the Realm, contrary to the Petition of Right”. Prynne quoted Sir Edward Coke, who had declared Charles’s attempts to levy the excise to be “the most monstrous, horrible, ugly, vast, destructive project to the Lawes, Liberties and Properties of the Freemen of England, that any age produced”.37 The pamphlet further recalled how in December 1641 the Short Parliament deemed the proposed excise to be “one principal effect and evidence of JESUITE COUNCELS (then and since most active and prevailing) for subverting the Fundamentall Lawes and Principles of Government”.38 Appealing to the rule of law, Prynne provided another justification for the public’s resistance to the excise. Further exposing the vulnerable legal position of the interregnum state – especially after the forced dissolution of Parliament in April 1653 – Prynne relayed a 1641 speech from John Pym against arbitrary taxation. According to Prynne, Pym had argued that the king could not wage “any TAX OR IMPOSITION upon his people” without the consent of a “free and   The Man in the Moon, no. 37 (2–9 Jan. 1650).   The Man in the Moon, no. 40 (23–31 Jan. 1650). 37  William Prynne, The Judiciall Arraignment, p. 1. 38  Ibid., p. 2. 35 36

174

Disaffection.indb 174

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

full Parliament” including the king and the Houses of Lords and Commons.39 Pym was praised for elucidating “the necessity and Excellency of our fundamentall Lawes; the mischiefs of Arbitrary Government without or against the Law, upon my pretended necessity for publike safety”.40 After an exhaustive list of similar examples, Prynne employed the same rhetoric to question the current regime’s right to levy the excise. Cromwell continued the excise before his first Parliament sat, and the Protector’s authority over the excise administration would inflame tensions between Cromwell and his Parliaments.41 Beyond debating issues of legality, Prynne noted the injustice of a tax that kept “poor peoples” under “insupportable oppression”. In a long and damning statement, Prynne ultimately questioned “what enemies” would “impose, inforce, collect and continue such unjust, illegall, condemned, disclaimed Excises on them, contrary to the printed Declaration, the aforementioned Judgements against them in Parliament, and this Declaration of both Houses of Parliament soon after concurring with the former”.42 Prynne’s pamphlet not only launched an attack on the legitimacy and the legality of the current political structure, but, as will be argued below, it also echoed popular attitudes toward the unprincipled and corrupt excise-man. The state responded to these and other virulent printed attacks with the re-imposition of censorship in 1653. Several newsbooks were shut down in response to publications such as The Faithful Scout and The Flying Eagle. After the clampdown on print, pejorative references to the excise petered off. Only Prynne continued to launch attacks against the excise throughout the 1650s, repeating and reinforcing the claims contained within The Iudiciall Arraignment.43 Thomas Violet, a goldsmith in London interested in trade, printed Proposals Humbly Presented To his Highness Oliver Lord Protector of England, which called for committee-men, excise-men and sequestrators to bring in a “true and just Accompt” of their collections.44 Yet, the author couched his demands in deferential language, and the pamphlet included a print honoring England as the champion of the seas. Though the Protectorate may have censored some of the arguments against the excise in the mid-1650s, the earlier polemics, decrying the tax as unjust, arbitrary and illegally imposed, offered an ideology for those who opposed the excise and its hated collectors.   Ibid., p. 3.   Ibid., p. 3. 41 Coffman, Excise Taxation, pp. 129; 136. 42  Ibid., p. 5. 43 Prynne, A Declaration and Protestation Against The Illegal Detestable, Oft-condemned, New Tax and Extortion of EXCISE (London, 28 Oct. 1654); Prynne, The Works of William Prynne of Swainswick, Esquire since his last imprisonment (London, 1655); Demophilos, or, The assertor of the peoples liberty plainly demonstrating by the principles even of nature itself (London, 1658). 44 Thomas Violet, Proposals humbly presented to His Highness Oliver, Lord Protector of England, &c. (London, 1656). 39 40

175

Disaffection.indb 175

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Encountering the Excise-Man In the mid- to late 1640s, crowds in various localities converged upon excise collectors in heated, and, at times, violent encounters. Though crowd violence is the most recognized form of popular political action, historians have not reached a consensus on the extent and impact of these particular exploits. Reflections on this contentious issue often revolve around the most infamous of the violent protests against the new levy: the riot at London’s Smithfield meat market on 15 February 1647, and particularly its impact on the shifts in excise policy that emerged in its wake.45 To engage with the core questions historians raise over resistance to the excise, we must first investigate this notorious riot ourselves. In an attempt to evade the hated tax, one frustrated butcher tried to leave Smithfield without paying the excise on his newly purchased livestock. As he was exiting the market, a guard blocked his cattle’s path and demanded the butcher show a receipt for his payment. Rumors of the butcher’s stance quickly spread through the market, allegedly provoking his fellow butchers to rush upon the excise-men, steal their money and scatter it amongst the crowd. After the initial riot was quelled, a crowd of angry protestors regrouped to burn down the excise house. Horrified by the butchers’ behavior, Parliament issued a declaration asserting that the excise could not be lifted until the public debt had been discharged. Nevertheless, in June 1647 Parliament removed the excise on meat and salt.46 Though Parliament’s decision was influenced by a plethora of concerns, within print culture the reason for the revocation was relatively clear: it was a consequence of popular, violent protests against the excise and its odious collectors at Smithfield, Norwich and throughout Cheshire and Wales.47 Take, for example, the satirical play The Committee-Man Curried, in which the royalist author Samuel Sheppard fictionalized the burning of the excise house in a jeering portrayal of Parliament’s ineptitude in the face of riotous butchers. It was “Suck-dry”, the committee-man, who alerted the excise-man “Common-curse” that the butchers of “Cow-lane, and Smithfield-bars” had “burnt down the Excise house”. Unconvinced that such a terrible “OMEN” had truly occurred, the excise-man sent out his sub-commissioner “shallowbrains” to discover what was behind the bustle in the streets. Upon his return, “shallow-brains” told his master that the butchers were celebrating  For a detailed analysis of the Smithfield Riots, see Braddick, “Popular Politics and Public Policy”. Other riots broke out in Norfolk, Cheshire, Wales and Somerset. 46  A & O, I, pp. 916, 954; A Declaration of the Lords and Commons...Concerning the Excise (London, 22 Feb. 1647), p. 2. The excise was taken off salt produced within England. Ordered by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, that the excise of flesh bee taken off (London, 11 Jun. 1647). 47  Braddick, “Popular Politics”, p. 608. Braddick argues that Parliament’s decision to eradicate the excise on meat resulted from the various political problems of the summer, rather than the butchers’ riot at Smithfield. 45

176

Disaffection.indb 176

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

their recent release from the excise by tying a “picture of an Excise-man” to a pyre, which they burnt in “sacrifice to the God of fire”.48 Terrified that the crowd’s vengeance remained unquenched after this symbolic assault, the excise-man hid from the butchers in a tavern, drowning his worries in wine. In presenting the destruction of the excise house in a violent, carnivalesque demonstration of the butchers’ ascendancy over the excise-man, the royalist Sheppard portrayed the excise-man, “Common-curse”, as a greedy official whose arbitrary powers – for better or worse – had to be curbed by the collective voice and will of the English commons. The alleged “sacrificial” element of the butchers’ retribution against the collectors presents the excise-man as an unnatural presence that had to be expunged from society to regain stability. Sheppard’s tract was printed as assaults on excise-men continued, which prompted Parliament to put forth a new ordinance bemoaning the continued violence despite its generous change in policy.49 Rhetoric, however, does not often match reality, and scholars question the influence this isolated riot had on state policy. In an article devoted to the subject, Mike Braddick claims that the threat of counter-revolution in London was the key catalyst for the elimination of the excise on salt and meat. Though Braddick believes resistance to the tax had some influence on the Long Parliament’s and the Commonwealth’s alterations of the process of collection, he otherwise views physical opposition to the excise as isolated, sporadic and largely ineffectual attempts to put an end to particular excises. By shifting the burden of the excise onto the producer, Braddick argues, resistance was largely confined to those immediately liable for the tax, limiting the outbreak of large-scale, violent riots against collectors. While William Ashworth agrees that resistance to the tax transitioned from violent protests to organized printed onslaughts that focused on specific excises rather than the excise as a fiscal policy, D’Maris Coffman argues that print campaigns from manufacturers already existed in the late 1640s as well as the 1650s. Coffman believes the major transition in forms of resistance to the excise lies in the new discourses launched to attack and to justify the continued collection of the excise after the general cessation of hostilities within England.50 Coffman not only argues that the 1650s saw less violent opposition to the excise and its collectors, but she also claims that printed polemic against the excise was limited as new discourses justifying the tax emerged, and, therefore, the excise was generally excepted amongst the populace at large. While each of these scholars have contributed enormously to our understanding   S. Sheppard, The Committee-Man Curried (London, Jul. 1647), pp. 6–7.   An Ordinance and Declaration...for Re-establishing the Duty of Excise (London, 20 Aug. 1647), pp. 4–5. 50 Ashworth, Customs and Excise, pp. 101–3; Coffman, Excise Taxation, pp. 53–8; Coffman, “The Fiscal Revolution of the Interregnum: Excise Taxation in the British Isles, 1643– 1663” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 2008), pp. 57–77. 48 49

177

Disaffection.indb 177

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

of resistance to the excise and its collectors during the English Revolution, nevertheless there is still considerable disagreement over the impact such opposition had on politics and policies. Much of this debate arises over the approaches and sources used to assess hostility to the excise. Some scholars – particularly those interested in the political dynamics of the English Revolution – examine the threat violence posed to the social order, while historians of fiscal policy are often more concerned with the amount of revenue generated and the stability of the tax over time. Gauging popular hostility toward the excise-man in political culture cannot be accomplished solely by examining large-scale protests against these odious collectors or divorcing grassroots responses from representations of the excise-men in print. Nor can it be measured through analyses of shifts in policy or total revenue collected alone. Face-to-face interactions with farmers and sub-commissioners fostered rumors of their greed and arbitrary acts, and once these melded with printed representations of these “odious” creatures, an image of the “excise-man” became imbedded in popular mentalities – a figure ready to be conjured forth at times of social or political crisis. The “Commoncurse” of the excise became tied to perceptions of the “unnatural” acts of its collectors, and together they bred distrust and fear over the practices of a new regime that had relatively obvious centralizing impulses. The presence of excise-men in communities not only unsettled customary social and power relations by usurping local autonomy, but also wrought tensions in places of sociability and threatened the stability of household economies. Disaffected and royalist pamphleteers regularly exacerbated the threat these collectors posed to the social order by dwelling on the long-term consequences of their violence against poorer industrious individuals, communities and families. These narratives of resistance to the excise-man became about far more than the excise: disaffected authors used excise collectors as symbols of the arbitrary, unnatural power the state had wrongfully stripped from the commonality. Women responsible for maintaining household economies regularly appear in narratives of encounters with the excise-man during the 1640s and 1650s. While it could be argued that women’s hostility to the excise should be regarded as specific since it may relate to their own domestic concerns versus a general hostility to the excise, female agency and vulnerability loom large in the construction of early modern social and gender relations.51 Women had long justified their engagement in politics when their efforts resisted policies   For example, Mike Braddick questions whether a Drayton riot reflects that community’s rejection of the excise. Rather than viewing such violence as a rejection of the tax’s legality, he argues “the disorders might be better viewed as being against certain excises rather than the excise”. For Braddick, this riot represents a specific grievance of a group of people – women – who most likely protested the tax on meat and salt. While the group was described as being largely made up of women, this classification of people incorporates roughly half of society. See Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, pp. 182–3. 51

178

Disaffection.indb 178

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

and practices that disrupted household economies and relations. Those who protested against the excise and its collectors in regional marketplaces in the 1640s raised concerns that echoed women’s complaints during food riots earlier that century. As the purveyors and sellers of daily goods for families, women engaged in many of the social and economic exchanges within local marketplaces, so much so that historians often designate the marketplace as a female domain.52 Yet, by framing their engagement in marketplace protests as a necessary defense of their household duties, women could circumvent patriarchal codes of conduct that demanded silence, deference and inaction.53 Women who continued to use their domestic responsibilities to justify overt political action during the Revolution were able to inform the formation and reception of controversial policies such as the excise. The figure of the intrusive excise-man who entered female domains to subvert the social order provided a perfect target for women’s activism. During the first years that both king and parliament waged the excise tax, women frequently confronted the excise-man collecting taxes placed on commodities sold at the local marketplace. When excise-men came to Drayton market in February 1648, their presence disrupted the customary practices of interaction and transactions at this central social and economic site. Since the description of the confrontation at Drayton comes from the newsbook The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, the actual events may be obscured in embellishment, but these fictive elements can be quite telling. According to the Intelligencer, the women who protested the excise in Drayton’s marketplace perceived the excise-men as invading, unwelcome outsiders who extracted money from the community seemingly for financial gain. The newsbook’s recounting of the conflict at Drayton presents the women who actively rejected the excise-men as justly defending their customary ability to maintain the household. Allegedly 100 women “violently opposed” the collectors’ intrusion at the market and refused “to sit quietly for several days”. Responding to a plea from the barraged excise-men, fifty soldiers marched into Drayton in support of the collectors. Upon their arrival, local men “seconded” the protesting women in their confrontation with the excise-men, increasing the numbers and “resolution” of the opposition. According to the Intelligencer, this collective gathered in the marketplace and “fell upon the Soldiers”, who responded by shooting two men. The women remained relentless, “liberally” throwing “blowes and thrusts” until the Soldiers “ran away”. The “Amazonian women” took five pounds “ransom” for the excise-men, and had “a guard to   See, for example, Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, pp. 182–3; John Walter, “Grain Riots and Popular Attitudes to the Law: Maldon and the Crisis of 1639”, reprinted in Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England (Manchester, 2006), pp. 40–1; E.P. Thompson, “The Moral Economy of the Crowd in the Eighteenth Century”, reprinted in E.P. Thompson, Customs in Common (New York, 1991), pp. 233–5; Laura Gowing, “The Freedom of the Streets”, pp. 137–45. 53  Shepard, “Meanings of Manhood”, pp. 94–5; Hughes, Gender and the English Revolution, p. 19. 52

179

Disaffection.indb 179

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

conduct them over the Bridge, it being their way out of Town, with safety”.54 According to the Intelligencer, local women not only protected their interests and those of their communities by physically assaulting these men, but also by ceremoniously expelling the excise-men from the marketplace rather than causing serious injury to the collectors. This narrative of events at Drayton details a moment of gender inversion provoked by the excise-man, but it also suggests that the aggressive acts of the Drayton women would ultimately lead to the stabilization of gender and familial relations in their community. This group of women subverted the role of the state’s officials and soldiers, rejecting the state’s encroachment and disruption in their community. The presentation of women triumphing over troopers and tax officials had obvious social connotations. Though the pamphleteer mocked the actions of the “Amazonian” women, his language was typical of authors who championed episodes of social and gender reversal to fabricate a rhetorical argument about the current social and political climate – it both celebrated, but also problematized, female agency. A news account of a protest allegedly launched by women at Haverfordwest in 1644 presented the female protestors in the same vein. Several of the “poorer sort of women” reportedly caused a “mutiny” at the meeting of the excise commissioners and local inhabitants at the town hall. Having forced the commissioners back to their lodgings, the women launched a fresh assault at the excise-men’s quarters the following day.55 Like the Drayton women, those participating in the confrontation in the town hall and local inn at Haverfordwest did not simply refuse to pay the excise – they physically removed the taxmen from their community. Regardless of the objectives of either author, the accounts of the protests at Drayton and Haverfordwest revealed subordinate people’s ability to exercise power in defense of popular custom. The political activism unleashed by civil war empowered weaker members of the English commonality to resist policies that threatened communities and practices that undermined individual and local agency. The newsbooks disseminated tales of the women’s resistance beyond local society and influenced public perceptions of the excise-man. The Intelligencer’s narrative of the riots at Drayton depicts a protest against unwelcome disruptions to the community’s stability, of which female market-goers and peddlers were an important part. In both narratives, the crowds’ ritualistic violence against the collectors reflected and informed the popular perception of the excise-men as unjust, unscrupulous collectors who threatened communal relations.56 Moving the collection of the excise outside of marketplaces may have quelled protests such as those at Smithfield and Drayton, but the continuance of the excise still challenged women’s abilities to maintain their   The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer, no. 248 (15–22 Feb. 1648), p. 845.   Quoted in John Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War, 1630–1648 (London, 1999), p. 170; Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, p. 179. 56 Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, p. 182. 54 55

180

Disaffection.indb 180

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

households. Several women continued to interact with excise-men on their doorsteps or in their homes in the 1650s, and new rhetoric accompanied this shift in relations between women, communities and excise-men. When the state empowered the excise-man to seize goods for failure to make payment, it ensured hostile encounters would occur between female heads of households and the collectors, but the tenor of these meetings and the violence perpetrated deviated from early accounts of female agency at the marketplace. James Ibeson’s 1652 petition from the West Riding of Yorkshire remonstrated against “the intollerable Burden and Abuses committed by the Farmers and Officers of Excise” amongst members of that community, including its female inhabitants.57 According to Ibeson, the excise commissioner’s men were “imployed with Pistols, Swords and Staves, rooking up and downe the Countrie, deceiving, and cheating the people (especially those that have stood for the Parliament)”. They forced themselves into people’s homes and seized goods “upon very sleight or no occasion”.58 In one graphic example, Ibeson claimed that the excise-men invaded a local woman’s home, seizing forty shillings worth of goods though her debt was “not above three pence”. The encounter with the excise-men destabilized the “poore woman” who attempted to “cut her childrens throats” and commit suicide. It was only by “Gods mercy” that the woman stopped herself, though she remained “distracted” long after the incident.59 According to Ibeson’s petition, the excise-man not only extracted economic resources from local society, but also spread social disorder like a disease within communities. Ibeson’s petition did not merely accuse these men of arbitrary tactics and general harassment, it presented the acts of excise-men as contrary to natural laws, and, thus, a distinct threat to social and political order. The power-hungry and oppressive collectors, Ibeson alleged, upended the social order by forcing “[s]ervants … to swear against Masters, and children against parents” and “the people” are similarly compelled “to sweare against themselves”. Ibeson declared such behavior violated both “the law of nature” and “the law of God”, and served as “a meanes to increase unnaturall affection, lying and perjury”.60 Narratives of the excise-man’s inversion of the natural order further empowered women’s resistance to the excise and its collectors. Despite its rhetorical fervor, Ibeson’s depiction of the excise-man’s destructive behavior resonates in the account of an assault against Issabell Heart of York in 1658. Years after the state’s attempt to ease the burden of collection through various ordinances and negotiations, the excise-men Robert Opley and William Nelson visited people’s homes to collect the tax for the office of the excise.61 That November, Heart lodged a complaint against the violent  Ibeson, To the Supream Authority, p. 1.  Ibid., p. 2. 59  Ibid., p. 3. 60 Ibeson, To the Supream Authority, p. 2. 61  Ibid., ASSI 45/5/5 fols. 51–4. 57 58

181

Disaffection.indb 181

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

behavior of both excise collectors. According to a deposition, Heart claimed that Opley and Nelson entered her house with the constable “to destreine of [her] hunsbands goods for some money hir husband [owed] them”. She asked the two “to forbeare till night” when her husband “would pay them then, or the next morning at furthest”. Evidently, Nelson and Opley refused and “began to take down hir pewter dishes”. When she attempted to stop them, “Opley bruched at hir with his foote soe that she fell down and was not consable what condition she was in nor what harme she had gotten”. At the time Heart was pregnant, and she claimed that the excise-man’s rough treatment of her caused Heart to miscarry. According to her testimony, Heart proceeded to become “very ill by the said bruch and was in great danger of death”.62 Elizabeth Prince, the wife of a local goldsmith, happened to pass the Hearts’ house shortly after Isabell had been struck. According to Prince, “she saw … Issabell lyeing in the Entry with hir mouth bloody” and “being affrightened clapped hir hands and thought she had beene dead”. Prince was about to call “hir neighbors” when she turned back and saw that Heart had “gotten to the doore and told the excise-men that hir goods was neither sto[l]ne nor plundred”.63 Though Heart suffered from the alleged abuse more directly, both women played witness to the destructive behavior of the two excisemen. Indeed, women’s awareness of prenatal health and the value of household goods likely added weight to Prince and Heart’s testimonies against the acts of Nelson and Opley.64 Elizabeth Prince’s instinct to “call hir neighbors” after finding Heart injured also reveals that interpersonal conflicts with the excise-man could involve and affect the community and embolden women to defend it from the collector’s unnatural acts. Issabell Heart’s recovery may have forestalled the need for immediate communication with her neighbors, but rumors of the violent clash were bound to spread. Though Heart’s miscarriage may have had little to do with this altercation, her accusations would have traction for they mirrored popular representations of excise-men’s arbitrary practices. Furthermore, Opley’s and Nelson’s reputation was likely already informed by a clash between them and another inhabitant from earlier that month. The two collectors paid a visit to the tailor John Bayole’s house and demanded the amount due to the office. Though the tailor claimed to have already paid the tax, the collectors proceeded to confiscate some of his pewter for non-payment.65 The courts forced him to provide a statement by a woman who was present when he paid the tax at the excise office. She deposed that Bayole had paid, but the official, Thomas Dyer, had refused to give him a receipt for it.66 Both of these   Ibid., fol. 54.   Ibid., ASSI 45/5/5 fol. 53. 64  Alexandra Shepard, Accounting for Oneself: Worth, Status, and the Social Order in Early Modern England (Oxford, 2015), pp. 28; 224–5. 65  Ibid., fol. 51. 66  Ibid., fol. 52. 62 63

182

Disaffection.indb 182

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

cases reveal belief in – if not necessarily the reality of – the corrupt practices of excise-men, as well as the role women played in uncovering their thievery and “unnatural” acts that could cause serious damage to a household’s or a community’s welfare. While the actual reaction of the York community to these events is not chronicled, the fact that Opley and Nelson had caused two conflicts serious enough to involve the mayor within days of each other reveals that their disruptive presence did not pass unnoticed.67 Ibeson’s earlier petition from the West Riding bemoaning the excise-men’s invasion of private homes “upon very sleight or no occasion” also implies that these incidents were not unprecedented. Though Yorkshire was one of the only regions to experience active resistance to the excise through the 1650s, evasion of the excise was more widespread. Historians tend to view evasion – the accusation against the Heart household – as a frequent form of resistance to the excise, but a relatively insignificant one as the state managed it through responsive legislation and new collection policies. At first glance, individual or communal evasion, especially when compared to the crowd actions of the late 1640s, looks mundane, limited in interest and overwhelmingly personal. Yet, Issabell Heart’s accusation and Ibeson’s pamphlet suggests the excise-man’s invasion of communities and households held a deep cultural meaning for inhabitants that they did not ascribe to the acts of collectors of the assessments and other levies. Evasion, as we have seen, could lead to the excise-man’s appearance in homes or workplaces, by force if necessary. Seizing goods for non-payment may not have been specific to excise policy, but the moment of interaction with the officers that arose as part of the policy of distraint, rather than the policy itself, requires closer examination. As Mike Braddick has suggested, the excise – whether collected by an “outsider” or by local power brokers – garnered its own forms of resistance. While evasion of the tax drove many of these interactions between individuals and the collectors, prevalent constructions of the excise-man’s character also informed many and steered much of the interaction. When a couple of excise officers entered Rowland Houghton’s butcher’s shop in Derbyshire to distrain goods, they encountered his wife, Margery, who allegedly welcomed them with “reviling” speeches and abuse. According to Ralph Hall, a local constable sent in to support the collectors, Margery also tried to prevent their entrance by holding the shop door closed. In his petition to the indemnity committee, Hall claimed his attempt to push the door against her to gain entry resulted in the Rowlands bringing a suit against him in 1652.68 Whether or not the Rowlands owed arrears, the state-sanctioned policy of seizing goods for non-payment provoked wives such as Margery to protect their household economies from the aggressive tactics of the excise-men. 67  All depositions against Opley and Nelson were taken before Robert Florner, Mayor of York. See ibid., ASSI 45/5/5 fols. 51–4. 68  TNA, SP 24/51, Petition of Ralph Hall; Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, p. 176.

183

Disaffection.indb 183

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

To limit the possibilities for evasion, in 1649 the Commonwealth created gaugers, who were required to descend into shops and cellars to ensure that goods – particularly beer – had been valued and weighed properly. At times brewers were able to negotiate an upfront payment with farmers and even some sub-commissioners to avoid the actual measurement of their product.69 Copies of blank warrants provided to collectors reveal the tensions inherent in this mixed system of exaction and collection, and how it could inspire circumvention and evasion. These warrants not only empowered excise commissioners to distrain goods or persons for non-payment, but also ordered “Constables, Officers, as well as Military as others” to assist in the execution of the warrant.70 The extraordinary power to seize and imprison delinquents, though not unprecedented, fueled accusations of the excise-man’s arbitrary, unjust and illegal practices. One such generic warrant from Buckinghamshire shows how the vagaries of these documents enabled excise officers to seize an arbitrary amount of goods from the alleged defaulters using one sheet alone. Each of the underwritten “inhabitants of Buckinghamshire” owed the precise same amount of overdue excise – £5.71 Undoubtedly evasion of the state’s excise policy and hostility to its infamous collectors – though distinct – were deeply intertwined throughout the 1640s and 1650s. These connections emerged in a scuffle between several inhabitants of Colchester and an excise commissioner in October 1647. In his testimonial, the collector William Gardiner claimed that Thomas Shelley, Edward Shelley, Mathew Sudlery and three others approached him at the door of the excise office and demanded to know upon “what authority hee did take excise” in Colchester whereas “in other places they tooke none”. The angered men also accused Gardiner and his fellow collectors of lining their pockets with the fruits of the excise to “maintenye themselves”. Sudlery threatened Gardiner, noting that if he dared to send out his excise-man “to the Brewers they would teare” him from “lymbe to lymbe”. In defense of his office, Gardiner replied that Shelley and the others could view Parliament’s ordinance lying upon the table, to which Sudlery scoffed “Parliament, Parliament, I know noe such thing they are gone”, and another man snatched the ordinance as they finally left the excise office door.72 This rejection of the excise office’s authority was tied to a rejection of parliamentary authority – but the records suggest it was used as an ideological justification to deny the collectors. Over the course of the 1650s, the argument that the excise was unlawful became less prevalent, but the other crime the Colchester men’s harsh words insinuated – that Gardiner and his men collected the excise unfairly  Coffman, Excise Taxation, pp. 147–8.   For an example of one of these printed warrants, see TNA, SP 24/36, Broomfield and Howe vs. William Tebbey. 71 Ibid. 72  ERO Chelmsford, DB 5 Sb2/9 fol. 10b, 14 Oct. 1647. 69 70

184

Disaffection.indb 184

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

and arbitrarily – emerged from the discourse that painted the excise-men as parasites whose arbitrary powers were unjust and unnatural. Rumors of previous riots occasionally provoked other large protests, yet more frequently they inspired speech acts or ritualistic violence, such as when the Hertfordshire butcher threatened to “beat” the excise-man and “burn his house as the Excise House in London had been burned”.73 In February 1651, William Pullein, a butcher of the parliamentarian city of Bradford, was accused of stating that “all that ever had any hand in the Excise are all Rogues and Theeves, and that he never did or would pay any Excise”.74 Not only does Pullein’s statement suggest that the reason behind his refusal to pay in part resulted from his hostility to the excise-man, but also it came well after the Commonwealth revoked the excise on meat, but not yet on cloth – a major industry in Bradford. During a confrontation between two adversaries at Cheddar, Henry Bankes charged the excise-man John Rogers with being “a peeping rogue, a caterpillar rogue”, and urged him to disown his “roguish exercise”, referencing his collection of the excise.75 By using these common slanderous jibes against the excise-men, those alienated by excise policies employed terms from traditional popular political culture that lumped the collectors with other unwelcome, disruptive outcasts whose “roguish” ways required justice. This name-calling may appear harmless on the surface, but Cromwell’s Protectorate was very concerned by this manifestation of social conflict. In July 1654, “provoking” language and gestures became punishable offenses.76 Pullein and Bankes’s statements suggest that both men presumed the deviant character of the excise-man released them from any obligation to pay the tax, demonstrating that the stigma attached to the excise-man could undermine the legitimacy of the state’s authority. Whether personal experience, a concern for local industries or the influence of popular characterizations of the excise-men inspired Pullein’s and Bankes’s provocative utterances, the language of insult they employed against the excise-man figure coincided with the rhetoric used to demonize the tax collectors in print. Much of the rhetoric of royalist propagandists and other disaffected pamphleteers attempted to further the popular conception of the excise-man as an intrusive thief, portraying him as a parasite that fed off communities and interfered with sociability.77 On the title page of the satire The Vindication of Christmas, people lament that they are unable to provide Father Christmas with strong ale thanks to “the oppressing Ringworm called   Hertfordshire County Records: Calendars to the Sessions Books, Sessions Minute Book and other Sessions Records, 1619–1833, ed. William Le Hardy, vol. 5 (Hertford, 1905), p. 87. 74  WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/3 fol. 117b. 75  Quoted in Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, p. 186. See also Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, p. 243. 76  A & O, II, pp. 319–20. For an in-depth description of this ordinance, see Boswell, “Provoking Disorder: The Politics of Speech in Protectorate Middlesex”. 77  McElligott, “The Politics of Sexual Libel: Royalist Propaganda in the 1640s”, Huntington Library Quarterly, 67 (2004), p. 91. 73

185

Disaffection.indb 185

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Excize”.78 In a satirical description of the excise on ale and beer, The Royall Diurnall referred to the excise-men as “thirty Malt-wormes” who collected the excise on home-brewed ale so that “Drinke may come to be dear as our Victualls, Cloathing, and House-Rent”. When alluding to the excise riots in the west of England, the Diurnall referred to the besieged excise-men as “Catter-pillers” who “devour their Brethern”.79 A black-letter broadside ballad from 1653 that derisively referenced “Excise-men” as “Knaves”, “Imps” and “Goblins” lamented that “Both Citie and Countrey are almost undone/ By these Caterpillars which swarm’d in the Nation”.80 William Prynne similarly described the treacherous actions of “those wicked Vermins the Excise-men”, whose criminal habits of cutting off ears and knocking out brains were so well known that it would be a waste “of expense … to record them”.81 Depicting the excise-men as “Pests, Vipers, Locusts and Caterpillers”, Prynne’s Devil Dutch Excise not only equated the collectors with parasites, but also claimed they were destructive to the entire “Kingdome and Nation” – not only those liable for the tax itself. Thus, evasion was intimately linked with popular conceptions of the excise-man’s illegitimacy, which often had little to do with the excise’s legality. Petitions and pamphlets written as a plea for a change in excise policies squarely placed the blame for the tax’s insurmountable burden on the shoulders of the greedy excise-man, whose arbitrary actions and unjust exactions were questioned. A newsbook printed a petition from the East Riding of Yorkshire that singled out the excise-man as a key source of hostility. They complained of “the great burthern of Excise, where there is taken (by the Agent thereof) by cruelty and oppression (more then by either Act or Ordinance intended) as much or would be a good Revenue to the Common Wealth, who purchase Lands and build great houses for themselves”.82 Ibeson’s petition from the West Riding similarly remonstrated against “the intollerable Burden and Abuses committed by the Farmers and Officers of Excise”.83 According to Ibeson, the excise commissioner’s men “are imployed with Pistols, Swords and Staves, rooking up and downe the Countrie, deceiving, and cheating the people (especially those that have stood for the Parliament)”. They force themselves into people’s homes and seize goods “upon very sleight or no occasion”.84 Ibeson clearly places the primary responsibility with the excise farmer, who allows “his servants no wages … but what they can get by catching harrassing, and poleing the   The Vindication of Christmas (London, 23 Dec. 1652).   The Royal Diurnall (For King Charls the II), no. 4 (11–19 Mar. 1650). 80  The Parliament Routed: Or, Here’s a HOUSE to be Let. I Hope that England after May Jarres, Shall be at Peace, and Give No Way to Warres: O Lord Protect the General that He May be the Agent o our Unitie (1653). 81 Ibid., p. 7. McElligott, “The Politics of Sexual Libel”, p. 91. 82  A Perfect Account (10–17 Dec. 1651), p. 399. 83 Ibeson, To the Supream Authority. 84 Ibid., p. 2. 78

79

186

Disaffection.indb 186

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

people”. These actions result in the exaction of exorbitant amounts of money, which is “wasted and consumed by the Farmers and their creatures”.85 The papers of the Committee for Regulating the Excise and the Committee and Commissioners for Indemnity are spotted with cases involving encounters between excise-men and civilians.86 Given the extraordinary powers regularly granted to excise commissioners, farmers and sub-collectors, common law cases against the excise-men and the armed soldiers who occasionally attended them alleged that these men had egregiously abused their power and the trust of the Commonwealth. In response, the excise-men plead against charges with their own accusations of violence and intimidation within the localities. Since most of the records of the indemnity committee related to the excise come from collectors, extrapolating the precise grievances of and rhetoric used by those accused of non-payment poses a dilemma. In certain cases, the collectors rigorously defended themselves by detailing the hostility and violence exhibited by local “evaders”. In a detailed petition from Daniel Prescott, a sub-commissioner for the excise in Worcestershire, Prescott described the violent encounter between his men and salt workers in Droitwich in September 1649. Knowing the region’s history of resistance and evasion, Prescott entered the town with additional officers and “others” to ensure an eventless collection of the excise. Having installed themselves in the local excise house, Prescott and his associates began to collect the excise with “little opposition”, until “word was brought round that the saltmen began to threaten to beat the petitioners out of town”. Though Prescott’s petition alleges that the enraged saltmen desired to “kill them”, if we look beyond this potential exaggeration it is clear that the saltmen wished to remove the excising “rogues” from their community using intimidation and, perhaps, the threat of deadly violence.87 Excise-men and local evaders may well have embellished narratives of their encounters, yet reports of such dealings continued to influence popular conceptions of the excise-man as a “rogue”, “thief” and “vermin”. The persistent representation of the excise collectors using these laden terms made local authorities more inclined to allege excise-men abused their authority when exacting funds from the community. Following a rash of complaints before the Devon sessions in 1653, the court ordered local officials to investigate the public charges against two excise-men, Middleton and Rice, accused of the “rigorous prosecution if the Acts and Ordinance of Parliament pertaining to the excise”. The court entrusted the local leaders with both ensuring the excise was collected, but also with reforming “the abuses in the collection

 Ibid., p. 5.  Coffman, Excise Taxation, p. 80; Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, p. 175. The Committee for the Regulation of the Excise was active during the Commonwealth, while the Committee and Commissioners for Indemnity met from 1647 to 1656. 87  TNA, SP 24/70, Prescott; Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, pp. 180–1. 85 86

187

Disaffection.indb 187

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

thereof for the ease of the Good people of this County”.88 Implicit in this directive is a defense of local authority and autonomy: traditional authorities are those to be trusted with the task of collecting and overseeing the excise, for the infamous excise-men have abused their power and unsettled the trust between the people and the Commonwealth. Popular perceptions of the excise-man fed arguments supporting the evasion of the excise without having to debate the legality of the tax. The veritable, visceral reactions the excise-man drew from individuals and communities reveals that expressions of disdain were not empty words, and that it was not those liable to the tax alone who viewed the excise-man as a threat to the community. The following section will explore how the view of the excise-man as a corrosive and invasive pest that circulated in oral and print culture fostered the argument that this threat to the commonality had to be eradicated by the hands of the people. The Excise-man as the Scourge of the Commonality Whether through the use of slanderous jibes or ritualistic violence, popular resistance to the excise-man informed the political discourse that justified opposition to those who threatened local customary practices. The danger excise-men posed in popular mentalities led invested groups, individuals and communities to orchestrate pre-emptive, organized assaults on the collectors. The frequent depiction of the excise-man as a pest that disrupted the social order made him a problem for all members of society – not just those directly responsible for paying the tax. Thus, by exploiting the theme of the excise-man as “vermin” that had to be expunged from English society at the hands of the people, political pamphleteers connected minor skirmishes to larger criticisms of the interregnum state’s violation of customary politics. Furthermore, the very presence of an agent of the excise in the social spaces of a community bred confrontation. Disaffected authors readily encouraged such behavior, while royalist pamphleteers celebrated popular resistance as evidence of vibrant popular royalism. Even in isolated, localized incidents, we can see how the discourse of the commonality influenced active responses to the threat posed by these intrusive agents. While hard-hit communities attempted to negotiate the implementation of policies that threatened their livelihoods and the precarious balance of power established between rulers and ruled, disaffected authors depicted concentrated incidents against the excise-man as national concerns. As the state continued to wage the unpopular excise in communities across the nation, royalist authors used accounts of resistance to conjure an image   DHC, QS 1/9, 12 Jul. 1653 sessions. Note this case comes after the 1652 legislation that gave local justices the power to isolate and appoint farmers. See Coffman, Excise Taxation, p. 107.

88

188

Disaffection.indb 188

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

of a united commons that would reveal the illegitimacy of the new regime, by force if necessary.89 Their rhetoric suggested that through its defense of custom, the English commons protected the paternalistic traditions of the monarchy from the foreign policies of the new regime. Some of the protestors may have been royalists, but the excise often provoked the resentment of even the most ardent supporters of the Commonwealth and Protectorate. By placing accounts of these protests within royalist polemic, authors not only suggested that a return to monarchy would eliminate the threat posed by the excise and its collection, but they also insinuated that such events were in fact evidence of royalist activity. Until recently, studies of royalist literature often overlooked how authors celebrated grassroots resistance and the politics of custom. Scholars of cavalier literature tend to give primacy to the lines of royalist rhetoric lauding the traditional social order or the agency of politicos and their influence on propaganda and the public.90 However, during the 1650s it was the state-sponsored newsbooks that demeaned popular violence and its perpetrators by using derogatory language in reference to the crowd, while royalist accounts shied away from terms like “the rabble” in favor of less hostile phrases such as “the common people”. By referring to crowd activity as a rise of the commons, these royalist authors were drawing upon the historic image of a broadly based but united commonality rising in resistance to policies that impoverished the industrious middling and poorer sort across the nation. In discourses of popular rebellion, the “commonality” had often referenced the uniting of these classes against the oppression of the nobles and the monarch’s “evil councilors”.91 Although the revolutions of the 1640s and the establishment of the English Commonwealth transformed commonweal/th discourse, the traditions of popular rebellion and the legitimacy often granted to the grievances of the commonality continued to present royalist authors with discourse they could use to serve their immediate needs.92 In their allusion to the “common people” assaulting the excise collectors, disaffected authors narrated real social complaints to fashion an imagined royalist commons united in opposition to the state. While the state-licensed A Perfect Diurnall recorded hostile accounts of actions committed by the “Rabble” at Ormskirk, Lancashire, in February 1650, the royalist John Crouch’s The Man in the Moon offered a more generous description of the crowd. The 89 For a discussion the discourse of the “commonality” in pre-revolutionary England, see David Rollison, A Commonwealth of the People, pp. 13–15; Rollison, “The Specter of the Commonalty: Class Struggle and the Commonweal in England before the Atlantic World”, William and Mary Quarterly, 63:2 (2006), 221–52. 90  See, for example, Jerome de Groot, Royalist Identities (New York, 2004), p. xv; Potter, Secret Rites. 91 Rollison, A Commonwealth of the People, pp. 11–12; Rollison, “The Specter of the Commonalty”, pp. 225–31. 92  The Levellers also drew upon the language of a united commonalty in their rhetoric. See Wood, Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics, p. 171.

189

Disaffection.indb 189

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Perfect Diurnall stated that it was a crowd of the “meaner sort” that forced its way into excise-men’s lodgings at a local inn and held the collectors and the constable prisoner in February 1650. In his relation of this organized assault on the excise-men, Crouch applauded the fact that “the common people” were beginning to “rise with one consent against the Excise Catterpillers”. Further describing the crowd’s actions, Crouch asserted that the people righteously confiscated the excise-men’s money, “pumped them soundly and let them goe”. He finished his relation by remarking that these vigilantes set “a very good example for all other Countries” and would “doe much good to the Common-wealth”, referring perhaps to the traditional meaning of “commonwealth” as what is in the best interests of the commonality. Leaving his readers with a warning, Crouch concluded that unless “these Vermin are destroyed, we must never looke to enjoy a peny in our purses, nor our goods and livelihoods in quiet”.93 Crouch, similar to other royalist authors, took the opportunity to suggest these events were symptomatic of the future uprising of the commons against the illegitimate new regime. The Royall Diurnall and Crouch’s The Man in the Moon applauded the crowds’ assaults on the excise-men throughout the West Country in March 1650.94 Describing riots in Dorset, Crouch’s newsbook reported that several “common People” had gathered to stone the excise-men. First, the crowd stripped the collectors not only of their money but also their “Commissions”, the documents drawn up by the new regime that empowered the hated excise-men. After completing this symbolic task, the protesters pursued the collectors “with clubs and Prongs” until a group of soldiers fired shots into the crowd. Crouch ended his account by noting how “odious” the excisemen were to the “Countrys about them”. The Royall Diurnall was even more celebratory: “People in divers Countreys”, the author noted, had “pumped shaved and served” the excise-men “as Catter-pillers should bee that devour their Brethern, so odious are they to God and man”. Further, he remarked that if only the people had “a visible Army to back them … we should soon have these devourers devoured, that now make themselves rich out of the poor as well as the Rich, as well out of the meanest beggar as out of the lately most flourishing King”. Crouch and his fellow royalist pamphleteers not only lauded acts of popular violence, but by depicting the excise-man as a pest polluting different parts of the body politic, they presented the excise as a national issue affecting all members of society.95 Their rendition of the commons of England revealed a broadly based, popular royalism united through their defense of traditional customs and rights.

93  A Perfect Diurnall, no. 12 (25 Feb.–4 Mar. 1650), p. 104; The Man in the Moon, no. 45 (27 Feb.–6 Mar. 1650), p. 359. 94  The Man in the Moon, no. 48 (13–20 Mar. 1650), p. 373; The Royall Diurnall (For King Charls the II), no. 4 (11–19 Mar. 1650); Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, p. 216. 95  McElligott, “The Politics of Sexual Libel”, p. 91.

190

Disaffection.indb 190

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

Fictionalized accounts of crowd violence offered merely one line of rhetoric in royalist discourse of the surrounding the English commonality. In a pamphlet delineating the exploits of the notorious highwayman Captain James Hind, George Fidge celebrates the power a lone individual had to protect customary rights over arbitrary practices. One of the many vignettes of Captain Hind’s exploits celebrates the vigilante justice Hind exercises against a particularly gullible excise-man. The narrator compares the exciseman to the thieves that made up Hind’s “company”. In his description of the highway robbers who struck a deal with certain carriers who came to London, the narrator jeered that “you may easily believe that these Lads did as vigilantly watch their coming from London for their promised money; as the Excise-men did in those days, watch the Cattell going to Smith-Field”.96 Alluding to the clash between butchers and excise-men at Smithfield Market in 1647, Fidge deliberately associates excise-men with highwaymen to link the collectors to a familiar cultural icon also associated with social disorder. Yet, unlike these thieves, Captain James Hind was no ordinary highwayman. In the press, Hind became a figure of popular justice – a “rogue” who imposed the will of the commonality on those whose breach of the public trust required extra-judicial punishment. According to the numerous pamphlets churned out of the pulp press in late 1651 in celebration of his exploits, Hind’s claim to fame was that he allegedly assisted in Charles II’s escape after the battle at Worcester.97 The ambiguity of Hind’s actual crimes as a highwayman provided authors ample material for their tales about the renegade figure, whom many used to attract readers, while undermining the policies of the current regime. In the multiple pamphlets detailing his adventures to a hungry audience, Hind’s crimes often resulted in the correction of social evils, and the excise-man was an obvious target of his brand of justice.98 In depicting Hind as the enforcer of mild, humorous punishments on the unpopular excise-man, the author presents Hind the highwayman as the “hero” of the commons in his criticisms of these collectors and the inept state that empowered them.99 In a tale of Hind’s encounter with an excise-man and his son on the highway to York, the highwayman is transformed into the poor man’s champion, robbing from the rich excise-man to equalize his wrongly gained wealth. Through his witty conversation, Hind convinces the naïve exciseman to adopt him as a second son, and after many choice words he rides with   George Fidge, HIND’S RAMBLE, OR, The Description of his manner and course of life (London, 1651), p. 14. 97  See, for example, A Perfect Account of the Daily Intelligence (5–12 Nov. 1651); Perfect Passages of Every Daies Intelligence (7–14 Nov. 1651); The True and Perfect Relation of the Taking of Captain JAMES HIND (London, 1651). 98  See ibid., pp. 15–17, where Hind helps free an innkeeper from a bailiff and a usurer to whom he is in debt. 99  Lincoln B. Faller, Turned to Account: The Forms and Functions of Criminal Biography in Late Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 136–8. 96

191

Disaffection.indb 191

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

his new “father” and “brother” to a local inn. When Hind rises early the next morning and asks for his “Fathers Mare”, the ostler readily agrees to saddle it. He rides off, leaving the excise-man and his son to find the mare missing when they awake later that morning. Having once duped the excise-man, Hind returns to the scene of his crime several months later, where his victim’s son – “The young Excise-man” – who accuses Hind of stealing his father’s mare, spots him. After the constable is called, Hind asks the young man to prove the mare was his father’s by telling them the horse’s pace. When Hind mounts the steed to test the young man’s guess he quickly rides off, once again outwitting the excise-man. Those who witnessed Hind’s escape toasted his success, laughing all the while at the stupidity of the young collector.100 The moral of the story is clear: having deceived the excise-men twice, Hind had earned the right to the horse. Furthermore, the author described the horse as “one of the best in England”, emphasizing the commonly held notion that excise-men enriched themselves through their distasteful trade. By having Hind steal the collector’s horse, the author also alludes to the transient lifestyle of the “outsider” excise-man who intrudes on communities.101 In Captain Hind’s triumph over the excise-man, the renegade highwayman – a base commoner – is portrayed as the upholder of social values. Though Hind’s brand of “justice” may seem exceptional, it overlaps with a reoccurring discourse justifying the active resistance of the English commons to any arbitrary power who strips the commonality of their rights. Royalists were by no means alone. As several historians have suggested, arguably the biggest threat the excise and its collectors posed was through the alienation of former supporters. By depicting the corrupt practices of the excise-man, James Ibeson’s petition voiced objections to the excise-man’s deviance rather than to the tax itself and thus avoided directly attacking the state. Nevertheless, Ibeson ultimately warned Parliament “that if any evill designe or invasion should happen, in, or against this Nation, it is to be feared, that the generallity of the people (by their discontents) would joyn not only against their owne good, but against the good of this Commonwealth”.102 Collectively, these petitioners and pamphleteers described the excise-man as a parasite born in the chaos of the Commonwealth, slowly eating its way through the social fabric. This discourse urging the protection of customary rights and the commonwealth is echoed in pre-emptive, orchestrated resistance to the excise-man’s presence in communities. On occasion, the public response to the excise collectors closely resembled that of certain French communities to the arrival of the hated élus. In Urban Protest in Seventeenth-Century France, William Beik   A Pill to purge Melancholy Or, Merry Newes from Newgate, Wherein is set Forth, the Pleasant Jest, Witty Conceits, and Excellent Couzenages, of Captain James Hind, and his Associates… (London, 1652), pp. 11–15. 101  Ibid., p. 1. 102  Ibid., p. 5. 100

192

Disaffection.indb 192

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

identifies a pattern amongst urban protesters which he has designated “the culture of retribution”. Beik develops previous theories espoused by scholars such as E.P. Thompson and James C. Scott regarding the “moral economy” of the crowd. In his work, Beik utilizes a loose definition of moral economy, claiming that it amounted to a crowd’s moral objection to a perceived disruption in social order.103 Historians such as Thompson designate the actions of the crowd as an attempt to restore traditional order. Beik, on the other hand, claims that rather than acting in opposition to innovation in favor of the normative past, the crowd demonstrates “an almost palpable desire to punish the offending authority for misdeeds perceived as a violation of trust”. According to Beik, when “individual outrage” turns into “collective protest”, an “impulse” to inflict punishment occurs within a crowd.104 While Beik’s emphasis on “retribution” rather than the “normative past” is insightful, this culture of retribution was not necessarily impulsive or dependent upon crowd violence for effect. Often these protests incorporated assaults against the excise-man that were designed prior to his entrance into a community. Furthermore, particular physical and verbal encounters between Englishmen and women and the excise-man display how “individual outrage” did not require a transition into “collective protest” for the implementation of retribution against the excise-man. People punished these offenders through ritualistic violence, but also through defamation. The denigration of the excise-man in print, rumors of his corruptive and arbitrary practices, and – for some – previous interactions with collectors combined to create an atmosphere in which even the sight of an exciseman could provoke heated responses in individuals and communities. The marketplace was only one of several key social sites in which locals came face-to-face with the infamous collector. Alehouses and inns remained places where keepers and their loyal customers encountered the infamous collectors throughout the 1650s. Not only were keepers who produced their own drink liable for the tax, but also such venues served as local bases of many traveling excise-men. Whether he lurked at the local inn, on a neighbor’s doorstep, or in the high street, wary locals continued to interact with collectors. With their reputations often preceding their entrance into a community, the excise-men’s invasion into their social sites provoked locals to dole out slanderous barbs and threats of violence to protect the customary politics and social norms of their communities. 103 William Beik, Urban Protest in Seventeenth-Century France (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 49–51. See also Thompson, “The Moral Economy of the Crowd in the Eighteenth Century”, pp. 185–258; James C. Scott, The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia (New Haven, CT, 1976). For other accounts of tax revolts in early modern France, see Yves Marie Bercé, History of Peasant Revolts: The Social Origins of Rebellion in Early Modern France, trans. Amanda Whitmore (Ithaca, NY, 1990); Perez Zagorin, Rebels and Rulers, 1500–1660, vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1982). 104 Beik, Urban Protest, pp. 50–1.

193

Disaffection.indb 193

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

At a drinking parlor of an inn at Gisburne, Yorkshire, the appearance of a couple of “roguish” excise-men provoked one tippler to challenge their leader to a duel. In October 1650, Peter Atkinson and William Shaw – two weary “Excise Masters” – settled in at Roger Farrand’s to take a quick kip in a parlor.105 Christopher Bowcocke of Barnold Sweeke came in to get Atkinson in order to have a drink, and on their quest to quench their thirst, the two men passed a parlor filled with a lively company of drinkers. Having joined the crew, Atkinson and a fellow tippler, Captain Barcroft, soon “fell att wordes about their manhood”, which provoked Atkinson to throw a can of ale into the Captain’s face.106 According to Atkinson, Barcroft goaded him with jeers, saying Atkinson was “an exciseinge rouge and hee would justifie itt to his face” and that he and Shaw “were both rouges and hee would justifie itt”. In an apparent attempt to ameliorate the situation, another drinker, Daye, “did drinke” to Atkinson, who claimed to have “received itt”, replying to Barcroft, “that hee desired noe such uncivill language from him”. Barcroft then “started upp and sayd he would make a rogue” of Atkinson, who replied to this threat with the can of ale.107 According to another witness, William Walker, when Daye drank to Atkinson, Atkinson took the drink, tossed it into Barcroft’s face, and said nothing.108 The constable – who appears to have been at the inn socializing – left the room when the fight broke out, though he claimed he later returned “to preserve the Publique peace feareing some mischeife”. Upon his re-entry he noticed that Shaw, awakened by the noise, had also joined in the fight. Barcroft, Shaw, Atkinson and Thomas Daye were all on the ground struggling. Apparently Barcroft and Atkinson were injured, but neither very seriously.109 While the presence of excise-men did not elicit scorn amongst all the inn’s patrons, their presence nevertheless unsettled the rites and rituals of male sociability. Indeed, a closer look at the evidence shows that Barcroft and Shaw had met earlier that day. According to two depositions, the “Excise master” Shaw had an altercation with Barcroft around noon, in which the captain had “pointed to the field calling them Rogues and traytors and said he would mainteine it”.110 The fact that Barcroft “pointed to the field” suggests he challenged the excise-man to a public duel – perhaps looking for glory by defeating the exciseman in a staged, deadly fight. The depositions indicate that other members of the community had been involved in the skirmish and attempted to maintain peace. Christopher Bowcocke claimed that “Shaw and Barcroft hadd fallen out and appointed the field, but was agreed againe by this informant and

  TNA, ASSI 45/3/2 fols. 154–7.   Ibid., fol. 156. 107  Ibid., fol. 155. 108  Ibid., fol. 157. 109  Ibid., fol. 156. 110  Ibid., fol. 155. 105 106

194

Disaffection.indb 194

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

one Thomas Lester”.111 They may well have succeeded had Bowcocke not brought Atkinson into the drinking parlor. Nevertheless, hostility toward the excise-men had been displayed prior to the night’s drinking. When Barcroft singled out Shaw and Atkinson as “rogues” and “traytors” from his first encounter with the excise-men, he drew upon a larger discourse about the character of these figures. Unwilling to condone their presence in his company, Barcroft’s personal animosity towards the excise-men ensured that rites, rituals and spaces of sociability of this community would transform in their presence. It is possible that Captain Barcroft was simply a contentious man, but even if that were the case, the excise-man was an easy target for his aggression. None of the depositions describe a particular fiscal exchange between Barcroft and the excise collectors that would warrant a hostile reaction; rather, the records suggest that Barcroft singled out Shaw and Atkinson simply because they were “Excise Masters”. According to the depositions, Barcroft’s initial problem lay with Shaw rather than with Atkinson. His actions and words against Atkinson in the inn also suggest he directed his anger at “excise-men” rather than Shaw and Atkinson as people separate from their office. Barcroft’s poignant animosity toward these men – particularly his labeling them “rogues” and “traytors” – accorded with reputation of the collectors circulating in print and oral culture. This suggests it was not the actions of Shaw and Atkinson that fomented a disturbance in the community, but simply the appearance of the notorious excise-men at Gisburne that provoked the commotion at Farrand’s inn. An orchestrated attack on three excise-men in Halifax similarly demonstrates the disorder that the excise-man’s intrusion into local society could create. In June 1655, a group of four alehouse-keepers and one of their wives devised an assault on the collectors while they were “in the execution of their office”, to the point their lives were reportedly “in much dainger”.112 Throughout the 1650s, alehouse-keepers remained liable for the excise either directly, if they brewed their own beverages, or indirectly, if they purchased their ale and beer from a brewer. In either case, the effects of the tax on their trade likely engendered an aggression that these keepers targeted at the odious excise-man. Yet, the organized aspects of this assault suggest that it was a preconceived, ritualistic confrontation that was more widespread than records allege. In addition to the physical attack on the excise-men, others beat a “drum” and rang the bells “backwards” – instruments traditionally used to gather people or to warn them of approaching danger.113 Furthermore, the ceremonial aspects of the assault demonstrate that the assailants found the use of customary rituals necessary to deal with problems that the officious excise-men posed to the Halifax community. Rather than evade the tax, the

  Ibid., fol. 155.   WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/4 fols. 166–167b. 113 Ibid. 111 112

195

Disaffection.indb 195

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

alehouse-keepers exercised popular retribution against the excise-man while their accomplices alerted the community of his disruptive presence. In the streets, inns and shops of England, grumblings and demonstrations against the collectors reveal an undercurrent of popular dissent that emerged at different times and through multiple mediums. Intercepted letters tell a rich tale of planned resistance and defiance in another cloth-producing Yorkshire town three years later. Cromwell’s master spy, Secretary John Thurloe, had uncovered a plot to rise against the excise-men in the marketplace of Leeds in May 1658. According to several testimonies, a dangerous paper was circulated amongst apprentices, servants and journeymen at clothiers’ shops across the town. One young servant claimed that the journeymen in his master’s shop rejoiced after reading the note and announced they would “rise the next morning against the excise-men. They could cuff them, burn their books, and put them out of town”. 114 The plotted uprising may have failed to materialize, but nevertheless the multiple testimonies of cloth-workers and their apprentices underscore their deep belief that they had an obligation to eliminate this threat to their livelihoods. Remaining taxes continued to provoke resentment and distrust amongst those in the textile industry despite the state’s ban on the excise on inland woolens – including those men who had stood for Parliament during the civil wars.115 Without the apparent support of the English commonality, the Protectorate failed to maintain its political legitimacy and fostered disaffection and resistance amongst those suffering under its “arbitrary” policies as personified in the figure of the excise-man. During the economic downturn of 1659, the concept of the excise-man as a parasite, burrowing into the body politic, became a reoccurring theme in the rhetoric against the failing regime and its collectors. The Excise-Man on the Eve of the Restoration In April 1659, Major-Generals Fleetwood and Disbrowe forced Richard Cromwell to dissolve the Third Protectorate Parliament. Under duress from the army, Cromwell recalled the Rump Parliament soon afterward. At the end of May, after the Rump refused to acknowledge him as Protector, Richard resigned. The period of political instability that arose in the aftermath of these events also witnessed the re-emergence of violence against the excise-man, both in print and on the streets. In 1659, poverty forced the Protectorate, the Rump Parliament, and, eventually, the Committee of Safety to call for the collection of the arrears of excise owed throughout the country in order to pay the army. The Protectorate’s re-evaluation of the excise – particularly the farms for beer, ale and cider – resulted in the creation of unrealistic rents   “State Papers, 1658: June (3 of 6)”, and “State Papers, 1658: July (2 of 7)”, in Thurloe Online, vol. 7, pp. 180–9, 234–44. 115 Coffman, Excise Taxation, p. 144.

114

196

Disaffection.indb 196

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

which farmers consistently struggled to meet. Despite these pressures, in 1657 Parliament had curbed the powers of sub-commissioners to issue warrants and fines, which required farmers to request warrants from local justices who were often hostile to the excise-men. The legislation further charged gaugers to enter brewers’ and vinters’ cellars – under the surveillance of local constables – to ensure proper measurements. Gaugers, who worked directly for the farmers and commissioners, were viewed as intrusive agents who threatened local agency.116 These practices of search and seizure came under attack from various sectors of English society, but once again the excise-man – who was in many ways a victim of bad policy – became central to printed criticisms of the tax’s administration. The discourse of the excise-man’s illegitimacy became emblematic of the larger threat interregnum policies posed to social relations and the politics of custom. Due to a looming economic crisis and an inability to pay its soldiers, the recently reinstated Rump Parliament issued a declaration on 10 May 1659 regarding taxes owed to the state. Parliament declared “[t]hat all persons whatsoever shall pay … in all Arrears and Growing Duties, for Customes, Excise and new Impost, Monethly Taxes, and all other Moneys due and payable to the Commonwealth”. The rise of arrears that resulted from the “remodeling” of the excise in 1657 provoked Parliament to order that “all persons imployed for the Receiving and Collecting the same, are hereby impowred and required to act in their several places for Receiving and Collecting the same until the Parliament shall take further Order”.117 Not only were the collectors overdue in their payments to Parliament, but also Parliament now advocated for the use of force in the collection of those payments – an indication that the Rump viewed the growing arrears as the fault of both derelict collectors and recalcitrant traders. Given the economic recession, Parliament’s declaration gave rise to a volatile situation. The decline in trade hit England’s industries relatively hard, and many people were left without the means to pay the inflated tax. The cloth districts, largely well-affected areas in England, suffered acutely from the recession. From the first moments of the civil war, the clubmen of the cloth town of Bradford in the West Riding of Yorkshire had shown support for the parliamentarian cause.118 The Remonstrance from the West Riding previously discussed demonstrates the strong impact the excise had on many clothiers’ affection towards Parliament back in 1652. In 1659, the  “June 1657: An Additional Act for the better improvement and advancing the Receipts of the Excise and New Impost”, in A & O Online, 1186–1223; Coffman, Excise Taxation, pp. 144–51. 117  Tuesday, May 10th. 1659. The Parliament Doth Resolve and Declare, That All Persons Whatsoever Shall Pay, and Hereby are Required to Pay in All Arrears and Growing Duties, For Customs, Excise and New Impost, Monethly Taxes, and All Other Moneys Due and Payable to the Common-wealth (London, 1659). 118  A.J. Hopper, “The Farnley Wood Plot and the Memory of the Civil Wars in Yorkshire”, The Historical Journal, 45:2 (2002), 281–303. 116

197

Disaffection.indb 197

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

situation had become much more dire. Considering that Parliament had made concessions to clothiers on different occasions, their alienation was particularly damaging. During the turmoil of 1659, the excise and its hated collectors once again became a target of popular hostility toward interregnum policies. When seen through this lens, the outbreak of violence in the cloth town of Bradford signifies a logical step on a progression of increasing disaffection with Parliament’s excise policy. After the May declaration reached the Bradford excise house, Edmond Ryall and James Browne fulfilled their duties as excise-men and placed the broadside announcing the policy on Bradford Cross. On 14 May 1659, William Walke of Bradford, a yeoman, took “a great stone foure pounde weight” and launched it at the door of the excise house wherein both Ryall and Browne were stationed. Upon entry, Walke “charged at them in their office … then and there seaven times unlawfully did shoote” at Ryall and Browne. In the event that his firearm proved insufficient, Walke also brought a “pykes staffe”, which he used to “desperately Assault” the two excise-men. During his hostile outburst, Walke had also allegedly “raysed a tumult of one hundred people togeather in the open streets”. These assembled people marched to Bradford Cross and, observing that “the vote of Parliament touching Excise being by the sd officers of excise put and placed upon Bradforth Cross”, they “vyolently” pulled “downe” the excise order.119 Once again, the marketplace became a scene of violence against the excise and its odious collectors. This event demonstrates how a previously well-affected community violently rejected the interregnum state’s disruption of its social stability. It is possible that Walke was alone when he charged down the door of the excise office and violently assaulted Ryall and Browne; after all, only his name appears on the indictment. The record fails to state when and where Walke originally organized the tumult and it contains the usual ambiguous terms that shroud such incidents in uncertainty.120 What we can glean from the record is that the community stood behind Walke’s efforts against the excise-men. They advanced alongside Walke to the cross, publicly tore down an official state document and “violently” destroyed it. By rejecting the new ordinance, the people gathered around Bradford cross articulated their defiance of the newly resurrected Rump Parliament’s authority. A resurgence of criticism against the excise and its officials erupted in the capital as well. The devastated economy of London furnished the fuel that reignited popular hostility directed at the excise-man. Indeed, the people of London also targeted hostility towards the army, since much of the excise went to pay off its arrears. William Horne faced over a year of incarceration   WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/5 fol. 192.   For instance, the indictment claims “diverse other wronges and Injuryes” were committed: the language leaves it ambiguous whether this pertains to Walke alone, or the group as a whole. See ibid., fol. 192.

119 120

198

Disaffection.indb 198

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

at Newgate for evading the excise.121 In a display of the power granted to the excise administration, the Gaol Calendar for December 1658 asserted that Horne must remain in jail “untill hee bee discharged by the Commissioners for the Excise”.122 The courts further demonstrate the existence of renewed assaults on the excise-men in London. In early September 1659, at least two men were charged with the beating and threatening of “the Excisemen in the Execution of their Office”.123 As a carman, the assailant Morris Bradgate of Puddle Dock likely was not directly responsible for the excise. His trade, however, not only might have led to an encounter with the excise-man, but also his business also must have suffered from the general impoverishment of London during the recession. In the chaotic months preceding the Restoration, public vitriol transcended the tax itself and focused on the person of the excise-man. Once again, this figure’s reputation for corruption, greed and arbitrary policies made the excise-man the focus of popular resentment over the increasing conditions of general impoverishment. In 1659, renewed assaults on the excise-man reinvigorated people’s resentment of these troublesome collectors. Following the breakdown of the Protectorate, the precarious legality of the Rump and the dubious position of the Committee of Safety opened the floodgates of public criticism of these unstable governments and their unpopular policies. D’Maris Coffman argues that this latest onslaught of printed pamphlets attacking the excise collectively presented a new belief that the state had an “overriding interest in guarding against the decay of commerce since a positive balance was the sign of a nation’s prosperity”.124 Several polemicists assailing the excise’s impact on the decline of trade avoided placing the blame directly on the current regime, but rather focused on the former Protector and the excise’s corrupt collectors. In his initial discussion of the excise in Trades Destruction is Englands Ruine, Or Excise Decryed, the jurist William Cole presents the excise as an unfair, unequal tax that falls heavily on traders while rich landed men pay far less for “the publique maintenance”.125 As Prynne had done in his Judiciall Arraignment, Cole argued that the legitimate reason for waging an excise during war – taxing those under enemy control – had long since disappeared. Overlooking the fact that the Rump continued the collection of the excise after Cromwell’s death, the author attributed the economic crises to the former Lord Protector, who, he claimed, brought the country into debt in order “to maintain a proud Court, and to subjugate the Common-wealth to the   LMA, CLA/047/LJ/01/0147, Gaol delivery from July 1658. He remains in Newgate until August 1659 when he no longer appears on the Gaol Delivery Calender; see LMA, CLA/047/LJ/01/0157. 122  LMA, CLA/047/LJ/01/0150, Gaol Delivery Calendar for Dec. 1658. 123  LMA, CLA/047/LJ/01/0157, 5–6 Sep. 1659. 124  Coffman, “Interregnum Finance”, p. 77. 125 William Cole, Trades Destruction is Englands Ruine, Or Excise Decryed. Wherein is Manifested the Irregularity and Inequality of Raising Money by Way of Excise to Defray the Charge of the Nation (London, 29 May 1659), pp. 6–7. 121

199

Disaffection.indb 199

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

wills and interest of his family”. In rhetoric that implicitly compared Cromwell’s corrupt actions with those of the excise-man, the pamphleteer aimed his criticism at officials who maintained this unequal method of taxation, as well as those “self-seeking persons” whom his tract “may displease”.126 Rather than couch his polemic in deferential language, the author directly condemned the policies of the former Lord Protector and his greedy associates, the excise-men. The rhetoric pamphleteers deployed in 1659 resonated with the language of earlier condemnations of the excise and disparaging characterizations of the unnatural excise-man. In another pamphlet Cole published “Severall proposals … for the ease, security, & prosperity of this common-wealth”, which included the elimination of farming. Cole claimed that the practice was “cruelly executed” by the excise-men, and that there was “a general Out-cry against it throughout the three Nations”.127 In Excise Anotomiz’d, Zachary Crofton raised issues with the unequal distribution of the tax burden, but this pamphlet also revived depictions of the excise and its collectors as harbingers of disease and decay. The author began by stating that the “unequall Imposition of Excise” was “the only cause of the ruine of Trade, and universall impoverishment of this whole nation”. He claimed, however, that the excise ruined more than just trade. The author delved into the corruptive nature of the excise administration, asserting that the Commissioners of the Excise, “like Masty-dogs on silly sheep”, procure men “generally of inferiour ranke and no worth … to give information against any”. The “poverty” of these degenerate men prompts them to “swear any thing” in order to make a “profit”. The pamphleteer lamented that these exploitative commissioners “erect their own decaies by others ruins”. Presenting the excise tax as thriving through the manipulation of men’s weaknesses, the author argued that such behavior resulted in “a spirit of lying and hypocrisie”, which infected society “like an invenomed Serpent”.128 Moreover, it hath ingendred a most abhorred and destestable spowne of carelesse swearing which is now grown so dangerous, and desperate monster of wilfull perjury, that the custome of this sin, hath take away the conscience of it … so that if not stoped (like a canker) it will eate out the life of grace and spirit of fidelity from amongst us.129

Crofton also targeted the “greedy and unsatiable desires” of the excise farmers, who he called “those deformed Monsters of this age”.130 Once again, the generalized “excise-man” – in this case the commissioners and the farmers   Ibid., p. 3.   William Cole, Severall Proposals Humbly Tendered to the Consideration of Those that are in Authority, for the Ease, Security, & Prosperity of this Common-wealth (London, 1659), p. 5; Also quoted in Coffman, “Interregnum Finance”, p. 75. 128  Zachary Crofton, Excise Anotomiz’d, and Trade Epitomiz’d… (London, 1659), pp. 3–4. 129  Ibid., p. 4. 130  Ibid., pp. 5–6. 126 127

200

Disaffection.indb 200

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

– are presented as unnatural creatures that debase society and threaten to bring the nation to utter ruin. The belief in the excise’s corrupting nature expressed in Excise Anotomiz’d echoes the West Riding Petition from 1652, which presented the excise as an unnatural force in society, one which almost compelled a woman to murder her own children. Both authors point to the excise and its collectors as turning the world upside down, and present the excise-men as subverting the social order. Crofton described the excise-men as “free-booters” and upstart “rabble”, comparing them to “swarmes of noisome Locusts” ruining the labor of “honest” men. Ibeson, on the other hand, stressed how the excise-men offered servants power over their masters or children over their parents by using them as informants.131 According to these authors, the tax engendered a threat to social stability that reached beyond the fiscal drain of the excise. Both paint the excise-men as the “Monsters” who propagate “unnaturall” behavior.132 Neither author overlooked the significance of the public debt the government faced; however, the needs of the government did not justify the existence of the excise and the “tyrannical” excise-men. According to Crofton, “the burden that it brings with it, is greater than it takes away”.133 An infamous broadsheet depicting the excise-man discussing his fate with the figure of “Death” further dehumanized the collector, suggesting his crimes had corrupted his body and soul. Lamenting his evil deed, the excise-man declared: With horror I behold my secret stealing, My Bribes, Oppression, and my graceless Dealing; My Office-sins which I had clean forgotten, Will Gnaw my soul, when all my bones are rotten: I must confess it, very grief doth force mee, Dead, or alive, both God and Man both Curse me.134

In depicting the excise-man as a creature whose oppression and greed had poisoned not only local society but also the excise-man himself, disaffected propagandists exploited fears of degeneracy exacerbated by political and economic instability. During this period of political and economic breakdown, the metaphor of decay gained additional potency. Considering that widespread hostility to the excise and its collectors had aided in the failure of the republican experiment, people looked to King Charles II to eliminate this grievance upon his return to the throne. Despite such lofty hopes, the excise was extended during the Restoration. While Charles removed the tax from certain commodities, the tax on drink – of   See above, p. 181.   Excize Anotomiz’d, p. 6, 10. 133 Ibid., p. 17. 134  A Dialogue Betwixt an Excise-man and Death (London, 1659); Harris, London Crowds, p. 42. 131 132

201

Disaffection.indb 201

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

which Charles was granted half for his personal expenditures – remained.135 Such betrayal was met with hostility. In January 1662, Maria, the wife of a yeoman from St. Dunstan’s in the West, was indicted not only for declaring “A pox take these Taxes”, but also for asserting that she “was more troubled with taxes now” than when Cromwell had reigned.136 Others continued to focus their hostility on the state’s excise-men directly. At Cawthrone in the West Riding of Yorkshire, Elizabeth Hewitt and her husband Tom assaulted two excise collectors from Wakefield on Christmas Eve 1660. Hostility to the excise was so prevalent through the West Riding that during the failed northern uprising known as the Farnley Wood Plot one of the fighting points of the rebels was the eradication of the hated levy.137 With the introduction of the hearth tax in 1662, much of the hostility formerly directed at the excise and its agents was transferred to the new tax. While not as detrimental to the poor, the hearth tax provoked further disillusionment with Charles’s settlement. Christopher Brown, a laborer in the West Riding of Yorkshire, claimed he would provide ten pounds to anyone willing “to poison him whome the Hearth money belonged”. Other statements suggested that the multiplicity of taxes provoked general resentment to taxation policies rather than a focused frustration with one particular duty. Prior to the outbreak of the northern revolt, Henry Hanson told Christopher Hodgson that “there was a great plot on foote for taking awaye the excise and Harth money” as well as other taxes. In a blanket statement of disappointment with Charles’s taxation policies, Samuel Lewis, a merchant tailor from London, noted that “[w]e were made to believe when the King came in [t]hat we should never pay any more taxes. If wee had thought that hee would have taxed us thus hee should never have come in”.138 Thus, while hostility to both the excise and its collector remained, it may have been absorbed into broader resentment toward the Restoration settlement. Long after the major riots of the late 1640s excise-men continued to provoke anxiety and clashes in certain English communities. The reputation of these collectors often preceded their entrance into the spaces and places of everyday sociability and the historic sites where communities negotiated local power relations. As a result, their mere presence often induced provocations, squabbles, and, at times, violent resistance. As the excise tax and collector’s policies impinged on household economies, women and excise-men clashed in marketplaces, on doorsteps, in shops and homes. By embracing their duty to maintain household relations, women directly challenged the excise-men and the policies they enforced. Circulating accounts of the excise-man’s  Ashworth, Customs and Excise, p. 16.   LMA, MJ/SR/1244 ind. 25. 137  WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/6, fol. 43; Hopper, “The Farnley Wood Plot”, pp. 281–303. 138 WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/7 fols. 20, 175; TNA ASSI 45/6 fol. 3; LMA, CLA/047/ LJ/01/0164, Jul. 1663; Harris, London Crowds, p. 61. 135 136

202

Disaffection.indb 202

19/09/2017 11:26

THE “UNNATURAL” EXCISE-MAN

atrocities – real and fictive – furthered the construction of the excise-man as a symbol of corruption, greed and illegitimacy that threatened the “natural” order. Assaulting the collector through slanderous speech and ritualistic attacks, locals expressed their hostility to the state’s intrusion into their daily lives. By employing such methods, hostile individuals and crowds attempted to negotiate the implementation of unpopular state policies in their communities. The several pamphlets, petitions and rumors that narrated incidents of the collectors’ atrocities brought local conflicts into a larger national discourse over proper governance – one that championed the English commons as the ultimate defenders against the state’s arbitrary and self-interested practices that were encapsulated in the figure of the excise-man.

203

Disaffection.indb 203

19/09/2017 11:26

Disaffection.indb 204

19/09/2017 11:26

5

The Rise of the “Fanatic”

Shortly before Charles II’s triumphant return in 1660, a broadside appeared dissecting the “Character of a Phanatique”. The term “Phanatique”, its author asserted, referenced all those who railed against “Church and State”, but particularly “religious or irreligious mad men-Hereticks”.1 The writer described the fanatic as “a false Conception gotten by the Air upon the sick womb of a confused phancy”, and claimed that the indistinct creature “devours greedily all doctrines, but receives nourishment from none”. Suggesting that the fanatic subverted natural order, the author noted that one “may better express him in the Negative than the Affirmative”. As this vague description suggests, a fanatic’s exact beliefs were elusive; the author remarked that “you may sooner pick all religions out of him than one”, especially as his doctrines daily “metamorphosed”. Opposing “true Religion” as well as “the publick good”, this creature threatened the order of things, both “Civil and Ecclesiastical”. Over the course of the revolution, the fanatic – though nebulous – represented the destruction of church and state through excessive zeal.2 The author’s verbose description of the “Phanatique” portrayed the dangers of these individuals with rhetorical flair, but it left the reader with a muddled understanding of what precisely defined this menace. In inventing the “fanatic” as the ultimate example of both religious and political subversion, royalist authors created a character whose faults and transgressions represented a broad range of anxieties surrounding the growth in extremism throughout the 1650s. People’s anxiety over the spread of radicalism and the breakdown of the parish community, while directed at different groups of religious deviants at different moments within different communities, reflected a general concern that the continuance of broad definitions of toleration risked the moral, social and political order. Following the abolition of the Elizabeth Act of Uniformity, the Commonwealth and Protectorate failed to supply effective legislation that people could employ to rid their communities of unwelcome religious groups and individuals. The pervading sense was   The Character of a Phanatique (London, 1660).  Ibid.

1 2

Disaffection.indb 205

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

that the state’s ineffective policies left the public with little or no recourse. Frustration prompted agitated crowds and individuals to assault religious “Others” who threatened their community’s stability. Royalist propagandists channeled this general hostility toward the many forms of religious unorthodoxy and the state’s apparent inaction when they fashioned the “fanatic” – a creature borne out of the English Revolution and nurtured by the interregnum regimes. It was within this context of hardened hostility, division and anxiety that The Character of a Phanatique was printed in March 1660. Charles II’s return was increasingly likely, and with him, hopes of a peaceful religious settlement. Along with several other royalist pamphleteers, the author of the Character attempted to unite contrasting hostilities to nonconformity by focusing on the figure of the fanatic. For these royalists, fanatics included: All those, who out of ambitious itch to appear somebody, under what pretenses soever, endeavour to subvert all order and discipline both in Church and State, by opposing every power, not respecting Right, Law, Reason, true Religion, or the publick good, wherein their own is included, were they but so sober as to be sensible of it.3

The language authors adopted was such that the term fanatic included more than Presbyterians, Independents and radical sectaries, but now also interregnum leaders and army officials who collectively represented the “good old cause”. Using the discourse of the fanatic, royalists attempted to unite decade-long hostilities to religious pluralism and radicalism with concerns over the reemergence of the “good old cause” under the army-controlled Committee of Safety. Royalist authors assured their audiences that the defeat of this “phanatic crew” would reestablish stability in both church and state, and it was a restored Charles II who was destined to vanquish these troublesome deviants. The Origins of the “Fanatic”: The Problem of Pluralism in Interregnum Communities The ambiguity underlying The Character of a Phanatique perfectly reflected the sentiments behind people’s resentment of the consequences wrought by religious divides during the interregnum. Though many communities in the early 1640s desired the eradication of Arminian innovations spearheaded by Archbishop Laud, there was widespread debate over the type of settlement that should follow in its wake. The Long Parliament’s establishment of Presbyterianism was largely ignored, and subsequent religious settlements failed to produce a coherent doctrine of faith. Instead, the energies of the interregnum regimes were devoted to outlining which actions and doctrines  Ibid.

3

206

Disaffection.indb 206

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

were unacceptable.4 The Committees for Scandalous Ministers, Plundered Ministers and for the Propagation of the Gospel as well as Cromwell’s system of Triers and Ejectors were established to eliminate “disaffected” ministers and those who held “scandalous” and “blasphemous” tenets. Large numbers of clergy faced sequestration, ejection or harassment as a result of these policies, while Commonwealth and Protectorate officials struggled to fill empty livings.5 In 1650, the Commonwealth passed an act against blasphemy in an attempt to alleviate anxieties over the growth of heresy throughout the nation. That same year it repealed compulsory attendance at the parish church, further disrupting traditional parish life.6 In light of the regimes’ tendency to define religion in the negative, people’s aggressive response to religious “Others” not only represented an extension of this policy, but also their resentment of the state’s failure to protect their communities from the disruptive influence of religious radicals and nonconformists. Though people were alarmed by doctrines that threatened to invalidate their own beliefs, the threat nonconformists posed to social relations and local norms often came to the fore when individuals and communities encountered troublesome religious “Others”. As the interregnum proceeded, anxious Englishmen and women believed that the dangers extremist individuals and groups presented had become increasingly pervasive and less controllable. Gradually, these fanatics had come to symbolize the interregnum state’s inability to maintain order. Such fears over the threat that religious pluralism posed to local society were heightened by both personal interactions with unwelcome religious groups and individuals as well as the dissemination of their troublesome antics through networks of oral and print culture. Exasperated communities took violent action against unwelcome ministers, radicals and other nonconformists. The following pages will briefly discuss each of these issues to contextualize the royalist construction of the fanatic during the final months of the interregnum experiment. The parish community’s fracturing made the royalist promise of unity – as fleeting as it may have been – a primary motivator for many of those who chose to support Charles II’s return to the throne. Angered over Archbishop Laud’s introduction of “popish” rituals and doctrines during Charles I’s eleven years’ tyranny, Oliver St. John and his allies in the Long Parliament undermined the established Church “root and branch” during the 1640s. The Laudian ceremonial transformations were   A & O, II, pp. 409 and 423–5.  McCall, Baal’s Priests: The Loyalist Clergy and the English Revolution, pp. 3–7. 6  Jeffrey R. Collins, “The Church Settlement of Oliver Cromwell”, History, 87 (2002), pp. 18–40; John Morrill, “The Church in England, 1642–49”, in Reactions to the English Civil War, 1642–1649, ed. Morrill (New York, 1984), pp. 93–9; John Spurr, The Restoration Church of England, 1646–1689 (New Haven, CT, 1991), pp. 3–4. See also, Claire Cross, Church and the People 1450–1660 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1976); I.M. Green, “The Persecution of “Scandalous and ‘Malignant’ Parish Clergy during the English Civil War”, English Historical Review, 94:372 (1979), 507–31. 4 5

207

Disaffection.indb 207

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

abolished, along with the ecclesiastical courts, episcopacy and the established liturgy. While the trial and execution of Laud reflected general hostility to his draconian policies and the Arminian influences that marred the church in the 1630s, opinions of what type of religious settlement should replace the old establishment lacked such cohesiveness. In 1643, Parliament instituted the Assembly of Divines at Westminster to reform the Church of England. The Westminster Assembly, as it came to be known, outlawed the Anglican Book of Common Prayer in 1645, replacing it with the Presbyterian Directory of Worship. The Directory was far less formulaic than the Prayer Book, leaving clergy room to exercise their own interpretation of liturgical practices. After formally abolishing episcopacy in 1646, Parliament approved a new Presbyterian settlement, which, like the Directory, met with resistance throughout the nation. Despite the criminalization of Anglicanism, studies show that very few parish ministers were presented in the courts for failing to acquire the new religious handbook. Further, studies suggest the Prayer Book survived in one-third of the parishes under investigation.7 Independents in Parliament and the New Model Army, desiring liberty of conscience for separatist congregations, were unreceptive to the new settlement. When tensions rose between the Presbyterian faction and the Independents over the question of making peace with the king, the army purged Parliament of a majority of its Presbyterian royalist sympathizers. The remaining members quickly abolished the widely neglected weekly fasts instituted by the Long Parliament at the outbreak of war, and, in 1650 the Rump Parliament repealed the Elizabeth Act of Uniformity that had made attendance at the parish church compulsory.8 This act not only made the Presbyterian settlement virtually ineffectual, but, in abolishing mandatory religious uniformity, it also created a “religious marketplace” where “rival versions of faith and practice were able to compete publicly for followers”.9 The apparent unrestrained flowering of religious pluralism resulted in accusations of religious, social and moral deviance within communities across the nation. The eradication of the consistory courts decentralized moral authority and allowed religious minorities a larger degree of influence in their parishes.10 While the charge of deviance could be laid upon Anglicans, Presbyterians and Independents as well as religious sectaries, it was those groups and individuals who merged their religious practices with other transgressions that tended to provoke retaliation from unwelcoming communities.11 By making this point, I do not wish to relegate the   Morrill, “The Church in England”, p. 93.   Ordinance of monthly fast, see A & O, I, pp. 22–4 (24 Aug. 1642), p. 580 (19 Dec. 1644), pp. 905–7 (2 Dec. 1646), repealed in April 1649; see ibid., II, pp. 79–81. Act of Uniformity was repealed in September 1650; see ibid., II, pp. 423–5. 9 Capp, “The Religious Marketplace”, pp. 47–8; Blair Worden, The Rump Parliament, pp. 80–3; Collins, “Church Settlement”, pp. 21–2. 10 Beaver, Parish Communities and Religious Conflict, p. 196. 11 Walsham, Charitable Hatred, pp. 107, 145. 7 8

208

Disaffection.indb 208

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

importance of religious ideology to questions of social tensions, but rather to argue that religious practice informed many social interactions, just as belief infused the mentalities of early modern men and women. Given that early modern cultures generally portrayed the world in binaries of good and evil, people’s tendencies to conflate religious unorthodoxy with other disruptive practices was a natural reaction during this era.12 In the 1650s, the Quakers – arguably the most infamous of the new religious sects – were at times accused of “papacy”, witchcraft, buggery, scolding and, more commonly, of being vagabonds.13 Furthermore, Natalie Zemon Davis has shown how early modern men and women assigned their religious adversaries with unnatural characteristics and behavior in order to justify violent assault on deviating members of the religious community.14 The fears over religious, moral and even political disorder that triggered hostility and violence during the 1650s paved the way for the quick appropriation of the royalists’ conception of the fanatic in 1659–60. While the rift between the Presbyterians and the Independents gave rise to increasing fears over religious disorder and heterodoxy in the late 1640s, it is easy to forget that certain communities viewed Anglicans as troublesome. Previous studies of anxiety over religious divisions during the interregnum have focused largely on the development of radical sects that provoked ripples of fear and tension across the nation.15 However, in pockets of Yorkshire during the late 1640s it was stubborn Anglican clergymen who faced prosecution for their continued practice of the old liturgy. In 1647 alone, four clerks were prosecuted for reading from the Book of Common Prayer at the local sessions. Gamaliel Appleyard, minister of Holmefirth chapel in Kirkburton, was prosecuted for reading from the Prayer Book privately, while the others were charged for employing it within their parish churches.16 The case of John Greenwood, minister of Monk Fryston who was charged with reading from the Anglican Prayer Book and tippling at alehouses, testifies to popular association of religious heterodoxy with social degeneracy.17

12  See Stuart Clark, “Dual Classification”, in his Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe (New York, 1997), especially p. 63. 13 Walsham, Charitable Hatred, pp. 145–61; Barry Reay, The Quakers and the English Revolution, pp. 65–6. 14  Natalie Zemon Davis, “Rites of Violence”, pp. 158, 181. 15 See Hill, The World Turned Upside Down; A.L. Morton, The World of the Ranters: Religious Radicalism in the English Revolution (London, 1970); P.G. Rogers, The Fifth Monarchy Men (London, 1966); J.F. McGregor and Barry Reay, eds., Radical Religion in the English Revolution (New York, 1984); Barry Reay, The Quakers and the English Revolution. For a recent study of the experience of royalist clergy during the 1640s and 1650s, see McCall, Baal’s Priests: The Loyalist Clergy and the English Revolution. 16  WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/2 fols. 7, 8 and 16b. 17  Ibid., fol. 8.

209

Disaffection.indb 209

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Though an extreme example, the case against Robert Ashton illustrates people’s inclination to level multiple charges of disorderly behavior at troublesome religious figures in their community. Originally an outsider from London, “Doctor” Ashton resided in Aiskew, North Yorkshire. In the summer of 1650, Ashton was charged with crimes including drunkenness, adultery and disaffection. Within their testimonies detailing Ashton’s transgressions, witnesses wove narratives of his dissolute and dangerous practices. While his Anglicanism and royalist sympathies likely aroused the interest of local authorities, it was the manner in which his actions threatened the welfare of local society and its normative interaction order that many locals recounted in their statements against Ashton.18 Deponents attesting to Ashton’s scandalous religious practices accused him of not only maintaining Anglican worship, but also of spreading “popery” within local society. Henry Watson of Bedale charged Ashton with ringing a bell at his abode to alert his congregation to prayer time. William Johnson deposed that Ashton paid him to read from the outlawed Prayer Book during the mornings and evenings in Leeming Chapel for an entire year. Ashton also was cited for preaching at Leeming Chapel and of teaching “the doctrines of works”, which, the deponent noted, “is meere poperye”.19 In these accounts Ashton is portrayed as single-handedly preserving not just Anglicanism, but also Arminianism if not Catholicism within the region. Ashton’s combined charge of religious worship and social degeneracy confirmed the fear of the godly that alehouses competed with the church for one’s time, money and spiritual well-being. The mixture of Ashton’s alleged immorality with his religious practice is most evident in the descriptions of his makeshift place of worship: his home. Thomas and George Brunton described Ashton’s house as “grande like a Chappell”, yet they also testified that Ashton sold ale in his house, where tipplers had drunk, to the Bruntons’ horror, the previous “Easter Tuesday”. Henry Watson claimed that, while performing services, Ashton was “soe full of Drinke” that when reciting prayers “he could hardly read”. Ashton was also charged with maintaining a “bowleing alley” in order to encourage people to visit his house “to spend their money”. Ashton’s congregation, supposedly consisting of “Lewd people and some known whores”, reflected their minister’s immoral behavior.20 Neighbors condemned Ashton’s adulterous relationship with his young servant, Margaret Grievenson, while he had a wife living outside of London, but, even more shocking, they claimed the much older Ashton had forced Grievenson into a devilish contract in which she gave Ashton control over her body. Once it was revealed that Grievenson was pregnant, witnesses testified that Ashton showed no shame in fathering a bastard child. Indeed, John   TNA, ASSI 44/4, loose indictments and depositions, Jul. 1650.  Ibid. 20  Ibid., 45/5/6 fol. 1. (Note: this deposition was accidentally catalogued as 1659 rather than 1650.) 18 19

210

Disaffection.indb 210

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

Clewes alleged that Ashton bet forty pounds that “Peggie” was pregnant prior to the revelation. During the birth of his illegitimate child, Ashton’s disorderly behavior continued as he allegedly played the role of “both midwife and minister”, ringing the bells and “expressing a great deal of joy”.21 When John Pierce of Bedale approached Ashton with a printed copy of the recently devised act against adultery – now a capital offense – he demanded that Ashton “put away his woman” out of respect for “his wife and children”. Ashton supposedly replied that “he hoped” that “all the rebels that made that ordinance” would be hanged, and further, that soon there would be “an alteration in State”.22 Ashton fared no better in his role as a doctor. Ashton was accused of claiming the ability to “heale the [king’s] evill” after experiencing “a revelacon” following “the Late Kings decease” – an act resulting in “many” sudden deaths “under his Care”.23 The final bill listing the charges against Ashton presents him as the epitome of perversion – a man who endangers local society by subverting the proper religious, social and political order. In denouncing Ashton’s Anglican practices – as well as his drunkenness, his disorderly and unlicensed ale and gaming house, his fornication and his fathering of an illegitimate child, his fraudulent statements and his seditious words – the bill of indictment, which garnered a non-guilty verdict, accentuated local anxieties about the ramifications of religious heterodoxy. Rather than viewing Ashton’s religious practices as separate from his social deviance, together his crimes reinforced this community’s general anxiety over the breakdown of order. Regardless of Ashton’s actual guilt, the multiple charges of disorderly and degenerate behavior demonstrate that, though prosecuted for his use of the Prayer Book, Ashton’s ultimate crime lay in the danger his transgressive actions posed to local society. While the case of Ashton represents an extreme example of one divided community’s fear of social and religious turmoil, clergy in the West Riding of York were prosecuted intermittently for reading from the Anglican Prayer Book until the mid-1650s. Other counties prosecuted ministers who used the Prayer Book, such as Simon Louth of Dingley, Northamptonshire, John Smith of Lincoln and John Clapton of Westburton, Sussex.24 Robert Henley of Sinnington in the North Riding was presented at the local sessions for marrying couples using the Book of Common Prayer in his home and using the cross at Baptism in 1650.25 Despite the Protectorate’s prohibition of religious wedding ceremonies in 1653, ministers continued to consecrate marriage vows, often using the Common Prayer Book.26 In 1654 Michael   TNA, ASSI 44/4, loose indictments and depositions.  Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24  TNA, KB 9/863 fols. 299–300, 337–8 (1653–54); KB 9/860 fol. 137 (1653). 25  WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/4 fol. 106b. TNA ASSI 45/3/2 fols. 76–68. 26 Beaver, Parish Communities and Religious Conflict, pp. 230–1. After 1653, all marriages were to be performed through civil ceremonies officiated by a local justice. 21 22

211

Disaffection.indb 211

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Noble of Adwick upon Dearne appeared at the local sessions for continuing to use the Prayer Book to marry and bury the people of his parish. Such prosecutions were rare; indeed, in other regions country ministers were indicted for failing to use the Prayer Book, despite legislation to the contrary.27 Of course, many Anglican clergy faced persecution outside of the courts as well. But as Fiona McCall shrewdly acknowledges, “Statistics alone cannot fully show the different ways incumbents and their parishioners experienced the Church of the 1640s and 1650s”.28 Her research has uncovered trying experiences of Anglican clergy who “suffered violence, poverty and psychological distress” across the country.29 Those who were ejected often retaliated with the aid of their supporters, causing a “spiralling pattern of violence” that led to dislocation and disruption in parish communities across the nation.30 Discrepancies further illustrate that the characteristics defining a religious deviant varied from community to community and even individual to individual. Thus, religious “Others” could be Anglicans in parts of North Yorkshire in 1650, Independents in Warminster in 1651, Baptists in Devizes or Presbyterians at Taunton in 1654.31 In his study of parish communities in the Vale of Gloucester, Dan Beaver argues that Baptist subculture, which required a separation from the profane, necessarily caused social divisions. Baptist groups not only distanced themselves from their parish neighbors, but they also refused to participate in rituals – such as saying grace – that fostered social bonds and community.32 Interregnum Exeter faced similar rifts. Exeter’s puritan minister, Thomas Ford, encountered both insolent parishioners who mocked him during services, but also an incursion of Quakers and other radicals. Matthew Purkis, a local woolcomber, regularly provoked social and religious sensibilities in Exeter during the late 1640s and 1650s. Among other troubling acts, in 1650 Purkis denied that Christ’s human body was resurrected, and a year later he refused to remove his “hatt” in recognition of the “authority” of the mayor and the court.33 The growth of Baptist congregations and other religious “Others” such as Purkis, who diverged more radically from the traditional religious organization of the parish – its structure, architecture, its methods of social interaction and its shared practices – proved increasingly problematic for both communities as well as for the nation at large. The diverging notions of deviance that arose following the collapse of   Morrill, “The Church in England, 1642–49”, p. 107.  McCall, Baal’s Priests: The Loyalist Clergy and the English Revolution, p. 11. 29  Ibid., p. 195. 30  Ibid., pp. 195, 201. 31  Report on Manuscripts in Various Collections, Vol. 1, Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (London, 1901), pp. 124, 130; Quarter Sessions Records for the County of Somerset, vol. iii, p. 283. 32 Beaver, Parish Communities and Religious Conflict, pp. 234–40. 33 Capp, Culture Wars, pp. 253–4; DHC, ECA, Book 64, fol. 166 October 1650 and fols. 172b–173, Jan. 1651. 27 28

212

Disaffection.indb 212

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

an established church meant that the religious community of England was frequently united through fear and/or hostility. As the problem of heterodoxy persisted through the 1650s, anxious communities across the nation came to resent the ineffective policies of the interregnum state. While parishioners could prosecute unpopular Anglican and Catholic clergymen in court, they often had to resort to extra-judicial methods to rid their communities of unwelcome new ministers or dangerous religious sectaries. Disliked new ministers could be resisted through petitions and nonpayment of tithes.34 Over thirty-three parishioners from Leicester petitioned their MP William Stanley over their disapproval of the puritan vicar “Mr. Barton”. According to the petition, Barton had set up a “Congregationall Church” in which he denied the sacrament to those who refused to enter a “Covenant”. Stanley declined the request of the petitioners, asking them instead to be “the Instruments of Peace and concord” between the parishioners and Barton by continuing to pay their dues.35 The inhabitants of Warminster resisted their unpopular new parish priest through non-payment, leaving the minister Richard Bake to bemoan the loss of his fees from “upwards of 300” parishioners. Bake claimed that his congregation detained their dues “out of spleen, and a desire to force him through want to leave the place” – and ultimately the parishioners succeeded.36 When petitions and tithe strikes failed to restore religious and social order, certain parishes disciplined unwelcome ministers through ritualistic violence closely resembling official punishments and practices. Others attempted to intimidate unpopular new clergy physically, hoping such behavior would force the incumbent to leave. On 20 February 1651, several inhabitants of Kirkland Hickling in Nottinghamshire forcibly entered the parish church and assaulted the minister Thomas Johnson during a Sunday service.37 With the help of three other men, the clergyman, Leonard Lyme of Halwell, forcibly ejected Henry Warren, the Vicar of Loddiswell, Devon, from the parish church on Sunday 20 November 1653.38 Barring the doors and removing intruding new clergy from the pulpit, parishioners exercised what power they could exert over religious change. Though Anglican incumbents and unwelcome new ministers troubled certain parishes throughout the country, typically these individuals worked within the confines of the parish system. Often Anglican clergymen and their puritan counterparts compromised to enable peace and a degree of unity among their parishioners and in the nation as a whole. Several parishes continued to offer Easter communion, and evidence further suggests that

  Morrill, “The Church in England”, pp. 102; 111.   Records from the Borough of Leicester, vol. i, ed. Mary Bateson (1899), pp. 436–8. 36  Various Collections, Vol. 1, pp. 124, 130. 37  TNA, KB 9/857 fol. 270. 38  Ibid., 9/868, fol. 234. 34 35

213

Disaffection.indb 213

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Christmas either survived or was revived in certain communities.39 John Evelyn wrote that soldiers entered his place of worship on Christmas 1657, and, once the ministers completed the service, the troopers questioned the leaders of the parish about who permitted this unauthorized ritual. Despite this official persecution, clergy who insisted on the complete eradication of traditional religious festivals in unsympathetic communities could find themselves victims of popular justice – much like the London shopkeepers who opened their doors on Christmas Day in 1645.40 The problem posed by itinerant army preachers lacked the more obvious solutions utilized against unwelcome intruders. As the previous chapter revealed, soldiers were known to practice, preach and protect radical religious beliefs. The state’s failure to curb the growth of radicalism in part was due to Cromwell and his supporters’ dedication to liberty of conscience. Even though Parliament had forbidden soldiers from preaching, the support of highranking officers allowed this unpopular practice to continue.41 The involvement of troopers in the spread of radicalism also limited public recourse to legal means. In October 1653, apprentices witnessed “anabaptisticall souldiers” preaching within St. Paul’s churchyard. The young men decided to impede this “unlawfull assembly” by throwing rocks at the small congregation. Troopers charged at the apprentices in retaliation, resulting in the breaking of some “heads”, according to a newsletter account. The noise emanating from the churchyard brought the scuffle to the attention of the Mayor and his Sheriffs. When city officials arrived, the soldiers ordered them to prosecute the apprentices. The sheriff replied that “hee knew not by what authoritie souldiers should preach there”. In response, the trooper simply brandished his pistol and stated, “by this authority”. Another fight ensued, and the soldiers were reported to have assaulted several people and captured the city’s marshal.42 The Commonwealth and Protectorate’s frequent protection of all but the most radical soldiers served to reinforce the public’s idea that the state relied on the army to implement contested policies. After all, the state not only eradicated the established Church and religious uniformity, but also it promoted liberty of conscience and allowed for the rapid spread of radical beliefs. Radical soldiers symbolized the growth of sectarianism and the state’s involvement in protecting these religious groups. Not all soldiers or regiments supported the presence of Quakers, but the absence of legislation against these them made it difficult for the army to aid local communities in   Morrill, “The Church in England”, pp. 113–14. Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, pp. 260–3. 40  John Greene, The Diary of John Greene, ed. E.M. Symonds, English Historical Review, 43 (1928), 393. For a similar assault on Canterbury shopkeepers in 1647, see Underdown, Revel, Riot and Rebellion, p. 260. 41 Gentles, New Model Army, p. 100. 42  Thurloe, vol. 3, p. 545. 39

214

Disaffection.indb 214

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

their dealings with these divisive radicals. Thus, soldiers symbolized not only the growth of sectarianism, but also the state’s protection of these religious groups at the expense of the parish. In the end, both soldiers and Quakers were seen as creatures of the interregnum. Unlike unpopular parish ministers or Independents who held private, often secret meetings, religious radicals who intruded into local churches, streets and markets with the desire to convert others physically manifested the threat religious pluralism posed to normative social relations. As Bernard Capp and Ann Hughes have shown, public disputations brought preachers face-to-face with hesitant ministers in streets, marketplaces and shops as well as in the “pulpit and pew”.43 Though some disputations drew large audiences, evidence suggests that at least some witnesses were unsettled by them or attempted to provide support for their parish minister.44 Beyond their tangible presence in the sites of everyday life, radicals, such as Quakers, provoked local anxiety simply by reputation. The rise of the Quakers during the 1650s – several of whom were or had been Parliamentarian soldiers – emboldened anxieties over the growth of radicalism. Fears over the Ranter scare of 1651–2 found a new outlet in the Quakers, a group of aggressive religious radicals who not only rejected relying on scripture alone, but also questioned normative forms of social interaction. By embracing print as a medium to spread their views, the Quakers consequently perpetuated anxiety within the nation’s textual communities. Images of Quakers were transmitted through smear campaigns in print or the circulation of their deeds through rumor networks. The depictions of their democratic religious beliefs and their shocking acts – combined with the presence of these radical sectaries in the parish church, the high street and the marketplace – signaled to certain communities that the world had truly turned upside town. At the beginning of his work detailing Quaker sufferings from the 1650s, Joseph Besse claimed that the Quakers’ public methods of preaching led to their persecution by communities and local officials. The parish church provided proselytizing Quakers the perfect space to articulate their beliefs, and they quickly became infamous for disturbing parish services. Their rejection of Scripture and an ordained ministry in favor of the “inner light” made parish clergy prime objects of the Quakers’ scorn, a message best articulated publicly during the parish minister’s Sunday sermon. Quakers like Roger Hebden taunted ministers with epithets such as “hyreling”, “murderer of souls”, “false prophetts” and “Antichriste”, while the Christian Bible was rejected as “a Rambleinge storye”.45 Besse listed these performances, along with their rejection of tithes, church rates, their refusal to remove their hats before superiors 43  Capp, “The Religious Marketplace”, pp. 47–8; Hughes, “Public Disputations, Pamphlets and Polemic”, History Today, 41 (Feb. 1991), 27–33. 44  Capp, “Religious Marketplace”, p. 63. 45  See WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/4 fols. 142 (Hebden), 155b; QS 4/5 fols. 10b, 48, 94b, 110. See also Quarter Sessions Records for the County of Somerset, vol. iii, pp. xli–xlii.

215

Disaffection.indb 215

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

and the Quakers’ tendency to “Publish the Truth . . . and reprove Vice and Immorality openly, in the Streets and Markets”, as primary instigators for their persecution. As Besse’s statement suggests, Quakers quickly became experts at exploiting the press and social spaces to disseminate their beliefs and dispute with parish clergy.46 Publicly attesting to the truth, many people saw Quakers as a symbol of all that threatened religious authority and normative values within social hubs of communities. A black-letter ballad detailing the “blasphemous life and scandelous death” of the Quaker James Parnell not only bemoaned Parnell’s habit of teaching and preaching from “place to place”, but also rhymed that: Good Ministers he set at naught, And made disturbance up and down, Where ever he did come or goe, Both in the Countrey and the Town.47

Not all of the practices of Quakers like Parnell troubled people alike, but many associated the most extreme views and acts of a few with the entire sect. Thus, they gained a reputation for confronting people loudly and publicly and for disregarding superiorities of rank or gender, which, in turn, alienated those who may have sympathized with their religious tenets, or at least their right to liberty of conscience. Quakers’ apparent rejection of patriarchy, Scripture and social rank provoked people from across the social spectrum and deeply troubled authorities in both the army and parliament. Urging people to repent through the streets, some Quakers offended people’s sense of social propriety. According to a petition delivered to the West Riding Justices, Quakers in Tadcaster not only “molested” local ministers while in the pulpit or churchyard, but also “along the streets”, resulting in a decline in religious “Exercyse”.48 John Lawson was thrown into prison after “reproving Sin in the streets” of Oulsover, Derbyshire. After “testifying against Sin” in Ashburne, John Shield was dragged through “the Mire of the Streets”.49 In his diary, the puritan minister Ralph Josselin recorded his encounter “in the lane” with “one called quaker”, happily noting that with God’s help he “was not dismayed”.50 As Josselin’s entry suggests, Quakers’ audacious appropriation of public space to promulgate their message of repentance troubled some of their unsuspecting audience as much as their rejection of Scripture. In July 1653, Thomas Casley and Elizabeth Williamson entered Beverly, Yorkshire   Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of the People Called Quakers (London, 1753), p. 2. For more on the Quakers’ exploitation of the press, see Kate Peters, Print Culture and the Early Quakers (Cambridge, 2006). 47  The Qvakers Fear, or, Wonderfull strange and true news from the famous town of Colchester in Essex…(London, 1656). 48  WYAS Wakefield, QS 10/3 fol. 199, 10 Jul. 1656 sessions. 49 Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of the People Called Quakers, p. 52. 50  Ralph Josselin, The Diary of Ralph Josselin, 1616–1683, ed. Alan MacFarlane (London, 1976), p. 384. 46

216

Disaffection.indb 216

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

with a bundle of printed broadsides. Claiming he had been “commanded” to do so “by God”, Casley admitted to proclaiming and fixing a broadside on the market cross that exhorted “Hireling Priests, cursed Lawyers and corrupt Magistrates” to “Take notice”.51 As the depositions against Williamson and Casley reveal, such public actions captured both legal and public attention. Quakers’ exploitation of the public arena not only increased their persecution, but also people’s fear of their spread and the creeping acceptance of their legitimacy. Such use of social space and the press amplified the problem Quakers posed to interregnum society far beyond what their numbers might suggest.52 Doubly troubling was the presence of female Quakers reproving a community in its public spaces. Quaker women joined men in their public denunciations of ministers, wrote pamphlets and helped deliver Quaker writings and messages in marketplaces across the nation. According to Besse’s Sufferings, Katherine Evans preached repentance at Salisbury in May 1657, and though the mayor allegedly tied her to the “Whipping Post” in the same market, she returned the next month to continue her exhortations.53 Public appeals of these kinds in central social, economic and political sites provoked hostility and often retaliation as communities battled for control over space. Sarah Goldsmith provoked the ire of Bristol when she was inspired to walk its streets naked except for her shoes and some dirt she had strewn on her head. As a “Sign against the Pride of Bristol”, she stood at the “High-cross in the View of the Town and Market”, eventually provoking a violent “Tumult”.54 Dorthy Waugh was forced into a scold’s bridle for several hours after berating inhabitants of Carlisle in the marketplace.55 The active, central involvement of women in the Quaker movement provoked anxieties over shifting gender roles that even seeped into the sect itself, but the prevalence and influence of women preachers safeguarded their place within it.56 Communities’ actions against unpopular female preachers and other religious deviants reveal the methods by which people attempted to solve the problem of religious and social unorthodoxy within their own communities when the resources of the state failed them. The 1650 Blasphemy Act could only be used against those who professed “Atheisticall, Blasphemous and Execrable Opinions”. 57 Though this legislation enabled Parliament to prosecute Ranters and others who denied God, it could not be used effectively against a majority of Quakers.58 Local officials had similar difficulties   TNA, ASSI 45/4/3 fols. 103–4 and 108; Depositions from the Castle of York, pp. 63–4.  Reay, The Quakers and the English Revolution, pp. 65–6. 53  Ibid, p. 583. 54 Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings, p. 15. 55 Hughes, Gender and the English Revolution, p. 82. 56  Ibid., p. 84. 57  A & O, II, pp. 409–10. 58 Peters, Print Culture and the Early Quakers, pp. 196–7; Barry Reay, “Quakerism and Society”, in Radical Religion in the English Revolution, p. 157. 51 52

217

Disaffection.indb 217

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

invoking religious clauses from the 1653 Instrument of Government against Quakers. In effect until the Second Protectorate Parliament, the Instrument granted liberty of conscience to those who “profess faith in God by Jesus Christ”, provided they did not disturb “the public peace”. Even Quakers were difficult to prosecute with such vague language, for – as the Quakers themselves frequently lamented in their pamphlets – it was those who violently persecuted the Friends who disturbed the peace.59 The Humble Petition and Advice of 1657, however, did stipulate that only those who upheld the Christian religion according to the “Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament” would be afforded toleration.60 Despite the limits placed on liberty of conscience, none of these directives addressed the division and dislocation of parish life that religious pluralism could bring. When dragging Quakers before authorities or publicly humiliating them before the market cross, these crowds and individuals often assumed magisterial roles in order to eliminate the threat of deviance in their communities.61 According to Besse’s Sufferings, when John Scaise, Robert Wastfield, Richard Adams, John Allen and Josiah Coale entered the parish church at Weymouth Melcomb to testify “The Truth”, not only were they “beaten and hal’d out of the Assembly”, but further “they were all drag’d to the Town-Hall” at which time the mayor ordered them into prison. In the same county of Dorset, Joseph Coale was similarly “kickt and abus’d by the People, and haled by the Hair of His Head to Prison”, after questioning the Bridport parish priest “after” his sermon. Other assailants chose to inflict punishment themselves in lieu of carrying the deviants before the magistrate. Besse wrote that the people of North Crowley, Buckinghamshire “beat and kick’d” John Whitehead for “admonishing” local inhabitants “in the Grave-Yard”. In 1654, an angry “Populace” in Bristol allegedly “drag’d” Thomas Robinson and Josiah Cole “bareheaded under the Spouts” during a violent rain. In rejecting Jane Stones’s public exhortations in the streets of Starkey, the “rude People” of the town threw Stones into “the Water”, mimicking the swimming test given to accused witches. Though Quaker authors habitually placed the blame for their violent persecution on the “rabble”, who they claimed were often instigated by local clergy, the multiplicity of examples of local communities insisting on the proper prosecution of these religious deviants reveals the existence of popular hostility, even if amplified or distorted in Quaker reports.62 Since Quakers were at times tried as vagrants, those who physically removed them from their community may have seen themselves as working   A & O, II, p. 802; Reay, Quakers and the English Revolution, pp. 52–3; Peters, Print Culture and the Early Quakers, pp. 196–7. 60  A & O, II, pp. 1048–56. 61  For a discussion of the potential meanings of religious violence, see Susan D. Amussen, “Punishment, Discipline, and Power: The Social Meanings of Violence in Early Modern England”, Journal of British Studies, 34:1 (1995), 2 and Davis, “Rites of Violence”, p. 169. 62 Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings, pp. 41, 75, 137, 166–7. 59

218

Disaffection.indb 218

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

within the established law.63 In 1653, a group of people at Ulverstone, Lancashire allegedly beat George Fox faint on the “wet Common”, after which the “Multitude” dragged Fox out of town. Similarly, John Shield was “drawne through the Mire of the Streets” and eventually “turned out of town” for preaching against sin in Ashburne, Derbyshire.64 By dragging Quakers out of town, resentful inhabitants attempted to cleanse their communities of those whose beliefs and behaviors questioned normative religious beliefs and modes of interaction. Such methods also broadcast a warning to others who desired to reject dominant beliefs and social norms. The Case of Bristol The outburst of popular unrest directed toward Quaker preachers at Bristol in December 1654 represented years of resentment over the Quakers’ presence in the city as well as the attention and protection local garrisons offered to Quaker meetings. Anti-Quaker pamphleteers argued that the state’s failure to eliminate the growth of radicalism in the army and the absence of adequate legislation to prosecute the Quakers inevitably resulted in the turmoil. Though Cromwell removed the garrison from Bristol to alleviate hostile military–civilian relations in the city, James Nayler’s blasphemous procession two years later served to remind the city and the nation of the problems arising from the growth of radicalism. Bristol had a reputation for radicalism prior to the Quakers’ appearance from the north in 1654. Dennis Hollister, who served in Cromwell’s “godly” Barebone’s parliament in 1653, was a founder of a Baptist church in Bristol in 1640.65 Two Quaker preachers, John Audland and Thomas Airey, traveled to Bristol to spread their principles in 1654, and shortly thereafter it was reported that Quakers were so numerous that their daily meetings spilled into the streets.66 Audland eventually returned to Bristol to preach with fellow Quaker minister John Camm, a former parliamentary soldier. According to Besse, their meetings often drew people in the thousands.67 Audland and Camm’s preaching certainly influenced two significant figures. One was George Bishop, a former parliamentary captain and secretary to Cromwell, whose political reservations led him to return to Bristol following Cromwell’s rise to Protector. The other was Hollister, who had traveled home to Bristol following the dissolution of the Barebones Parliament.   A & O, vol. ii, pp. 1098–9.  Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings, pp. 144, 52. 65  Maryann S. Feola, “Hollister, Dennis (d. 1676)”, ODNB. 66 This history is taken from: Caroline L. Leachman, “Camm, John (1605–1657)”, Maryann S. Feola, “Bishop, George (d. 1668)”, and Caroline L. Leachman, “Audland, John (c.1630–1664)”, ODNB; Reay, Quakers in the English Revolution, p. 11; The Journal of George Fox, vol. I, ed. N. Penney (New York, 1973), p. 404. 67  Besse placed the numbers of their meetings between 2,000 and 4,000 people of “of all Ranks, Professions, Ages and Sexes”. See Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings, p. 10. 63 64

219

Disaffection.indb 219

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

The brewing tensions between the community and the Quakers surfaced during a riot that began on 18 December, when Camm and Audland set out for a meeting in Brislington, Somerset. The accounts of George Bishop, the anti-Quaker pamphleteer Ralph Farmer and the later chronicler, Joseph Besse, all agree that the presence of these two leaders led to the outbreak of violence. As the two preachers made their way out of Bristol, a group of apprentices seized and forcibly brought them from the bridge to the Tolzey, a space used for certain court procedures and economic exchange. Bishop and Besse claim that a fellow Quaker rescued Camm and Audland, taking them into his house while the hostile crowd continued to threaten them outside. Farmer, on the other hand, stated that once the apprentices realized that the magistrates were not at the Tolzey, they simply went home. The next day another disturbance broke out. From Bishop’s account, the apprentices regrouped when the two Quakers again attempted to make the trek to Brislington. Farmer’s version states that it was magistrates’ apprehension of apprentices – under pressure from the local garrison – that provoked others to gather in the Quakers’ defense.68 The impotence of the magistrates in the face of a hostile crowd also suggests that their failure to address residents’ concerns over the Quakers promoted the political agency of the apprentices. All accounts suggest that the actions of the young rioters were in accord with traditions of popular political culture despite the concerns their protest raised. Farmer’s account of the riot is the most explicit, stating that the apprentices, “having heard [the Quakers] deliver unsound Opinions, to the impoysoning of the people: and conceiving them punishable by the Magistrates, did seise upon them”.69 The apprentices then led the Quakers to the magistrates at the Tolzey “to require Justice on them”.70 This is a softer version of Bishop and Besse’s account, in which the apprentices attacked those passing the bridge on their way to the meeting in Brislington. Though Bishop’s account depicts their actions as ruthless, disorderly and ultimately illegal, it also suggests that the apprentices believed they were implementing justice. According to Bishop, the Quakers were “assaulted, pinched, pulled and haled back over the Bridge again towards the High Crosse” while the crowd shouted directives such as “Hang them presently”, and “Knock them down”. The apprentices’ assault on the Quakers and their decision to march them to the cross and ultimately the Tolzey indicates that the actors sought to fill the juridical void left by civic officials. Much like the London apprentices who assaulted preaching soldiers, the Bristol youths clearly recognized the army’s role in the spread and maintenance of religious radicalism. According to Farmer, “the cause  George Bishop, The Cry of Blood and Herod… (London, 1656), pp. 28–30; Besse, A Collection of Sufferings, pp. 11–14; Farmer, Sathan Inthron’d, pp. 57–9. 69  Ibid., p. 57. 70 Farmer, Sathan Inthron’d, pp. 57–8; Bishop, The Cry of Blood and Herod, p. 28; Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings, pp. 11–12. 68

220

Disaffection.indb 220

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

of the Quakers must be upheld, countenanced, maintained and propagated amongst us and our Neighbors, but for the strength and power of these Souldiers”.71 Following the December riots, Cromwell ordered an investigation of the situation in Bristol. Writing from the city, James Powell declared to Cromwell’s secretary John Thurloe that it was the Quakers who had divided the people of Bristol, affronted the local ministers and magistrates, caused riots and misrepresented the local officials as disaffected.72 In the end, Major William Boetler, who Cromwell sent to consider the issue, appeared convinced that Hollister and Bishop were responsible for the disorder. Boteler wrote to the Protector, stating “that with some griefe and shame on the behalfe of my fellow officers especially, I am forced to let you know they have carried things very imprudently and to the dishonour of religion, your highness, and army”.73 Cromwell eventually disbanded the garrison in March 1655, yet this did not prevent the Quakers from meeting. Even though the state removed the garrison from Bristol, Farmer argued that it was due to their former presence that “these Impostors were so settled and rooted amongst us”. Farmer even suggested that the removal of the garrison led to the further dispersal of Quaker beliefs, as the radicals could follow the soldiers around the country.74 The problem of religious and social disorder in Bristol also reflects why so many individuals and communities linked the growth of radicalism with the policies of the state. Fear of prosecution and the possibility of confrontation with the state’s soldiers stunted people’s ability to enforce social and religious values upon those they deemed unacceptable, while it also provoked hostility to what many perceived as the state’s protection of these unwelcome outsiders. Farmer lamented the lack of proper legislation, stating “[i] t’s true, there came forth a Proclamation, which we thought had been to have suppres’d them: but so simple were we, we could not understand the meaning on’t; and so were still without remedy”.75 Frustrated with the continued presence of Quakers, hostile apprentices and other inhabitants dragged the preachers before magistrates in a symbolic plea for justice, despite the risk of the soldiers’ retaliation. Cromwell’s decision to remove the garrison in part reflected his “fear of ideological contamination”, particularly Quakers’ disregard for rank.76 More significantly, Cromwell desired to disassociate the regime from these hated radicals. While his dissolution of the garrison likely alleviated the tensions between Bristol and the state, Nayler’s notorious procession through the city less than two years later would remind its inhabitants – and the nation – of the dangers of religious deviance. Although the  Farmer, Sathan Inthron’d, p. 58.   Thurloe, vol. iii, pp. 169–70. 73  Ibid., p. 171. 74  Ibid., pp. 58–9. 75 Farmer, Sathan Inthron’d, p. 57. 76  Reay, “Quakerism in Society”, pp. 154–5. 71 72

221

Disaffection.indb 221

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Protectorate successfully prosecuted Nayler and subsequently created broader legislation against religious sectaries in 1657, such alterations had come too late for many bitterly divided communities.77 The abuse crowds hurled at Quakers in Bristol may have been motivated by personal interactions with the fanatics, local rumors of their beliefs and behaviors or national discourses over the dangers of radicalism. In many of the cases discussed above, popular hostility was aimed at a specific sect or individual whose beliefs and actions directly threatened local religious communities, identities and social norms. At times, however, evidence suggests the brand of radicalism proved less relevant in these hostile encounters than the presence of the radical him or herself. Many failed to understand differences existed among the various new sects that had emerged in interregnum England, and at least one commentator noted a “great confusion reigned” over their spread, beliefs and behaviors.78 The general rise of such fanatics clearly troubled many individuals and communities despite misconceptions about their views. Those who encountered religious “Others” often brought a host of preconceptions and fears of their existence into any interaction that poisoned relations before they began. The ambiguous definition of fanaticism enabled individuals hostile to interregnum governments to cluster anyone whose actions, expressions or beliefs were deemed “excessive” into one group. Though the label “fanatic” did not become a potent term until 1659–60, the detailed examples noted above make it quite clear that the discourse the term would create was being formulated long before in the alehouse clashes, rumors, disputations and street grumblings of the 1640s and 1650s.

 For further information on the Nayler episode, see, for example, Leo Damrosch, The Sorrows of the Quaker Jesus: James Nayler and the Puritan Crackdown on Free Spirit (Cambridge, MA, 1996), p. 199; Reay, Quakers and the English Revolutioni, pp. 55–84; “The Diary of Thomas Burton: 16 December 1656”, Diary of Thomas Burton esq, volume 1: July 1653–April 1657 (1828), pp. 148–59, British History Online; A True Narrative of the Examination, Tryall, and Sufferings of James Nayler, in the Cities of London and Westminster, and His Deportment under Them… (London, Jan. 1657); Mercurius Politicus, no. 334 (29 Oct.–6 Nov. 1656), p. 7355; Mercurius Pragmaticus (13–20 Nov. 1656), p. 7388; The Publick Intelligencer, no. 57 (10–17 Nov. 1656), p. 987; Mercurius Politicus (11–18 Dec.), p. 745; Mercurius Politicus, no. 342 (24 Dec.–1 Jan. 1656/7), p. 7478; The Publick Intelligencer, no. 63 (22–29 Dec. 1656), p. 1084; G. Fox, R. Rich and W. Tomlinson, Copies of Some Few of the Papers Given into the House of Parliament in the Time of Iames Naylers Tryal There… (London, 1657); John Deacon, The Grand Impostor Examined: or, The Life, Tryal, and Examination of James Nayler, The Seduced and Seducing Quaker (London, 1657); John Deacon, Nayler’s Blasphemies Discovered, or, Several Queries to him Proposed (London, 1657). Two black-letter ballads referencing the Nayler affair were printed but do not survive. See McShane, Political Broadside Ballads of Seventeenth Century England, pp. 96–7. 78  CSP Venetian 1653–54, vol. 29, p. 9. 77

222

Disaffection.indb 222

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

The Rise of the “Fanatic” During the summer of 1660, the novelty of the epithet “fanatic” was explicitly recognized in Anglican clergyman Thomas Fuller’s pamphlet, Mixt Contemplations in Better Times. Fuller wrote that the term “FANATICKS” was a new, popular term “Coyned” over the past “few monthes”, a label that he noted “seemeth well cut out and proportioned to signifie … the Sectaries of our Age”.79 Though pamphleteers such as John Taylor and Samuel Sheppard had made use of the term in their tracts bemoaning the existence of “phanatick and fantastick Schismatiks” and ridiculing “phanatick, melancholy, mastfull merry people of Great Brittain” in the 1640s and 1650s, the popularization of the term – particularly as a noun – began in the months prior to the Restoration.80 Fanatic quickly became a central word in the discourse that conflated the growing contingent of religious radicals with the excessive zealotry of the revolutionary era. Together, these fanatics symbolized the failures of England’s interregnum experiment and its current woes. Whether described as socially dangerous, rebellious, irreligious, immoral or as a public nuisance, the figure of the fanatic encapsulated multiple anxieties and fears over disorder. Fuller’s pamphlet warned against the use of the new divisive term, but several royalist authors freely exploited its pliability in their rhetoric. In their assaults on the fanatic – whose existence could only be eradicated by Charles Stuart – royalist authors attempted to rally English publics to their cause by drawing on the negative experiences of revolution. Though the fanatic originally symbolized the consequences of unbridled religious extremism, royalist rhetoric eventually transformed the discourse to incorporate all those whose zealous acts led to the destruction of church and state during the civil wars and interregnum. The Fanatic as a Symbol of Excessive Zeal Conceptions of the fanatic circulated throughout England in print long before the term arose in 1659–60. Though fanatic would emerge as a popular epithet that incorporated all dangerous radicals, authors during the 1640s and 1650s frequently blurred differences between particular religious sects, projecting an image of a general religious deviant who threatened both the sanctity and stability of the Commonwealth. In a broadside ballad criticizing “time-serving saints”, a label that suggested such people changed their allegiances according to the times, one balladeer claimed that such “saints”:   Thomas Fuller, Mixt Contemplations in Better Times (London, 1660), pp. 77–8.   John Taylor, The Anatomy of the Separatists, alias, Brownists, the factious Bretherin in these Times (London, 1642), p. 1; Samuel Sheppard, Mercurius Phreneticus, Communicating Intelligence as well Forraign as Domestick to all the Mad-Men, Moon-Men, Phrenetick-Men, Phanatick, Melancholy, Mastfull, Merry People of Great Brittain (London, 1652). 79 80

223

Disaffection.indb 223

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Advance themselves in pride, And care not what to th’poor betide, And all that hold community, By them as Ranters counted be. But mark me well, and then you’l say, No greater Ranters live then they.81

It is well known that Quakers were frequently compared to or conflated with Ranters. Ralph Farmer penned a pamphlet devoted to accusing the Quakers of upholding Ranterism among other unpopular tenets. Farmer used epithets, such as “levelling Quakers” and “Spirituall Juglers”, in reference to the Ranters’ reputation for promoting social equality and religious heterodoxy.82 Pamphleteers’ pictorial as well as textual descriptions of religious deviants overlapped. The woodcuts on the title page of The Quakers Dream, for example, are the same as those of the Ranters Declaration, except for the words superimposed on the images. On the Declaration, a group of naked Ranter women dance before a fiddler singing “Hey Ho for Christmas”. Above the same image on the front page of the Quakers Dream, the females chant “Above Ordinances”, which suggests that varieties of fanaticism could be represented by the same subversive image, but anxieties over specific transgressions transformed to reflect the most pressing threat to order and religion.83 During the political confusion of late 1659, authors continued to link religious sects together in rhetoric bemoaning their prevalence. In a broadside “Declaration”, the “Maids” of London rail against the “Crew of vermine” infecting the city, a crew which included Independents, Fifth Monarchists, Anabaptists, Adamites, Seekers and Quakers and “all” of their “Conventickling conjugations”. A 1659 version of the broadside ballad, A New Letany, asked God to free the nation “[f]rom the Anabaptists and shivering Quakers” as well as “from dissembling Presbyters, and their plots”.84 Such authors were quick to lump all groups hostile to their religious and political persuasions into one umbrella category – and soon enough the “crew of vermine” would become widely known as the “phanatic crew”. During the winter months of 1659–60, authors and propagandists increasingly deployed the term fanatic to focus the anger of those alienated by the growth of religious radicalism. At this stage royalist authors employed fanatic to describe anyone who held an extremist position on the religious and political spectrum. In a published version of General George Monck’s February 1660 speech before Parliament, Monck warned MPs to allow neither “Cavalier nor Phanatique party” a voice in either “Civil or Military power”, which   Lionel Lockier, The Character of a Time-Serving Saint (London, 1652).   Ralph Farmer, The Great Mysteries of Godlinesse and Ungodlinesse (London, 1655), epistle, 19; Davis, Fear, Myth and History, p. 90. 83  The Ranters Declaration (London, 1650); The Quakers Dream (London, 1655). 84  A Declaration of the Maids of the City of London (London, 1659); New Letany (London, Sep. 1659). 81 82

224

Disaffection.indb 224

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

directly compared fanatics to the most conservative royalists. A “member of the Army” wrote a declaration that also questioned army rule and advocated for the return of the purged members of Parliament. In a direct response to the Rump MP Thomas Scott’s recent speech denouncing Monck and his army, the author informed his “fellow soldiers” that a return to monarchy would not, as Scott suggested, require Monck or his troops to break from the Engagement. When addressing Scott’s claim that Monck’s support of Charles amounted to a rejection of Presbyterianism, the author noted that “moderate Episcopal” men and sober “Presbyterian” men “will jointly meet and kiss each other, for the settlement of the Nation in peace and unity”. Furthermore, he rejected the notion that the return of episcopacy would result in the rise of “Sectarians and Phanaticks”, which definitively set Presbyterians apart from these radicals.85 Even some later pamphlets that charged Presbyterians with Charles I’s downfall often distinguished between their assault on church and state and the threat posed by the “Phanatique Sectaries” Presbyterians feared so much.86 Other religious groups and sects fared worse than Presbyterians during the months surrounding Charles’s return. Once branded as fanatics, religious radicals struggled to maintain legitimacy in the face of public and official hostility to excessive religious enthusiasm. Different groups often utilized the label to denigrate and distance themselves from other sects, such as the Quakers’ attempts to disassociate the Friends from the Ranters.87 The pamphlet debate that broke out over the alleged “strange” occurrences in Fairford, Gloucester reflects just how easily the fanatic label could poison the reputation of religious radicals during the months following Charles’s restoration. Most accounts of this “providential” event claimed that a swarm of ominous frogs and toads invaded Fairford during the summer of 1660, but they differed dramatically in their interpretation. In early August, the pamphlet Strange and True Newes from Glocester recounted the “Miraculous” punishment of a local justice who had refused to aid a separatist Baptist congregation that had been assaulted by “a Company of Rude people”.88 According to this pamphleteer, the following day “two companies” of frogs and toads marched “as soldiers” toward Fairford. After reaching the town, one “Party” proceeded to the justice’s house while the other advanced toward the residence of the local lord. Frightened by the frogs’ invasion of the house, the justice’s maid allegedly cried “Lo this is the just judgment of our God upon us for your 85  The Army’s Declaration: Being a True ALARUM in ANSWER to a False and Firey one Made Lately by a Member of that Detestable RUMP (London, 1660). 86  The Grand Rebels Detected or, the Presbyter Unmasked (London, 1660), 12; A Lively Portrait of our New-Cavaliers, commonly Called Presbyterians Clearly Showing that His Majesty Came Not in Upon Their Account (London, 1661). 87  See, for example, George Fox, A Distinction Between the Phanatick Spirit, and the Spirit of God (London, 1660); Davis, Fear, Myth and History, pp. 90–1. 88  Strange and True Newes from Glocester [sic]… (London, 1660), p. 2; Jerome Friedman, The Battle of the Frogs and Fairford’s Flies (New York, 1993), pp. 248–53.

225

Disaffection.indb 225

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

refusing to help those innocent people”. Hoping to rectify his error, the justice left his abode to “do justice” on the “Multitude”, at which moment the frogs and toads formed two files creating “a perfect Lane” for his journey. After the justice meted out punishment to the congregation’s assailants, the frogs and toads disappeared “suddenly and wonderfully”, revealing God’s providence.89 In publicizing this descriptive account of God’s judgment against those who persecute Baptists, the anonymous pamphleteer practically encouraged printed attacks on the fanatical sect. Authors determined to crush the Baptist fanatics conversely exploited public interest in the wondrous events in Gloucester to attack their credibility. The royalist broadside ballad, The Phanaticks Plot Discovered, narrated what the author purported to be the “true Relation” of the fanatics “strange Proceedings in Gloucestershire”.90 Specifically refuting the account from the Strange and True Newes, the balladeer also warned readers not to fall into that author’s Anabaptistical snare. While the author of the broadside did not deny that frogs and toads approached justice’s home, he claimed that these creatures were in reality “Anabaptists, Brownists, and those/ Which ever were known to be the Kings Foes”. Throughout his piece the balladeer connected religious radicalism with the political revolution all while expressing his Presbyterian sympathies. The ballad even includes a woodcut used from Bloody News from Dover, a pamphlet from 1647 spinning a gruesome account of Mary Champion’s murder of her own child by decapitation.91 In the image Champion, an “Anabaptist” woman, is depicted holding the severed head of her own child in one hand, while her other hand points to its body. Her “Presbyterian” husband looks aghast at the scene with his hands up in air to portray his horror of his wife’s unnatural behavior. Reinforcing the image’s message, the last stanza of the 1660 ballad explicitly separates Presbyterians from fanatics while it places the blame for the regicide on these radicals: Come, come, Independent, and cast off thy hate, Consider the workings of God here to late, How miraculously he hath brought it about To bring in the King, whom you thought to keep out: The Presbyter and the Episcopal man May safely rejoyce now, because that they can Freely enjoy what is duly their own, That’s to have their Estates, and the King have his Crown.92

In his careful manipulation of popular accounts of the Fairford frogs, this balladeer exploited the public spectacle to denounce religious radicals as fanatics while aligning Presbyterianism with Anglicanism.   Strange and True Newes, pp. 2–3.   The Phanaticks Plot Discovered (Aug. 1660). 91  Bloody News from Dover (London, 1647), p. 1. 92  The Phanaticks Plot Discovered (Aug. 1660). 89 90

226

Disaffection.indb 226

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

2  The Presbyterian husband’s expression of horror in response to the excessive violence of his Anabaptist wife reflects his rejection of fanaticism. The woodcut used in The Phanaticks Plot Discovered (1660) first appeared in Bloody News from Dover (1647).

To combat this inevitable onslaught against his people, the Baptist minister Henry Jessey quickly printed an account that not only asserted the truth of the Fairford events, but also aimed to undermine popular conceptions about “fanaticks”. Jessey’s The Lords Loud Call to England expanded the story of Fairford’s divinely inspired frogs and defended the veracity of the omen while attacking those who would damage the reputation of Baptists. Throughout The Lords Loud Call Jessey implicitly threatened those who dared to label Baptists as fanatics by recounting tales of divine vengeance wreaked on those who assaulted Baptists as “Phanatick Fellows”. In his criticism of the persistent defamation and abuse of those pronounced “fanaticks”, Jessey attempted to eliminate the growing hostility to separatist congregations who had become associated with the weighty, slanderous word.93 Despite Jessey’s efforts, during the following month two more pamphlets appeared assailing the fanatics’ publication of “Lying Wonders”, using this opportunity to further exploit the dangers of fanaticism.94 The Perfect Narrative of the Phanatick WONDERS jeered at the fabricated story, and claimed that the appearance of frogs and toads in the west following rains was “an Annual Customary thing not onely in that place, but in all other about our Neighbourhood Parishes”. Like the author of the Phanaticks Plot, this pamphleteer adapted the metaphor of the frogs when he compared Charles II to August Caesar who commanded croaking frogs to keep silence, stating:  Jessey, The Lord’s Loud Call, pp. 4–5.   G. Brown, A Perfect Narrative of the Phanatick Wonders seen in the West of England… (London, 1660); Robert Clark, The Lying-Wonders, or Rather the Wonderful-Lyes (London, 1660). 93 94

227

Disaffection.indb 227

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

“all harsh roaring, and discordant clamour both in their Libellous Paper, and Airy Invention, will ere long, ’tis hoped, by the Command of our Gracious Sovereign be silenc’d and restrained”.95 As the pamphlet debate around the events in Fairford suggest, authors of various beliefs used the term fanatic to attack religious adversaries and to disassociate themselves from excessive enthusiasm, but many – including Presbyterians – soon found themselves the target of this rhetoric. Notwithstanding the efforts of Presbyterian royalist pamphleteers such as the author of The Phanaticks Plot Discovered, cavalier royalists increasingly incorporated Presbyterians into their conception of the fanatic in language that was reminiscent of pamphlet literature from the late 1640s. In 1660–61, Anglican royalists exploited the press to present their vision of a purely Anglican religious settlement and attacked those who refused to conform.96 Authors, including the royalist poet and pamphleteer Sir John Birkenhead, simply transformed earlier rhetoric satirizing the Presbyterians to suit the political situation of 1660. After publishing the derogatory and dehumanizing ballad The Four Legg’d Elder in 1647, Birkenhead reused the theme of bestiality to project the image of the unnatural, immoral fanatic in his broadside ballad The Four Legg’d Quaker published in 1659.97 Though the Quaker had come to replace the Presbyter as the ultimate image of deviance, the Presbyterians’ role in their rise is explicit: O Elders, Independents too, Though all your Power’s combin’d. Quakers will grow to strong for you How Horse and Man are joyn’d: Shee-Presbyters can deal with Dogs, And the Quaking Men with mares.98

As intimates of dogs, Quakers are presented as no better – indeed, no different – than their counterparts, the Presbyterians. In his pamphlet The Muses Holocaust: Or a New Burnt-Offering to the two great Idols of Presbytery And Anabaptism, Samuel Holland blamed radical sectarianism on both Presbyterians and Independents, coupling together the “pious” and the “ungodly”. Holland claimed that the prominent Independent Philip Nye had brought down “The Cross, the Suprliss, and the Liturgie” so that one day “the swarming Sectaries might rule/ From nearest Thames unto the farthest Thule”. The poem further accused “Jack Presbyter” of spawning Anabaptism:

 Brown, A Perfect Narrative of the Phanatick Wonders, p. 5.  Harris, London Crowds, p. 59. 97  John Birkenhead, The Four Legg’d Elder (London, 1647); Birkenhead, The Four Legg’d Quaker (London, 1660). 98 Birkenhead, The Four Legg’d Quaker. 95 96

228

Disaffection.indb 228

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

This is the Sense of all, This is the Ayer Of every true-born Presbyterian Prayer. With these is high the Anabaptists flown, Who will have no religion but his own.99

Matthew Stevenson placed the blame for sectaries solidly on the shoulders of the Presbyterians in a poem celebrating the burning of the Solemn League and Covenant by the public hangman on 22 May 1661. Jeering at the destruction of their earlier designs, he wrote: Bark then PHANATICKS, who like Demophon, Glow in the shade, and freeze still in the Sun. Howl Millenaries, Independents too, And Anabaptists that Heretick Crew Of Presbyterian By-blows; If these flashes Be sacred to you, come and Urn the ashes.100

While the prevalence of anti-sectarian opinion presented a façade of unity, Charles II’s religious settlement would reveal the deep fractures within the religious community.101 Within a few short months of Charles II’s return, the authors supporting Anglican uniformity masterfully adapted the discourse of the fanatic to attack all religious “Others”. As the term became increasingly associated with all forms of excess associated with the revolution in state and religion, it became difficult to disassociate religious nonconformity with rebellion and revolution. The Politicization of the Fanatic Ever since the breakdown of censorship in 1659–60, disaffected writers used the discourse of the fanatic to cast links between any continuance of the interregnum “experiment” and the failures of the last decade. Whether bemoaning the acts of corrupted Parliamentary leaders or obsessive magistrates, these authors lambasted the damage that excessive fanaticism in politics, reform and religion had wrought on the nation. Moving beyond attacks on religious zealots, these authors depicted the fanatic as a vile creature who united a large spectrum of grievances that existed over the course of the interregnum. 99  Samuel Holland, The Muses Holocaust: Or a New Burnt-Offering to the Two Great Idols of Presbytery and Anabaptism (London, 1661), pp. 1–2; Philip Nye was an independent clergyman who worked towards a religious settlement in the Westminster Assembly with both fellow independents and Presbyterians. See Barbara Donagan, “Nye, Philip (bap. 1595, d. 1672)”, ODNB. 100  Matthew Stevenson, Bellum Presbyteriale, or As Much Said for the Presbyter as May Be Together With Their Covenants Catastrophe (London, 1661). 101 Harris, London Crowds, pp. 62–3; Harris “Introduction”, in The Politics of Religion in Restoration England, ed. Harris, Seaward and Goldie (Cambridge, 1990), p. 9.

229

Disaffection.indb 229

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Throughout 1660, royalist rhetoric gradually refashioned the fanatic to incorporate the political and military leaders of the failed revolution. The fluidity of the term “fanatic” and the widespread view that religious and political fanaticism went hand-in-hand enabled authors to deride interregnum officials as the worst fanatics of all. The discourse of fanaticism was broad enough for royalist authors to use it in short quips against interregnum inventions, such as the county committees, or as a major theme in poems or longer pamphlets designed to undermine the legitimacy of interregnum leaders. Thomas Saunderson’s A Royall Loyall Poem perfectly describes the power behind the discourse of the “phanatick” that royalist authors exploited for their cause. After attributing the invention of the term to George Monck, the poem describes the very novelty and obscurity of the fanatic as a source of concern: And with one word Phanatick [Monck] struck them dumb, Some simply ask’d if it were Scotch, and some Whispered is’t not Spanish, some Greek, but most Sayd he was mistaken and would have it crost Out, and put in Fantastick, Schismatick, Or Anabaptist, Brownist, Heretick, Shaking Sir Harry Vanes fift Monarchy, Or weeping Fleetwoods quaking Anarchy H. Martins Adamites, Independents, Sawcy Lay-Elders, Super-Intendents, Any thing or all but that one strange word. Coyn’d with an angry Stamp should all afford, That Oliver or Lambert in their breast Contain’d, troubles them more then all rest.102

Authors, such as Saunderson, blamed England’s current crisis on the fanatic party, whose members had the subversive tendencies of a Quaker, the immorality of a Ranter and had rebelliously overthrown church and state. “That Phanatic Crew”: The Fanatic and the Demise of the “Good Old Cause” As debates over the future of England increased following the creation of the army-controlled Committee of Safety, discussions of the “good old cause” revived in print. Royalist authors, keen to undermine any sympathy for republicanism, increasingly referred to the assorted group of extremists associated with the “cause” as “the phanatic crew”. Such pamphleteers explicitly connected high profile interregnum officials with infamous religious radicals to foster the perception of Rump MPs and army officials as fanatics. A Phanatique League and Covenant – a broadside clearly mocking the Solemn League & Covenant – was signed not only by politicos Sir Arthur Hesilrige,   Thomas Saunderson, A Royall Loyall Poem (London, 1660), pp. 5–6.

102

230

Disaffection.indb 230

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

Buldstrode Whitelocke and Miles Corbet, but also the infamous Quaker James Nayler and the Fifth Monarchists Vavasor Powell, Christopher Feake and John Rogers.103 The Phanatick Intelligencer jeeringly referred to Parliament as “the Conventicle”, of which James Nayler was said to be “Clerk”. As cavorters and colleagues of well-known radicals, army officials and members of the Rump were presented as among the many unpleasant fanatics released during the “unnatural wars”.104 Royalist authors quickly embraced the rhetoric of the fanatic crew during the months following the rise of the Committee of Safety in late 1659. MajorGeneral John Lambert, who had forcibly locked Parliament out of Westminster in October, was frequently singled out as the crew’s leader. During these vital months, royalist authors penned accounts of Monck’s triumph over fanatics such as Lambert whose extremism, they claimed, led to overthrow of sound government and religion. Pamphleteers also adapted the rhetoric used to condemn the army’s radicalism during the 1640s and 1650s to attack the fanatics in the Committee of Safety. One such ballad, The New Letany, asked God to liberate the nation “From steelen Heroes that rule us with rods,/ From such as value not Mans Law, or Gods”.105 The ballad A Free-Parliament-Letany also called for the elimination of the “Phanatique crewe” of troopers and officers now in control of the country, while the broadside The Phanatick General linked political and religious fanaticism by describing the general’s support of the soldiers’ “Pulpit calld a Cart”, which refers to troopers’ alleged tendency to preach outside of traditional religious venues.106 Despite this allusion to rank-and-file radicalism, royalist propagandists most frequently directed their attacks on army officials in order not to alienate ordinary soldiers, many of who were as anxious over the growing number of sectaries as civilians. A London remonstrance against the “arbitrary unparallel’d proceedings of the Army” from 1659 demanded that Parliament be restored, and that “persons of unstable Fanatick Spirits”, such as Major-General Charles Fleetwood and other “Army-Officers”, be removed from power to ensure the “security and peace of the nation”.107 Following the defeat of Lambert and his “crewe”, the penitent fanatic who regretted his rebellious schemes became a regular trope in royalist rhetoric. In mock dialogues and royalist rhymes, interregnum leaders chronicled and lamented their subversive past following their defeat. Fallen officials such as Sir Henry Vane prayed not to God but the devil in the broadside A Phanatique Prayer. Vane and his company admitted they had “Subverted a Glorious   A Phanatique League and Covenant, Solemnly Enter’d into by the Assertors of the GOOD OLD CAUSE (London, 1660). 104  The Phanatick Intelligencer (London, 1660), p. 6. 105  The New Letany (London, Sep. 1659). 106  A Free-Parliament-Letany (London, 1660); Avvay VVith’t Quoth VVashington, or, the Phanatick General Vindicated Over the Left Shoulder (London, 1660). 107  Englands Present Case Stated (London, 1659), p. 13. 103

231

Disaffection.indb 231

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Church; -- Blasted a flourish State; -- Dissolved the best Temper’d Constitution of Government in the world; -- Robb’d, and Murther’d our Fellow Subjects; -- and fainlly washd our Sacrilegious Hands in the Blood Of Our Lawfull Soveraign”.108 Lambert, along with Vane, made frequent appearances in these mock accounts. Another such pamphlet claimed to contain intercepted letters sent from Lambert to “many of the Phanaticks in the Country”, including Vane. In a letter plotting the fanatics’ desperate, final designs, Henry Vane recommended that he and his allies court “the Devil” with “Anabaptisticall holy water” to further their cause. Vane added that they should have abandoned the façade of “zeal and fanctity” earlier, “since nothing introduces slavery sooner then Irreligion”.109 Lambert attempted to take his defeat more gracefully in the mock comedy Lamberts Last Game Plaid. Having failed to “recover his fame” with the old “Phanatique crew”, Lambert lamented that he “miscarried” his “last enterprise”, and, consequentially, would “never be able to Head any more Parties” as he would soon be shorter by a “head”.110 Following the Restoration, pamphleteers continued to celebrate the death of the “good old cause”. Whereas Monck was feted as the slayer of the fanatics during the winter of 1659, increasingly authors presented Charles II as the conqueror of fanatics. One broadside poem celebrating the return of the king and the fall of the fanatic crew declared: Shew not your heads Phanatiques our intent, Is for to serve the King and Parliament. You as the wicked weeds amongst good Corn, Shall by your deepest Roots from thence be torn; You Coblers, Plough-men, which thought it no crime, With others means, to make your selves sublime.111

In this line of royalist rhetoric, the return of Charles II signaled the return of the social hierarchy and the final demise of the extremism of the fanatic crew. Charles II: Vanquisher of Fanatics In the scores of broadside ballads and commemorative pamphlets celebrating the Restoration of Charles II, authors frequently drew upon the discourse of the fanatic to present Charles as a vanquishing king, who, through the destruction of the fanatic, would finally usher in an era of peace and liberty. Careful to depict the Restoration era as one of stability, sanity and security, these authors also cast the king as the providential weapon needed to   A Phanatique Prayer, By Sir H. V. Divinty Professor of Raby Castle (London, 1660); Reay, The Quakers and the English Revolution, pp. 84–5, fn. 27. 109  A Packet of Severall Letters Being Intercepted [sic] and Taken on Thursday Night Last Being the 26 of Aprill, Which Were Sent from John Lambert Esq. (London, 1660), p. 1. 110  Lamberts Last Game Plaid (London, 1660), pp. 3–4. 111  Dolor, ac Voluptas, Invicem Cedunt. Or England Glorious Change, by Calling Home of King Charles II (London, 1660). 108

232

Disaffection.indb 232

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

eradicate and castigate the fanatics whose antics over the past decade had all but destroyed the nation. Royalist propagandists used the potent symbol of Charles II, crowned and returned to his rightful throne, as the hero whose Restoration called forth and defeated the anti-hero of the failed interregnum experiment, the fanatic. The celebrations of Charles’s Restoration, memorialized in print, offered royalist propagandists a prime opportunity to present the returned king as the antithesis of fanatics and fanaticism. The extended title of the blackletter broadside ballad Englands Joy in a Lawful Triumph declared that “bold Phanaticks” were to “make room” at “CHARLS the Second’s coming home”. The balladeer predicted that Charles II, “like a Lion that’s rouz’d from his den”, would “pull down” the “proud” fanatics, and he expressed hope to see “all the vile Sectaries that can bee reckon’d” soon “routed by King Charls the second” in a catchy couplet.112 Another broadside honoring Englands Glorious Change reveled in “the Phanatiques Diminution” upon the return of Charles II. Chastising the fanatics as “Quaking Dogs”, the balladeer warned them that “wee’ve a King a coming (long Exil’d) To punish you”.113 The author of the black-letter ballad Englands Joy for the coming in of our Gratious Soveraign King Charles II rejoiced that, with Charles’s return: Fanatick Troupers must go home agen, And humbly walk afoot to plow, Nor domineer thus over honest men.

The stanza concludes with an allusion to the fanatics’ fate at the gallows.114 Authors of these popular keepsakes honoring the Restoration consistently presented Charles II as the final weapon in the war against the fanatics. Unsurprisingly, the rhetoric praising Charles as the antidote for extremism and fanaticism was picked up again in cheap publications celebrating his coronation a year later. Spreading the joy and fanfare from the streets of London on the occasion of Charles’s coronation, the author of the blackletter ballad Joyfull News to the Nation claimed that: [o]nely the Phanaticks . . . stood very mute: It grieved them to see such a turn in the Nation And troubled their conscience to see the Crownation.

The balladeer who penned Englands Joyfull Holiday used the king’s crowning to send yet another warning to the fanatics of the nation. “Let all Phanaticks have a care”, the black-letter ballad warns:   Englands Joy in Lawful Triumph. Bold Phanaticks Now Make Room Charles the Second’s Coming Home… (London, 1660). 113  Englands Glorious Change (London, 1660). 114  Englands Joy for the Coming in of Our Gratious Soveraign King Charles II (London, 1660). See also Englands Genius Pleading for King Charles to the Right Honorable Lords and Commons in Parliament (London, 1660); Englands Day of Ioy and Rejoycing, Or, Long Lookt for is Come at Last (London, 1660). 112

233

Disaffection.indb 233

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

And keep out of the Devils snare For this great work the Lord hath down in sending us the Gracious Son Of him whom you with wrath did slay For which you have cause to mourn always But we will rejoyce and merrily sing For joy that he is now Crown’d our King.115

A white-letter broadside ballad A Countrey SONG, Intituled, The Restoration chastised the “Fanaticks” and ordered them to “be quiet”, to “Go to Church and be wise”, and threatened that “the King bears not the Sword in vain”.116 To the royalists’ relief, Charles’s return would curb the tide of political and religious fanaticism. Royalist authors also presented the defeat and execution of Thomas Venner and his fellow Fifth Monarchist conspirators as a tangible example of Charles II’s righteous triumph over fanaticism. Though the London revolt was small and easily put down – fewer than one hundred people participated in the January 1661 uprising – the publications of the Fifth Monarchists called upon all of those who had dedicated themselves to the “good old cause” to rise up against the tyrannical Stuart king.117 The Fifth Monarchists’ manifesto justified the acts of the rebels not only with providential language, but also republican arguments on behalf of natural law, birthrights and popular sovereignty to unite those who scorned the Restoration. Such rhetoric made it easy for royalist authors to label all religious and political radicals as fanatics in their pamphlets condemning and mocking the failed revolt. Once again, royalist propagandists were able to twist narratives of a minor revolt of a few extremists into a discourse condemning all religious and political radicals as fanatics. In their responses to the Fifth Monarchists’ manifesto, A Door of Hope, royalist authors celebrated their defeat as Charles II’s personal triumph over fanaticism. Almost all royalist authors labeled the rebels fanatics, as the titles of the cheap pamphlets The True Discovery of a Bloody Plot Contrived by the Phanaticks and The Phanatiques Creed attest.118 Such narratives often attacked the vile acts of these fanatics by expressing horror at their attempt on the life of Charles II, but also derision at the radicals’ ludicrous efforts to unseat the restored king. In the broadside A Counter-blast to the Phanaticks, the author ridicules these fanatics as “damn’d fools” who, much like their   Joyfull News to the Nation: OR The Crowning of King Charls II (London, 1661); Englands Joyful Holiday, or, St. George’s Day (London, 1661). 116  A Countrey SONG, Intitled, The Restoration (London, 1661). 117  Bernard Capp, “A Door of Hope Re-opened: The Fifth Monarchy, King Charles and King Jesus”, Journal of Religious History, 32:1 (2008), 18–19. 118  The True Discovery of a Bloody Plot Contrived by the Phanaticks (London, 1661); The Phanatiques Creed (London, 1661). See also An Advertisement as Touching the Fanaticks Late Conspiracy and Outrage Attempted and Acted Partly in the City (London, 1661); A CounterBlast to the Phanaticks (London, 1661); A Full Relation or Dialogue Between a Loyallist and a Converted Phanattick (London, 1661). 115

234

Disaffection.indb 234

19/09/2017 11:26

THE RISE OF THE “FANATIC”

“master Jesuits”, absurdly believed they could “destroy … the sacred line of Charles le roy”. Rather, the author claimed, “such Vermin hang, and Charles doth Reign”, a just conclusion as “He doth as farre Excel all men in Piety, As the Phanaticks doe in villainy”.119 In a pamphlet relating a mock dialogue between a “Loyalist and a converted PHANATTICK”, a surviving fanatic is forced to face the victory of the royalists over the fanatics’ machinations and plans. After a loyalist spies the fanatic near the “walls of … government”, he convinces the repentant man to “convert” following the defeat of the Fifth Monarchists. When the loyalist asks the “phanatick” what were the goals of his kind, he answered that “our intention was to pull down all Government, to subvert the Laws, destroy the Clergy, to set up Bell and Dragon, and live under the means and sweat of other mens labours”. At the conclusion of the pamphlet, the fanatic’s last speech hails the royalists’ role in the elimination of radicalism. With specific allusions to sectarian meeting places and antics, the author rhymed, Then farwell sects, a farewell Sectaries Farewell to Schisme and to Hypocrittes, Farewell to meeting-houses and adiue To teaching-house farewell unto you Farewell to Bishopgate we use to meet Farewell to preaching in the open street.120

Though both pieces make distinct allusions to the acts and ideas of the Fifth Monarchists, they also draw upon references associated with other radical groups – Quakers, republicans and social revolutionaries – in their depiction of the despondent and penitent fanatic. Though an ambiguous and ephemeral figure from its first use, Charles’s supporters slowly transformed the fanatic to include all those who questioned the return of the monarchy, and, with it, the established social and religious orders. The term quickly became a part of popular political language following the Restoration. The royalist diarist Samuel Pepys used the term to reflect prevailing fears over fanaticism among the gentry. “Either the Fanatiques must now be undone”, Pepys wrote, “or the Gentry and citizens through England and clergy must fall, in spite of their Militia and army”.121 Tipplers celebrating the Restoration in Gloucester assaulted a group of Quakers who refused to drink to “the Confusion of all Phanatiqs”.122 During a violent bout with a group of soldiers in London’s suburbs, Henry Manckwoles called the troopers “fanatick Rogues” in a blatantly hostile insult. In his compilation of crimes perpetrated against the “godly”, Henry Jessey recorded an incident in which a vintner in Wapping confronted a group of devout souls, and, after   A Counter-Blast to the Phanaticks (London, 1661).   A Full Relation or Dialogue Between a Loyallist and a Converted Phanattick. 121  The Diary of Samuel Pepys, vol. 1, p. 111. 122  Quoted in Reay, Quakers and the English Revolution, p. 64. 119 120

235

Disaffection.indb 235

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

placing a noose around one’s neck, “hauled him along and said to this effect, So must the Fanaticks be hanged up”.123 Working its way into the coterie of popular slanderous terms, the fanatic continued to represent the dangers of the rebellious interregnum period throughout the later Stuart period, and the elimination of this figure remained closely associated with the return of the monarchy. While the number of religious and political radicals never posed a serious threat during the interregnum – estimates claim that religious radicals were never more than five percent of the population – media, rumor and isolated incidents provoked fear and hatred within pockets of English society. Royalist pamphleteers who desired to unite a disjointed populace under the vanguard of royalism channeled such hostility and anxieties. Using the figure of the fanatic to represent multiple conceptions of ill-formed zealotry, royalists deployed the term in rhetoric promising the eradication of religious and political extremism without ever clearly defining the fanatic. Within these narratives, it was no longer unruly youths or troubled communities who would implement justice to counteract ineffective interregnum policy – it was the triumphant, restored king. Along with the elimination of the hated excise-man and intrusive soldiers, Charles II would quash the fanatic and usher in an era of peace and stability in communities across the nation. In their formation of the figure of the fanatic, royalist polemicists united divergent views about the dangers posed by extremism and heterodoxy to promote the restoration of the monarchy. Shortly after Charles’s return, many of those who favored his restoration saw themselves isolated and identified as fanatics, despite their own use of the term to label those religious “Others” they had castigated. Under the restored regime, an aggressive institution of strict uniformity would leave many to ponder which was worse: religious freedom or its repression.

  Henry Jessey, The Lord’s Loud Call, p. 8; Harris, London Crowds, p. 52.

123

236

Disaffection.indb 236

19/09/2017 11:26

Conclusion

During the summer of 1659, popular hostility toward sectaries culminated in violent assaults on Quakers and other radicals in London, Lancashire, Cheshire and Somerset.1 William Walke’s raging assault at the Bradford excise house in May expressed his and others’ growing resentment of the failing excise administration and its vilified collectors during a period of declining trade. As tensions rose between the army and the Rump Parliament in August, a Presbyterian royalist uprising broke out in the north-west. But for Parliament’s quick gathering of forces, London would have been embroiled in unrest as well. Though General Lambert’s troops quickly suppressed Sir George Booth’s royalist insurrection, the demands for a free Parliament began a fresh dialogue over the legitimacy of the Rump Parliament and the future of the nation.2 Exploiting the unraveling events at home, Charles Stuart issued a proclamation to his “loving subjects” in England from Brussels in October 1659. Echoing popular sentiments, Charles promised that upon his return “A free and legal Parliament” would be “summoned”. In tune with a chorus of royalist tracts, Charles’s proclamation attempted to equate the growing desire for a free Parliament with a push for his Restoration, suggesting that only he could ensure Parliament’s “privilege” would be “maintained”. The proclamation also ridiculed the Rump, and Charles jeeringly referred to the body as “that Tail of a Parliament remaining”. Throughout the proclamation, Charles assured the exhausted nation that he would alleviate their burdens and eliminate the “confusion” which prevailed. The army would be disbanded after being dutifully paid with money procured in a “Parliamentary way”, and only the old garrisons would remain. Further, troublesome and illegal impositions such as the “Excise” and “Free-quartering” would be eliminated, while taxes would be raised in accordance with the “Magna Charta and the Petition of Right”. His promise to recompense the purchasers of Bishop,  Reay, The Quakers and the English Revolution, p. 93; Harris, London Crowds, pp. 52–3; Harris, Restoration (London, 2005), p. 52; Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings, p. 220. 2  Gary De Krey, London and the Restoration, 1659–1683 (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 23–5; Harris, London Crowds, p. 41. 1

Disaffection.indb 237

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

Dean and Chapter lands announced the return of the Church of England. Charles stated that Parliament would be endowed with the responsibility of “settling the Protestant Religion” in a manner that would protect “liberty for tender Consciences”.3 Charles expressed the hope that his illicit proclamation, printed on a broadside, would be distributed “freely” through the usual networks, noting that “many scurrilous and lying Pamphlets fly abroad without our control”.4 Thus began the first production of Charles’s public claims to alleviate “all” of the people’s “grievances”. By drawing on strains of royalist rhetoric published throughout the interregnum, Charles’s proclamation broadened its appeal by portraying him as the protector of the ancient rights and liberties of the people. Even prior to his arrival on English soil, however, Charles began to abandon the cause of his “subjects” in favor of bolstering his power. While his official Declaration of Breda, issued in April and read in Parliament on May Day 1660, did affirm liberty of conscience, it made no mention of the other grievances that his October declaration suggested he would redress. Though he reduced it, Charles never eliminated the excise tax completely. His regime would continue to the collect the profitable excise on beer, ale, cider and other beverages and intoxicants. This provoked resentment amongst those who had supported the monarchy under the belief that Charles would eliminate the tax and its hated collectors. The author of a celebratory Restoration broadside ballad wrongly predicted “Our Taxes will grow less and less, I suppose/ For wee have béen very much troubled with those/ Excise-men (I hope too) in time will go down/ ‘Tis they are the torment of Country and Town”.5 Disappointed expectations provoked William Gates, a husbandman from Masborough, Yorkshire, to call Charles a “Rogue” for allowing “Knaves” such as Thomas Killingbeck to collect the excise on beer, and “in so doing he would overthrow all his subjects”.6 Coming just one year after failed Farnley Wood Plot in Yorkshire, such utterances were deeply troubling to a regime determined to maintain order and legitimacy. Promises of liberty of “tender conscience” were also broken, and the various origins of hostility to religious fanaticism wrought divisions that problematized the reunification of the religious community. Following the unsuccessful London rising launched by Fifth Monarchists in early 1661, the possibility of limited toleration faded as fears of further insurrection echoed those of 1659–60.7 After the Restoration regime reestablished religious uniformity in 1662, it persecuted many royalists who had supported and enabled Charles’s return. As Tim Harris has argued, the Restoration Church settlement created   Charles II, By the Kings Most Excellent Majesty, a Proclamation (Antwerp, 1659).  Ibid. 5  Englands Joy in a Lawful Triumph. Bold Phanaticks Now Make Room Charles the Second’s Coming Home (London, 1660). 6  WYAS Wakefield, QS 4/7 fol. 127, 19 Jul. 1664. 7  De Krey, London and the Restoration, p. 71; Harris, London Crowds, p. 60. 3 4

238

Disaffection.indb 238

19/09/2017 11:26

CONCLUSION

new rifts within communities – divisions which formed over “where an individual stood on the issue of dissent” rather than between Anglicans and nonconformists.8 In Restoration political culture, the term fanatic failed to foster a sense of unity – it actually contributed to the political polarization of England into two distinct parties: the Whigs and Tories. Charles’s October 1659 declaration represented just one of many policies that underscored the duplicity behind the king’s adoption of royalist rhetoric that had bemoaned the persistence of popular grievances throughout the 1650s. In one of his very first acts upon the throne, Charles put forth a declaration against “Vicious Debauch’d, and Prophane Persons” who “spend their times in Taverns, Tipling-Houses, and Debauches, giving no other Evidence of theire Affection to Use, but in Drinking Our Heath and Inveighing, against others, who are not of their own dissolute tempor”.9 This proclamation was delivered just one day after lavish celebrations throughout the streets of London greeted his reentry to the nation’s capital. The proximity in time is suggestive, and although Charles’s procession into London was greeted by “rich carpets”, “rows of bonfires” and “young maidens” strewing flowers at his feet, his journey through the city likely provoked anxieties over popular unrest. That same night, crowds of celebrators tossed effigies of Cromwell, his wife and the Commonwealth’s arms in large bonfires, perhaps reminding the king of the fickleness of people’s affections.10 This book’s goal has been to explore the intersections between the politics of everyday life with the politics of revolution. It did not set out to uncover popular allegiances or isolate conservative and radical grassroots action. Rather, it traced the emergence of disaffection as a force that unsteadied ordinary and extraordinary interactions between individuals as well as between governors and the governed. It has argued that the transformations and divisions that emerged from civil war and revolution complicated customary and everyday politics practiced by individuals, communities and collective interests. As a result, even mundane quarrels could become charged with political tensions that individuals exploited to shape their authority within communities and amidst interpersonal squabbles. By digging into moments when the realities of everyday life clashed with the politics of revolution, this book has considered not only how ordinary men and women experienced revolutionary change, but also how those experiences informed popular political culture and political discourse during the 1650s and beyond. The book has explored these issues and arguments across two sections formed to grapple with the challenging task of relating everyday politics to the politics of regime change. Its focus on a set of sites and objects of  Harris, London Crowds, pp. 62–3; Harris, Restoration, p. 52.   Charles II, A Proclamation Against Vicious Debauch’d, and Prophane Persons (London, 1660); Jenner, “Roasting of the Rump”, pp. 119–20. 10  Rugg, pp. 89–90. 8 9

239

Disaffection.indb 239

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

disaffection allowed for a selective approach that brought to light a multiplicity of experiences within the sights and scenes of ordinary life. The first part peered into the alehouses, streets and marketplaces of England and revealed persistent tensions and divides across English society during the interregnum. In victualing houses across the country, puritan assaults on drinking culture – including attacks on the “profane” ritual of health-drinking – unsettled practices of conviviality and problematized fluid definitions of loyalty and allegiance amongst “good company”. The increased politicization of drink – as a necessity, a commodity and a centerpiece of sociability – also had the power to create new rifts or redefine old tensions in places where drink was brewed, sold and quaffed. As the Revolution crept into marketplaces, fairs, artisans’ shops and other quotidian sites, the use and experience of these sites also transformed. Disaffected groups and individuals who sought legitimacy by exploiting the market cross as a traditional site of political power engaged entire communities in their struggles. Those who challenged the state through performing rituals of authority in the streets and marketplaces of England presented their dissenting views as a viable alternative to the status quo. Spaces of everyday life became sites of political contestations that questioned the structure and stability of English society under the interregnum regimes and the legitimacy of the entire republican experiment. The second part of the book investigated how central policies that threatened the ability of people to negotiate disruptive or unwelcome change provoked men and women to target their animosities on objects of disaffection – recognizable figures they associated with the revolution. Upon their entrance into alehouses, soldiers and excise-men were taunted with verbal slurs such as “rogue”, “caterpillar” and, at times, “roundhead”. In branding the excise-man as a cankerous villain, alienated communities dehumanized this object of their hostility to justify his violent removal from local society. Shifts in policy that altered who directly paid the tax, who collected it and how it was enforced limited crowd violence in the 1650s, but despite these efforts the changes would do little to curb perceptions that excise-men exercised draconian methods of collection. In their strategic use of verbal and physical abuse, individual men and women and associations orchestrated ritualistic assaults on excise-men that evinced the protestors’ political and legal acumen versus mere savagery. Those who performed acts of terror often consciously mimicked state practice in order to legitimate their use of violence as a means to enforce their concepts of order.11 The agitated apprentices who dragged undesirable Quaker preachers from the High Cross to the Tolzey Court at Bristol asserted their desire for the formal prosecution of these radicals.12 As Alexandra Walsham notes, it is telling that popular   Susan Dwyer Amussen, “Punishment, Discipline, and Power”, p. 3; Davis, “The Rites of Violence”, p. 181; Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, chap. 3 12 Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings, p. 11. 11

240

Disaffection.indb 240

19/09/2017 11:26

CONCLUSION

assaults on Quakers declined during the Restoration following the Quaker and Conventicle Acts.13 This new legislation enabled communities to prosecute Quakers and other nonconformists through the courts; however, the Second Conventicle Act of 1670 provided financial incentives to informers, which in turn provoked further violence against nonconformists – although this time under the color of the law.14 The experiences the book has uncovered call into question any attempt to reduce people’s engagement in popular politics as evidence of either popular conservatism or radicalism. Historians’ concern with rooting out popular allegiances resulted in their use of labels such as apathetic, neutral or nonideological to describe the everyday politics of those who, like London’s costermongers and victuallers, challenged policies that infringed on their ability to lead productive and quiet lives.15 Advances in the social history of politics, which place the “politics of the parish” at the heart of early modern power relations, suggests scholars have looked for politics in the wrong places. As Andy Wood argues, the politics of custom were inherently local, and they served as a “discursive field” that anyone – from a lowly victualler to Sir Arthur Hesilrige – might use to legitimate claims to common rights, power, access or position.16 Conflicts over a person’s right to resources, to drink ale strong and to practice trades without paying a crippling tax defined politics for many ordinary men and women during the interregnum. People’s understanding of legislation and their ability to effect its execution within their communities meant that even slanderous terms blurted inside an alehouse had the potential of altering local power relations. A woman could be called disloyal to her husband because of her devotion to Cromwell, a man a rogue for having fought in the king’s or parliament’s forces and a community could face intensified surveillance for failing to report a public case of drunken sedition. When people employed popular jeers alongside political epithets, disaffection became far more than a simple expression of dissent or political allegiance: it became a form of politics available to anyone who strove to find, maintain or advance their agency within interregnum society. Commoners, costermongers and artisans who defended local customs to fight intrusive policies – whether innovative or habitual – called into question the Commonwealth’s and the Protectorate’s claims to represent the liberties of the English commonality. By navigating, negotiating and manipulating the shifting dynamics that revolution unfurled, ordinary men and women performed distinctly political acts that influenced how people, interests and  Walsham, Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, p. 139.   “Charles II, 1670: An Act to prevent and suppresse Seditious Conventicles”, Statutes of the Realm: Volume 5: 1628–80 (1819), pp. 648–51. 15  See Mayers, 1659: the Crisis of the Commonwealth, p. 110; Sharp, In Contempt, p. 254; Braddick, Parliamentary Taxation, pp. 182–3. 16  For his view of custom as a “discursive field”, see Wood, The Memory of the People, pp. 2, 11–13. 13 14

241

Disaffection.indb 241

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

communities defined loyalty, allegiance and affection. In everyday squabbles, contests over common rights and public protests against arbitrary government, disaffection emerged as a pliable political force that pervaded tested and transformative forms of popular political culture. Undoubtedly many of those who longed for the return of traditional parish life were royalist sympathizers, but to equate their rejection of the state’s interference in the practices of sociability with conservatism also disregards people’s ability to recognize the complexities of allegiance and the fluidity of royalism. In his study of popular politics during the English Revolution, John Walter contends that treating traditional popular political culture as inherently conservative “underestimates its capacity for critical analysis”.17 Though Walter does not perceive sweeping transformations in the “forms” of popular politics during English Revolution, he argues that civil war increased the power of popular agency and, thus, he concludes that popular politics were “characterized both by familiar continuities and by striking discontinuities”.18 Jason Peacey’s inimitable work on print and common politics during the Revolution contends that the transformative use of print provided a new mechanism of political participation “that affected the entire nation”.19 Emphasizing the dynamism of popular politics rather than the revolutionary or normative quality of its practices prevents us from returning to those categories of progressive and conservative that historically bound scholars’ approach to “history from below”. It also shields us from overstating the role of print in the “participatory” political culture that emerged during the 1640s and 1650s simply due to its novelty.20 The interaction between historic and emergent forms of popular politics, coupled with the rise in popular agency, produced an intricate and varied interregnum popular political culture. Divisions forged during the 1640s afforded an enhanced political voice for those whose subordinate status had often excluded them from direct political action. Royalists and parliamentarians elicited the support of young and poorer men through propaganda and recruitment efforts, which opened the door for increased participation and a new “radical masculinity” that threatened definitions of patriarchal manhood centered on the household.21 During the interregnum, subordinate groups often deftly practiced the politics of disaffection within the structures that defined their status within the social order. The apprentices and Leveller women who took to the street in support of their right to petition often justified their activism by framing it within the same normative patriarchal order that their politics problematized. Apprentices frequently defended their   John Walter, “The English Revolution and the English People Revisited”, p. 175.   John Walter, “Crowds and Popular Politics in the English Revolution”, in The Oxford Handbook of the English Revolution, ed. Michael Braddick (Oxford, 2015), p. 334. 19 Peacey, Print and Public Politics, pp. 14–15. 20  Ibid., pp. 14, 19. 21 Hughes, Gender and the English Revolution, pp. 106–8. 17 18

242

Disaffection.indb 242

19/09/2017 11:26

CONCLUSION

protests by claiming their rights as future heads of households, while Leveller women pushed against policies and practices that prevented them from fulfilling their wifely and motherly duties. Similar themes emerge in many of the case studies presented in this book. Women who rejected the excise-men did so in defense of household economies, which mirrored rhetorical attacks against collectors that claimed their arbitrary practices subverted the natural order. Quaker women who preached and exhorted their betters to reform in marketplaces and parish churches provoked stronger reactions within communities for their methods upended gender hierarchies. Representations of active youths and women within propaganda reveal the tensions that surrounded their agency during the interregnum. When royalist authors championed moments of gender reversal or social inversion to undermine the legitimacy of the interregnum state, they also celebrated the increased agency of these lowly members of the commonality. By representing popular disaffection through the triumph of women and youths over their superiors, these authors exposed conflicting views and emotions over the rise of popular agency. Although royalists frequently claimed to be the protectors of popular culture and customary politics, such professions do not necessarily indicate that people adhered to a paternalistic view of politics. In our examination of royalist propaganda, we also must not fall prey to the pamphleteers’ rhetorical depictions of popular political allegiances or assume all royalists expressed genuine sympathy for the troubles of the people. The Levellers also attempted to advance their radical agenda by mobilizing the populace through mass-petitioning campaigns and street politics, but a combination of factors undermined their success. Despite the popularity of leaders such as John Lilburne, the Levellers failed to engage with many popular grievances that did not directly align with their vision, and the challenge popular political action posed to representative democracy complicated their relationship with traditional forms of popular political culture. Royalist authors and printers were more successful in their attempts to represent various expressions of alienation and disaffection as evidence of widespread royalist sympathies. Such rhetoric not only garnered support for their cause, but also undermined the legitimacy of the interregnum regimes. Authentic connections between the royalist cause and the sufferings of the commonality certainly existed – several royalist authors and printers experienced these realities firsthand.22 Nevertheless, these and other authors catered their rhetoric to broaden its appeal by employing discourses, genres and forms that united grievances of dedicated royalists with the troubles of the industrious poor. Rather than suggest there is an arbitrary divide between popular and elite culture, it indicates the reverse. What it does reveal is that the relationship between 22  Jason McElligott, Royalism, Print, and Censorship, pp. 40–1; 94–7; Jason Peacey, “News, Pamphlets, and Public Opinion”, in The Oxford Handbook of Literature and the English Revolution, ed. Laura Lungers Knoppers (Oxford, 2012), p. 177.

243

Disaffection.indb 243

19/09/2017 11:26

DISAFFECTION AND EVERYDAY LIFE

the plight of the Stuarts and the grievances of commonality was in part a rhetorical one, as reality often reflected something quite different. Delving into sites and objects of disaffection has allowed us to consider how mundane economic exchanges, everyday practices of sociability and interpersonal quarrels became entangled in the politics of civil war and revolution. Though people across the country certainly practiced the politics of disaffection to gain the upper hand in neighborly squabbles, to uphold or restore common rights, to express gendered identities and to preserve local customs, we must be careful not to equate this form of politics with mere opportunism. Nor should we fall prey to presentism and seek to assign the label of “populism” to the rise of a conservative government claiming shared interests with people who may have felt overlooked or unseen by the existing regime. Both approaches view quotidian politics as tangential versus central to the Revolution – as mundane and easily manipulated by larger political concerns. Neither considers ordinary people – costermongers, ale-sellers, fullers and tenant farmers – as political actors every bit as complex, dynamic and sophisticated as the elites who sought to control them. By refocusing our analysis on the intersections between the politics of revolution and the politics of everyday life we are able to see how routine practices of ordinary people influenced – rather than were simply influenced by – the larger political discourses of this revolutionary decade.

244

Disaffection.indb 244

19/09/2017 11:26

Bibliography

Manuscript Sources British Library Harley 1438: Description of Oliver Cromwell’s funeral hearse Harley 2127: Political ballads and poems Harley 3991: Political ballads and poems Sloane 972: Relation of the unrest at Eslington in Northumberland c.1649–56 Devon Heritage Center, Exeter ECA Book 64: Exeter City Sessions, Book of Examinations QS 1/8: Devon Quarter Sessions, Order Book QS/4: Devon Quarter Sessions, Bundles Essex Record Office, Chelmsford D/B 5 Sb2/9: Colchester Borough Sessions, Book of Examinations Q/SBa: Essex Quarter Sessions, Depositions London Metropolitan Archives CLA/047/LJ/01: City of London Session Files, Gaol Delivery, Oyer and Terminer and Sessions COL/CA/01: London Court of Aldermen, Repertories COL/CC/01: London Court of Common Council, Journals MG/SR: Middlesex Sessions of the Peace and Oyer and Terminer Rolls MJ/SGR: Middlesex Gaol delivery rolls WJ/SR: Westminster Sessions of the Peace The National Archives ASSI 4: Depositions ASSI 44: Indictments and loose depositions KB 9: Indictments SP 24, 25: State Papers West Yorkshire Archive Service, Wakefield Headquarters QS 4: West Riding of Yorkshire Quarter Sessions, Indictment Books QS 10: West Riding of Yorkshire Quarter Sessions, Order Books

Disaffection.indb 245

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Transcriptions and Calendars Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–1660, ed. C.H. Firth and R.S. Rait. London, 1911. Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–1660, ed. C.H. Firth and R.S. Rait. London, 1911. British History Online. . Borough Sessions Papers, 1653–1688: A Calendar, ed. Arthur James Willis and Margaret Hoad, Portsmouth Record Series. London, 1971. Burton, Thomas. Diary of Thomas Burton Esq: Vol. 1, July 1653–April 1657, ed. John Towill Rutt. London, 1828. British History Online. . Calendar of Assize Records. Elizabeth I, ed. J.S. Cockburn. London, 1975. Calendar of Assize Records. James I, ed. J.S. Cockburn. London, 1980. Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Interregnum Series, ed. Mary Ann Everett Green et al. London, 1875–86. Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Interregnum Series, ed. Mary Ann Everett Green et al. London, 1875–86. British History Online. . Calendar of State Papers Venetian, ed. Allen Hinds. Vols. 28–32. London, 1927–31. Clarke, William. The Clarke Papers. Selections from the Papers of William Clarke, Secretary to the Council of the Army, 1647–1649, and to General Monck and the Commanders of the Army in Scotland, 1651–1660, ed. C.H. Firth. Vols. III–IV. London, 1891. Commons Debates, 1628, ed. Mary Frear Keller, Maija Jansson Cole and William B. Bidwell. Vol. IV. New Haven, CT, 1978. Depositions from the Castle of York, ed. James Raine. Vol. 40, Surtees Society. London, 1860. Evelyn, John. The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. John Bowle. Oxford, 1983. Fox, George. The Journal of George Fox, ed. Norman Penney. New York, 1973. Hertfordshire County Records: Calendars to the Sessions Books, Sessions Minute Book and other Sessions Records, 1619–1833, vol. 5, ed. William Le Hardy. Vol. 5. Hertford, 1905. Historical Manuscripts Commission. Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Marquis of Bath Preserved at Longleat. Vol. II. London, 1904. Historical Manuscripts Commission. Report on Manuscripts in Various Collections. 2 Vols. London, 1901. Josselin, Ralph. The Diary of Ralph Josselin 1616–1683, ed. Alan Macfarlane. London, 1976. Journals of the House of Commons, Vols. 6–7. London, 1802. Journals of the House of Commons, Vols. 6–7. London, 1802. British History Online. . Journals of the House of Lords. Vols. 8–10. London, 1767–1830. British History Online. . Middlesex County Records (Old Series), ed. John Cordy Jeaffreson. Vol. 3. London, 1972. Nicholas, Edward. The Nicholas Papers. Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, ed. George F. Warner. London, 1886. 246

Disaffection.indb 246

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Norfolk Quarter Sessions Order Book, 1650–1657, ed. D.E. Howell. Norfolk, 1955. Pepys, Samuel. The Diary of Samuel Pepys, ed. Robert Latham and William Matthews. Vol. 1. Berkeley, CA, 1970. Quarter Session Records for the County of Somerset, ed. E.H. Bates. Vol. III. London, 1907. Records of the Borough of Leicester; Being a Series of Extracts from the Archives of the Corporation of Leicester, ed. Mary Bateson. Vol. I. London, 1899. Rugg, Thomas. Diurnal, 1659–1661, ed. W.L. Sasche. London, 1961. Thurloe, John. A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, ed. Thomas Birch. 7 Vols. London, 1742. Thurloe, John. A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, ed. Thomas Birch. 7 Vols. London, 1742. British History Online. . Whitelocke, Bulstrode. The Diary of Bulstrode Whitelocke, 1605–1675, ed. Ruth Spalding. Oxford, 1990. Printed Primary Sources Newsbooks The Armies Modest Intelligencer (1649) A Briefe Relation (1649–50) The Impartiall Intelligencer (1649) The Impartial Scout (1649–50) England’s Moderate Messenger (1649) The Kingdomes Faithfull and Impartiall Scout (1649) The Kingdomes Weekly Intelligencer (1649) The Man in the Moon (1649–50) Mercurius Brittanicus (1649) Mercurius Carolinus (1649) Mercurius Elencticus (1648–49) Mercurius Melancholicus (1648–49) Mercurius Militaris or the Armies Scout (1648–49) Mercurius Politicus (1650–60) Mercurius Pragmaticus (1648–49) Mercurius Pragmaticus (For King Charles II) (1649–50) The Moderate (1648–49) The Moderate Intelligencer (1648–49) The Moderate Messenger (1649) A Modest Narrative of Intelligence: Fitted for the Republique of ENGLAND & IRELAND (1649) A Perfect Diurnall of some Passages and Proceedings of... the Armies (1649–50) A Perfect Diurnall of Some Passages in Parliament (1648–50) Perfect Occurrences of Every Daie iournall in Parliament (1648–49) Perfect Passages of Every Daies Intelligence (1650) A Perfect Summary of Exact Passages of Parliament (1649) 247

Disaffection.indb 247

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Perfect Weekly Account (1649–50) Severall Proceedings in Parliament (1649–50) General An Advertisement as Touching the Fanaticks Late Conspiracy and Outrage Attempted and Acted Partly in the City. London, 1661. Another Victory in Lancashire Obtained Against the Scots. London, 1651. The Army Anatomized: Or, a Brief & Plain Display of the Humble, Honest and Religious Actings of the General Sir Tho. Fairfax, and His Army of Saints, toward the Good of the King and Parliament, and the Whole Kingdom, since the Famous Victory, at Naseby, June 14. 1645. London, 1647. The Army’s Declaration: Being a True ALARUM in ANSWER to a False and Firey one made lately by a Member of that Detestable RUMP. London, 1660. The Arraignment and Tryall with a Declaration of the Ranters Also, Several Sentences Proceedings at the Sessions in the Old-Baily, and Councel of War: Their Protestations and the Hanging of One up by the Thumbs; with Divers Penalties to Be Inflicted Upon Others. The Dancing and Revelling of Dr. Buckeridge and His Wife, and Other Gent. Dancing All in White, in Berkshire, and Their Christmas Carol. A Dispute between a Ranter in Bridewel, and One That Came to See Him; with His Creed and Pater Noster: And the Names of the False Gods They Worship. As Also, a List of Many of the Ranters, from Whence They Are Derived: And of Many Hundreds of Them in England. London, 1650. Avvay Vvith’t Quoth Vvashington, or, the Phanatick General Vindicated over the Left Shoulder. London, 1660. Barnabies Summons or, Paie Your Groat in the Morning. London, 1652. Besse, Joseph. A Collection of the Sufferings of the People Called Quakers, for the Testimony of a Good Conscience, from the Time of Their Being First Distinguished by That Name in the Year 1650, to the Time Of ... The Act of Toleration, ... In the Year 1689. Taken from Original Records and Other Authentick Accounts. 2 vols. London, 1753. Birkenhead, John. The Four-Legg’d Quaker to the Tune of the Dog and Elder’s Maid, or, the Lady’s Fall. London, 1664. ———. The Fovr-Legg’d Elder, or, a Horrible Relation of a Dog and an Elders Maid to the Tune of the Lady’s Fall. London, 1647. Bishop, George. The Cry of Blood. And Herod, Pontius Pilate, and the Jewes Reconciled, and in Conspiracy with the Dragon, to Devour the Manchild. Being a Declaration of the Lord Arising in Those People, of the City of Bristol, Who Are Scornfully Called Quakers, and of the Manifold Sufferings, and Persecutions Sustain’d by Them from the Priests, Rulers, Professors and Rude Multitude, Contrary to Law, Liberty, Justice, Government, the Righteous Ends of of the Wars, and the Scriptures of Truth. Together with a True Account of the Material Passages in Substance between the Rulers and Them at Their Several Examinations, and Commitments, and at Two General Sessions of the Publick Peace: And of the Tumults, and Insurrections, with Other Necessary Observations, and Occurences. London, 1656. Booker, John. The Bloudy Almanack. London, 1652. Bowles, Edward. Good Counsell for Evil Times. Or, A Plain Sermon Preached at Pauls in London, April 16. 1648. London, 1648. 248

Disaffection.indb 248

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brome, Alexander. Ratts Rhimed to Death. Or, the Rump-Parliament Hang’d up in the Shambles. London, 1659. ———. The Rump, or a Collection of Songs and Ballads, Made Upon Those Who Would Be a Parliament, and Were but the Rump of an House of Commons, Five Times Dissolv’d. London, 1660. Brown, G. A Perfect Narrative of the Phanatick Wonders Seen in the West of England. With a True Relation of the Particulars Thereof: Sent in a Letter to a Worthy Gentleman, Belonging to an Alderman of the City of London. London, 1660. The Case of the Armie Truly Stated. London, 1647. Cavalier and Puritan: Ballads and Broadsides Illustrating the Period of the Great Rebellion, 1640–1660, ed. Hyder Edward Rollins. New York, 1923. The Character of a Phanatique. London, 1660. A Charge of High Treason Exhibited against Oliver Cromwell Esq; for Several Treasons by Him Committed. London, 1653. A Charge of High-Treason, Prepared by the London-Apprentices, against Col. Hewson; and the Strange Apparitions That Appeared Unto Him, Immediatly after His Being Taken near Plymouth in Cornwal; with His Speech and Confession to the Vision. London, 1660. Charles II, England and Wales. A Proclamation to Restrain the Spreading of False News, and Licentious Talking of Matters of State and Government. London, 1672. Clark, Robert. The Lying-Wonders, or Rather the Wonderful-Lyes. London, 1660. A Coffin For King Charles: A Crowne for Cromwell: A Pit for the People. London, 1649. Cole, William. Severall Proposals Humbly Tendered to the Consideration of Those that are in Authority, for the Ease, Security, & Prosperity of this Common-wealth. London, 1659. ———. Trades Destruction is Englands Ruine, Or Excise Decryed. Wherein is Manifested the Irregularity and Inequality of Raising Money by Way of Excise to Defray the Charge of the Nation. London, 1659. Colonel Huson’s (or the Cobler’s) Confession in a Fit of Despair, Taken in Short-Hand by the Pen of a Ready-Writer. London, 1660. A Counter-Blast to the Phanaticks. London, 1661. A Countrey SONG, Intitled, The Restoration. London, 1661. Crofton, Zachary. Excise Anotomiz’d, and Trade Epitomiz’d: Declaring, That Unequall Imposition of Excise, to Be the Only Cause of the Ruine of Trade, and Universall Impoverishment of This Whole Nation. London, 1659. A Curse against Parliament-Ale… London, 1649. Crouch, Humphrey. The Downfall of Pride. Riband-Cod-pieses, Black-patches, and Whatsoever is Antick, Apish, Fantastick, and Dishonourable to a Civil Government. London, 1656. D, T. Certain Queries, or Considerations Presented to the View of All That Desire Reformation of Grievances. Comprised in These Heads Following. 1. A New Representative. 2. Concerning Adultery and Whoredom, Cursing, Swearing, Blasphemy, &C. 3. Reforming the Custom Houses, and Excise Offices. 4. About Old Holy Dayes. 5. Regulating Doctors and Chirurgions, and Lawyers Boundless Fees. 6. The Putting Down Tythes, and to Have a Constant, Equal Maintenance for the Ministry, and Schools Other Wayes. 7. About Reforming the City of London. 8. Concerning Monopolizing Post Letters, and Other Things. 9. Concerning Copy Hold 249

Disaffection.indb 249

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Land. 10. Concerning Law Suits, and Lawyers. 11. The Putting Down All Friars. 12. About the Calling of the Jews. 13. Concerning Murtherers and Felons, and Such Like Capitol Offenders. London, 1651. Deacon, John. The Grand Impostor Examined: Or, the Life, Tryal, and Examination of James Nayler, the Seduced and Seducing Quaker with the Manner of His Riding into Bristol. Whereunto Is Added, the Sentence Passed Upon Him by the High Court of Parliament. London, 1657. ———. Nayler’s Blasphemies Discovered, or, Several Queries to Him Proposed with His Owne Answers Thereunto. London, 1657. A Declaration Concerning Colonel Henry Martin, Colonel Robert Lilburn, Colonel Downs, Colonel Temple, Colonel Waite, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Carew, Esq. Who Sate as Judges on the Life of Our Late Martyr’d Soveraign King Charles: With a Charge and Impeachment of Their Trayterous and Dangerous Proceedings against His Majesties Loyal Subjects, and the Committing of Them to the Custody of That Worthy and Faithful Sir John Robinson ... : As Also a Discovery of Their Treasonable Designs with Those Two Perfidious Hannibals, Collonel John Barkstead and Collonel John Hewson. London, 1660. A Declaration of the Commons Assembled in Parliament Against a Scandalous Book Entituled, The Second Part of Englands New Chains Discovered. London, 1649. A Declaration of the Maids of the City of London. London, 1659. Demophilos, or, The Assertor of the Peoples Liberty Plainly Demonstrating by the Principles Even of Nature Itself. London, 1658. A Dialogue Betwixt an Excise-Man and Death. London, 1659. Dolor, ac Voluptas, invicem cedunt. Or England Glorious Change, by Calling Home of King Charles II. London, 1660. Downame, John. Foure Treatises, Tending to Disswade All Christians from Foure No Lesse Hainous Than Common Sinnes, Namely the Abuses of Swearing, Drunkennesse, Whoredome, and Bribery: Wherein the Greatnesse and Odiousnesse of These Vices Is Discouered, and the Meanes and Remedies Which May Either Preserue or Weane Men from Them Are Propounded: Whereunto Is Annexed a Treatise of Anger. London, 1613. Edwards, Thomas. The Third Part of Gangræna. Or, a New and Higher Discovery of the Errors, Heresies, Blasphemies, and Insolent Proceedings of the Sectaries of These Times; with Some Animadversions by Way of Confutation Upon Many of the Errors and Heresies Named. ... Briefe Animadversions on Many of the Sectaries Late Pamphlets, as Lilburnes and Overtons Books against the House of Peeres, M. Peters His Last Report of the English Warres, the Lord Mayors Farewell from His Office of Maioralty, M. Goodwins Thirty Eight Queres Upon the Ordinance against Heresies and Blasphemies, M. Burtons Conformities Deformity, M. Dells Sermon before the House of Commons; ... As Also Some Few Hints and Briefe Observations on Divers Pamphlets Written Lately against Me and Some of My Books. London, 1646. England and Wales, Army. An Agreement Prepared for the People of England and the Places Therewith Incorporated, for a Secure and Present Peace, Upon Grounds of Common Right Freedom and Safety. Also, a Declaration of the General Councel of Officers, Concerning the Same. With a Petition of His Excellency and the Said General Councel, Presented Therewith, Saturday, January 20. 1648. To the Honorable the Commons of England in Prliament [Sic] Assembled. Here Tendred to the Peoples Considerations, 250

Disaffection.indb 250

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

and in Due Time for Their Subscriptions. By Appointment of the Generall Councel of Officers of the Army. Signed, John Rushvvorth, Sec’. London, 1649. England and Wales, Parliament. An Act Appointing Commissioners for the Excize. London, 1650. ———. An Act Declaring What Offences Shall Be Adjudged Treason. London, 1649. ———. A Declaration of the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament : For the Appeasing and Quietting of All Unlawfull Tumults and Insurrections in the Severall Counties of England and Dominion of Wales: Also an Ordinance of Both Houses for the Suppressing of Stage-Playes, 1642. ———. A Declaration of the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament to the Whole Kingdome, Concerning the Excise: With Additionall Instructions for the Better Regulating of the Same. Die Lunæ 22 Feb. 1646. London, 1647. ———. Die Veneris 11 Junii 1647. Ordered by the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament, That the Excise of Flesh Bee Taken Off from and after the Foure and Twentieth Day of This Instant June. London, 1647. ———. Friday 12 December, 1651. Votes of Parliament Touching the Excize of Beer and Ale. London, 1651. ———. An Ordinance against Challenges, Duells, and All Provocations Thereunto. London, 1654. ———. An Ordinance and Declaration of the Lords & Commons Assembled in Parliament, for Re-Establishing the Duty of Excize Upon All Commodities, except Flesh and Salt. Shewing the True Grounds and Reasons That Necessitated Them to the Erecting and Continuing of the Said Duty; and the Great Benefit That Hath Ensued to the Kingdom Thereby. Together with an Exact Accompt of What Moneys Hath Been Collected from the Beginning of the Said Imposition to This Present; and to What Uses the Said Moneys Have Been Put. Die Sabbathi, 28 Augusti, 1647. London, 1647. ———. An Ordinance of the Lords and Commons Assembled in Parliament, for, the Utter Suppression and Abolishing of All Stage-Playes and Interludes. With the Penalties to Be Inflicted Upon the Actors and Spectators, Herein Exprest. London, 1648. ———. Tuesday, May 10th. 1659. The Parliament Doth Resolve and Declare, That All Persons Whatsoever Shall Pay, and Hereby Are Required to Pay in All Arrears and Growing Duties, for Customs, Excise and New Impost, Monethly Taxes, and All Other Moneys Due and Payable to the Common-Wealth. London, 1659. Englands Day of Ioy and Reioycing, Or, Long Lookt For is Come at Last. Or the True Manner of Proclaiming CHARLS the Second King of England, &c. This Eighth Day of this Present May; To the Ever Honored Praise of General Monck, being for the Good of his Country, and the Parliament. London, 1660. Englands Genius Pleading for King Charles to the Right Honorable Lords and Commons in Parliament. London, 1660. Englands Glorious Change. London, 1660. Englands Joy for the Coming in of our Gratious Soveraign King Charles II. London, 1660. Englands Joy in Lawful Triumph. Bold Phanaticks Now Make Room Charles the Second’s Coming Home. As it was Voted in the House on May-day last 1660. London, 1660. Englands Joyful Holiday, or, St. George’s Day. London, 1661. Englands Present Case Stated. London, 1659. The Excise-Mens Lamentation: Or, an Impeachment in Behalf of the Commons of This Nation, against Their Insulting Publicans, and Cruell Oppressors and Extortioners: 251

Disaffection.indb 251

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

With Their Acknowledgment, Confession, and Testimony, Touching Their Proceedings in Each County; and the Vast and Mighty Summes Vvich They Most Wickedly Retained: Collected by Their Unlimited Power, Spungie Hearts, and Long-Stretched Consciences. Also, the Rising of the Welch-Men against a Party of Them at Monmouth; and the Manner How Mr. Crow (the Farmer of Excise) Ran Naked into a Tub of Feathers; Where, after a Short Time, He Was Taken, and a Great Oath and Charge Inflicted Upon Him. London, 1652. An Exit to the Exit Tyrannus or Upon Erasing that Ignorminious and Scandalous Motto, which was set over the place where King Charles the First statue stood, in the Royall Exchange, London To the tune of I made a voyage into France, &c. London, 1659. F, B. The Character of Sr. Arthur Haslerig the Church-Thief. London, 1661. Fairfax, Thomas. A Proclamation to Prevent Abuses by the Souldiers. London, 1647. Fairfax, Thomas, and John Wildman. The Case of the Armie Truly Stated Toge-Gether with the Mischiefes and Dangers That Are Imminent, and Some Sutable Remedies, Humbly Proposed by the Agents of Five Regiments of Horse, to the Respective Regiments, and the Whole Army. London, 1647. Farmer, Ralph. The Great Mysteries of Godlinesse and Ungodlinesse the One Opened from That Eternall Truth of the Un-Erring Scripture of the Ever-Blessed Jesus, the Other Discovered from the Writings and Speakings of a Generation of Deceivers, Called Quakrrs [Sic]: Wherein Their Sathanicall Depths, and Diabolicall Delusions, Not Hitherto So Fully Known, Are Laid Open. London, 1655. ———. Sathan Inthron’d in His Chair of Pestilence. Or, Quakerism in Its Exaltation. Being a True Narrative and Relation of the Manner of James Nailer (That Eminent Quaker’s) Entrance into the City of Bristoll the 24. Day of October, 1656. With One Man Going Bare-Headed before Him: And Two Women; One on One Side, Another on the Other Side of His Horse, Holding the Reines, and Leading Him. Singing, Hosannah, and Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Israel. Together with Some Blasphemous Letters Found About Him, with Their Examinations Thereupon, in This City, and Other Considerable Passages, and Observations. Whereto Is Added a Vindication of the Magistrates and Inhabitants of This City, in Reference to the Nestling of These Quakers Amongst Us. With a Declaration of the Occasion, Rise and Growth of Them in This City. London, 1657. Fidge, George. Hind’s Ramble or, the Description of His Manner and Course of Life. Wherein Is Related the Several Robberies He Hath Committed in England, and the Escapes He Hath Made Upon Several Occasions. With His Voyage into Holland, and How He Cheated a Dutch-Man There of 200.L. And from Thence Went into Ireland, Where He Did Many Robberies, and Was Wounded by Some of His Own Party. With a Relation of His Going to the Scotch King, Where He Was Made Scoutmaster General, and Afterwards (as ‘Tis Generally Reported) Was the Onely Man That Conveyed the Scotch King to London, Who since Is Shipt Away for Beyond Seas. A Book Full of Delight, Every Story Affording Its Particular Jest. London, 1651. Fox, George. A Distinction between the Phanatick Spirit and the Spirit of God and the Fruits of Each Spirit as Followeth. London, 1660. A Free-Parliament-Letany. London, 1660. Friday 12 December, 1651. Votes of Parliament Touching the Excize of Beer and Ale. London, 1651. A Full Narration of the Late Riotous Tumult within the City of London. London, 1648. 252

Disaffection.indb 252

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Full Relation or Dialogue between a Loyallist and a Converted Phanattick since the Time of the Late Rebellion, Relating Their Wicked Conspiracy, and Barbarous Intentions, Whereby Their Divellish Plots Is More Fully Discovered Then Ever It Was Before: Gently Disputed between Them Both. Together with the Phanaticks Lamentation and Farewell to That Crew. Published as a Warning-Piece to All the Rebellious Sectaries. London, 1661. Fuller, Thomas. Mixt Contemplations in Better Times. London, 1660. Gallant News of Late I Bring, Tiding of Chusting now a King, Whereby true Subjects may Rejoice In Chusing them so Sweet a Choyce. London, 1660. Gallobelgicus. Wine, Beer, Ale, and Tobacco, Contending for Superiority a Dialogue. London, 1658. Geree, John. Theiopharmakon. A Divine Potion to Preserve Spirituall Health, by the Cure of Unnaturall Health-Drinking. Or An Exercise Wherein the Evill of Health-Drinking is by Clear and Solid Arguments Convinced. Written for the Satisfaction, and Published by the Direction of a Godly Parliament-man. London, 1648. The Gossips Braule, or the Women Weare the Breeches. A Mock Comedy. The Actors Names, Nick Pot, a Tapster. Jone Ruggles, a Dungel-Raker. Doll Crabb, a FishWoman. Megg Lant-Ale, a Tub-Woman. Bess Bung-Hole, an Hostice, Who All to Try the Mastery of Their Tongues, New Wet Their Whistles, Barley-Oyl Their Lungs, Then Rais’d with Choller, Spleen and Gaule, Their Tongues Advance, and Then Begins the Braule. London, 1655. The Grand Rebels Detected, or, the Presbyter Unmasked. London, 1660. The Great Sins of Drunkeness and Gluttony Set Forth in the Proper Colours. And by Scripture Sentences and Pious Meditations Briefly Confirmed. London, 1656. Gunton, Timothy. An Extemporary Ansvver to a Cluster of Drunkards, met together at Schiedam: Made by Timothy Gunton, who was Compelled thereto, upon his Refusall to Drink the Kings health. Whether such Impetuous Drinking of other Mens Healths were Lawfull, Profitable, Commendable, or Reasonable? London, 1648. H., T. Haslerig & Vain or, a Dialogue between Them at Their Several Conference in the Tower of London, Being a Lamentation of Both Their Vile Actions Which Was Formerly Committed by Them, with All Their Damnable Plots, against the Late King Charles after Their Apprehending. Together with Their Contrivance against This Famous City of London, and Now Cursing Their Miserable Condition Expecting Every Day for Their Tryall. London, 1660. H., G. We Have Brought our Hogs to a Fair Market: or Strange Newes from New-Gate. London, 1652. The Hang-Mans Lamenration [sic] for the Losse of Sir Arthur Haslerigge, Dying in the Tower. Being a Dialogue between Esquire Dun, and Sir Arthur Haslerig with Their Last Conference in the the Tower of London a Little before Sir Arthurs Death. London, 1660. Hedworth, John. The Oppressed Man’s out-Cry; or, an Epistle Writ by John Hedworth of Harraton in the County of Durham, Esq. The 13 Sept. 1651. Unto the Honourable, Sir Henry Vane, the Elder, a Member of the Honorable Parliament of the Common-Wealth of England, William Vane His Son, Lieut. Col. Paul Hobson, and John Middleton, Esq. Members of the Com. Of the Militia of the County of Durham by Authority of Parliament. Newcastle, 1651. Holland, Samuel. The Muses Holocaust: Or, a New Burnt-Offering to the Tvvo Great Idols of Presbytery and Anabaptism. By Samuel Holland. London, 1662. 253

Disaffection.indb 253

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Hymne to the Gentle-Craft, or Hewsons Lamentation. To the Tune of the Blind Beggar. London, 1661. Ibeson, James. To the Supream Authority, The Parliament of the Common-wealth of ENGLAND. A second Remonstrance of James Ibeson. London, 1652. Jessey, Henry. The Lords Loud Call to England: Being a True Relation of Some Late, Various, and Wonderful Judgments, or Handy-Works of God, by Earthquake, Lightening, Whirlewind, Great Multitudes of Toads and Flyes; and Also the Striking of Divers Persons with Sudden Death, in Several Places; for What Causes Let the Man of Wisdome Judge, Upon His Serious Perusal of the Book It Self. Also of the Strange Changes, and Late Alterations Made in These Three Nations. As Also of the Odious Sin of Drinking Healths, with a Brief of Mr. Pryns Solid Arguments against It, and His Epistle to the Late King Charls, to Redress It. London, 1660. Joyfull News to the Nation: OR The Crowning of King Charls II. London, 1661. The Judiciall Arraignment, Condemnation, Execution & Interment of the Late Pernicious endenized DUTCH DEVIL EXCIZE. London, 1653. Kiffin, William. Walwins Wiles: or The manifestators manifested viz. Liev. Col. John Lilburn, Mr Will. Walwin, Mr Richard Overton, and Mr Tho. Prince. London 1649. Lamberts Last Game Plaid. London, 1660. Lilburne, John. An Agreement of the People for a Firme and Present Peace, upon Grounds of Common Right and Freedome. London, 1647. ———. An Agreement of the People of England, and the Places therewith Incorporated, for a Secure and Present Peace, upon Grounds of Common Right, Freedom and Safety. London, 1649. ———. The Christian Mans Triall: Or, a True Relation of the First Apprehension and Severall Examinations of Iohn Lilburne, with His Censure in Star-Chamber, and the Manner of His Cruell Whipping through the Streets: Whereunto Is Annexed His Speech in the Pillory, and Their Gagging of Him: Also the Severe Order of the Lords Made the Same Day for Fettering His Hands and Feet in Yrons, and for Keeping His Friends and Monies from Him, Which Was Accordingly Executed Upon Him for a Long Time Together by the Wardens of the Fleet, with a Great Deale of Barbarous Cruelty and Inhumanity, &C. London, 1641. ———. Englands New Chains Discovered; or the Serious Apprehensions of a Part of the People, in Behalf of the Commonwealth; (Being Presenters, Promoters, and Approvers of the Large Petition of September 11. 1648.) Presented to the Supreme Authority of England, the Representers of the People in Parliament Assembled. London, 1649. ———. A Iust Reproof to Haberdashers-Hall: Or, an Epistle. London, 1651. ———. A Preparative to an Hue and Cry after Sir Arthur Haslerig (a Late Member of the Forcibly Dissolved House of Commons, and Now the Present Wicked, Bloody, and Tyrannicall Governor of Newcastle Upon Tine) for His Severall Ways Attempting to Murder, and by Base Plots, Conspiracies and False Witnesse to Take Away the Life of Lieutenant Colonel John Lilburn Now Prisoner in the Tower of London: As Also for His Felonious Robbing the Said Lieut Col. John Lilburn of Betwixt 24 and 2500 L. By the Meer Power of His Own Will, ... In Which Action Alone, He the Said Haslerig Hath Outstript the Earl of Strafford, in Traiterously Subverting the Fundamentall Liberties of England, ... And Better and More Justly Deserves to Die Therefore, Then Ever the Earl of Strafford Did ... By Which Tyrannicall Actions the Said Haslerig Is Become 254

Disaffection.indb 254

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

a Polecat, a Fox, and a Wolf, ... And May and Ought to Be Knockt on the Head Therefore. London, 1649. A Lively Portrait of our New-Cavaliers, commonly called Presbyterians Clearly Showing that His Majesty came not in upon Their Account. London, 1661. Lockier, Robert. The Army’s Martyr: Or a Faithful Relation of the Barbarous and Illegall Proceedings of the Court-Martiall at White-Hall Upon Mr. Robert Lockier: Vvith His Christian Carriage and Deportment, and His Dying Speech to All His Fellow-Soulders [Sic] at the Time of His Execution, as an Ever-Lasting Witnesse of the Integrity to the Rights and Freedoms of the Common-Wealth. Who Was Shot to Death in Paul’s Church-Yard, Upon the 27 of April, 1649. With a Petition of Divers Well-Affected Persons Presented to the General in His Behalf. London, 1649. Lockyer, Lionel. The Character of a Time-Serving Saint or, the Hypocrite Anatomized, and Thorowly Dissected. London, 1652. London, City of. A Full Narration of the Late Riotous Tumult within the City of London, and Proceedings of the Lord Mayor, Committee of Militia, and the Common-Councell of the Said City Concerning the Same. Presented to the House of Peeres Upon Thursday the 13. Of April, 1648. With Their Lordships Answer Thereunto. Die Jovis 13. April. 1648. Ordered by the Lords Assembled in Parliament, That This Narration Be Forthwith Printed and Published. London, 1648. A Looking-Glasse for a Drunkard or a Drunkard Defined. London, 1652. The Loyal Subjects Teares for the Sufferings and Absence of their Sovereign … With an Observation upon the expunging of Exit Tyrannus Regum Ulitmus. London, 1660. Masterson, George. A Declaration of Some Proceedings of Lt. Col. Iohn Lilburn, and His Associates: With Some Examination, and Animadversion Upon Papers Lately Printed, and Scattered Abroad. One Called the Earnest Petition of Many Free-Born People of This Kingdome : Another, the Mournfull Cries of Many Thousand Poor Tradesmen, Who Are Ready to Famish for Want of Bread, or the Warning Tears of the Oppressed. Also a Letter Sent to Kent. Likewise a True Relation of Mr. Masterson’s Minister of Shoreditch, Signed with His Owne Hand. Published by Authority, for the Undeceiving of Those That Are Misled by These Deceivers, in Many Places of This Kingdom. London, 1648. The Mercenary Sovldier. London, 1646. Musgrave, John. A True and Exact Relation of the Great and Heavy Pressures and Grievances the Well-Affected of the Northern Bordering Countries Lye under, by Sir Arthur Haslerigs Misgovernment, and Placing in Authority There for Justices of the Peace, Commissioners for the Militia, Ministry, and Sequestrations, Malignants, and Men Disaffected to the Present Government, Set Forth in the Petition, Articles, Letters and Remonstrance, Humbly Presented to the Councel of State, with His Apologie to the Lord President, for Publishing Thereof. London, 1650. The New Letany. London, 1659. A New Meeting of Ghosts at Tyburn. Being a Discourse of Oliver Cromwell, John Bradshaw. Henry Ioeton. Thomas Pride. Thomas Scot, Secretary to the Rump. Major Gen. Harrison. & Hugh Peters the Divells Chaplain. London, 1660. A New Way to Pay Old Debts. London, 1652. News from the Royall Exchange or, Gold Turn’d into Mourning: From Exit Tyrannus Regum Ultimus Anno Liberatus Angliæ Restitutæ Primo. Januarii 30. Anno Dom. 1648. To Ecce! Exit Non Tyrannus, Sed Regum Hominumq; Optimus Anno Angliæ 255

Disaffection.indb 255

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fœlicitatis Ultimo. Englished: The Last Tyrant of Kings Dyed in the First Year of the Liberty of England Restored, January 30. 1648. Behold! It Was Not a Tyrant King That Dyed, but the Best of Kings and Men, That Suffered in the Last Year of England’s Felicity. London, 1660. The Out-Cry of the London Prentices for Justice to Be Executed Upon John Lord Hewson; with Their Desires and Proposalls Touching His Arraignment. As Also a Hue-and-Cry, or Proclamation. London, 1659. A Packet of Severall Letters Being Intetcepted [Sic] and Taken on Thursday Night Last Being the 26 of Aprill, Which Were Sent from John Lambert Esq. To Many of the Phanaticks in the Country. London, 1660. The Parliament Routed: Or, Here’s a HOUSE to be Let. I Hope that England after May Jarres, Shall be at Peace, and Give No Way to Warres: O Lord Protect the General that He May be the Agent o our Unitie. London, 1653. The Phanatick Intelligencer Communicating the Chief Occurrences and Proceedings of the Sectarian Generation, within the Dominions of England, Scotland, and Ireland. London, 1660. The Phanaticks Plot Discovered Being a True Relation of Their Strange Proceedings in Glocester-Shire and Other Counties; and What Hath since Hapned Upon the Appearing of the Two Great Bodies of Frogs and Toads (as They Pretended) in Sundry Shapes and Dreadful Colours; to the Great Wonder of All Loyal Subjects, That Shall Seriously Peruse These Following Lines. To the Tune of, Packingtons Pound. London, 1660. A Phanatique League and Covenant Solemnly Enter’d into by the Assertors of the Good Old Cause. London, 1659. A Phanatique Prayer by Sir H.V. Divinity-Professor of Raby Castle. London, 1660. The Phanatiques Creed. London, 1661. Phillips, John. A Satyr against Hypocrites. London, 1655. ———. Sportive Vvit the Muses Merriment, a New Spring of Lusty Drollery, Joviall Fancies, and a La Mode Lamponnes, on Some Heroic Persons of These Late Times, Never Before Exposed to the Publick View. London, 1656. ———. Wit and Drollery Joviall Poems. London, 1661. The Picture of the Councel of State, Held Forth to the Free People of England by Lievt. Col. John Lilburn, Mr Thomas Prince, and Mr Richard Overton, Now Prisoners in the Tower of London. London, 1649. A Pill to Purge Melancholy: Or Merry Newes from Newgate: Wherein is Set Forth, the Pleasant Jests, Witty Conceits, and Excellent Couzenages, of Captain James Hind, and His Associates. How Hind, Putting on a Bears Skin, Attempted to Rob a Committeeman at Oxford of 200 l. And How He Had Like to Have Been Worried by a Mastiff Dog; and What Means He Used to Free Himself from the Fury of the Mastiff, and Afterwards Got the Money. How Hind Cheated an Excize-Man of His Mare, Which Was Esteemed One of the Best in England; and Being Afterwards Apprehended for Her at Newark, How Neatly He Made His Escape, and Got the Mare Again. How Hind Disguising Himself in Womens Apparel, Gul’d an Old Lawyer in the Temple of 14 l. Shewing Him Such a Trick in the Law, That He Never Knew Before. How Hind Having Knowledge That the Old Lawyer Had 100 l. More in His Trunk Which Stood in His Chamber, Devised a Way to Get That Also; and How He Was Serv’d by a Gentleman of the Temple, Who New Christen’d Him. With a Variety of Other Delightfull Passages, Never Heretofore Published by Any Pen. London, 1652. 256

Disaffection.indb 256

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Pretended Saint and the Prophane Libertine. Well met in Prison. Or a Dialogue between Robert Tichburne and Henry marten, Chamber-Fellowes in Newgate. London, 1660. The Prophecie of Paulus Grebnerus Concerning These Times. London, 1649. Prynne, William. A Declaration and Protestation against the Illegal, Detestable, Oft-Condemned, New Tax and Extortion of Excise in General; and for Hops (a Native Incertain Commodity) in Particular. London, 1654. ———. Demophilos, or, the Assertor of the Peoples Liberty Plainly Demonstrating by the Principles Even of Nature Itself, and by the Primitive Constitutions of All Governments since the Creation of the World That the Very Essence and the Fundamentals of All Governments and Laws Was Meerly the Safety of the People, and the Advancement of Their Rights and Liberties, to Which Is Added the General Consent of All Parliaments in the Nation, and the Concurrence of Threescore and Two Kings since First This Island Was Visible in Earnest, and by Commerce with Other Nations, Hath Been Refined from Fable and Neglect. London, 1658. ———. Healthes: Sicknesse. Or A Compendious and Briefe Discourse; Prouing, the Drinking and Pledging of Healthes, to be Sinfull, and Vtterly Vnlawfull Vnto Christians by Arguments, Scriptures, Fathers, Moderne Diuines, Christian Authors, Historians, Councels; Imperiall Lawes and Constitutions; and by the Voyce and Verdict of Prophane and Heathen Writers: Wherein all those Ordinary Obiections, Excuses, or Pretences which are made to Justifie, Extenuate, or Excuse the Drinking or Pledging of Healthes, are Likewise Cleared and Answered. London, 1628. ———. The Iudiciall Arraignment, Condemnation, Execution & Interment of the Late Pernicious Endenized Dutch Devil Excize, and Its Infernal Imps Excize-Men, Englands Grand Pests. Relating the Severall Judgements of Our Late English Parliaments, King, Lords, Commons, and Parliamentary Speeches of Mr. Oliver St. John, and Mr. John Pym against All Excizes, as Contrary to Our Lawes, Liberties, Contrary to the Petition of Right; and the Peoples Club-Justice Upon Some Excizers, as a Timely Admonition to All Others. London, 1653. ———. The Works of William Prynne of Swainswick, Esquire since His Last Imprisonment, Viz, the First and Second Part of a Seasonable, Legal and Historical Vindication of the Fundamental Right and Laws of England, Much Enlarged: A Declaration and Protestation against Excise in General, and Hops a Native Incertain Commodity in Particular : A Polemicall Desertation, of the Inchoation and Determination of the Lordsday Sabbath : An Old Parliamentary Prognostication, for the Members There in Consultation : Quakers Unmasked, and Clearly Detected to Be the Spawn of Romish Frogs &C. London, 1655. The Quakers Dream. London, 1655. The Qvakers Fear, or, Wonderfull Strange and True News from the Famous Town of Colchester in Essex: Shewing the Manner how one James Parnel, a Quaker by profession, Took upon Him to Fast twelve Days and Twelve Nights without any Sustenance at All, and Called the People that Were His Followers or Disciples, and Said that All the People in England that Were Not of Their Congregation, Were All Damned Creatures. Of His Blasphemous Life and Scandelous Death in the Jayl in Colchester this Present Month of April 1656, You Shall Here Have a Full Relation. London, 1656. The Ranters Declaration, with Their New Oath and Protestation; Their Strange Votes, and a New Way to Get Money; Their Proclamation and Summons; Their New Way of Ranting, Never before Heard of; Their Dancing of the Hay Naked, at the White Lyon 257

Disaffection.indb 257

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

in Peticoat-Lane; Their Mad Dream, and Dr. Pockridge His Speech, with Their Trial, Examination, and Answers: The Coming in of 3000. Their Prayer and Recantation, to Be in All Cities and Market-Towns Read and Published; the Mad-Ranters Further Resolution; Their Christmas Carol, and Blaspheming Song; Their Two PretendedAbominable Keyes to Enter Heaven, and the Worshiping of His Little-Majesty, the Late Bishop of Canterbury: A New and Further Discovery of Their Black Art, with the Names of Those That Are Possest by the Devil, Having Strange and Hideous Cries Heard within Them, to the Great Admiration of All Those That Shall Read and Peruse This Ensuing Subject. Licensed According to Order, and Published by M. Stubs, a Late Fellow-Ranter. London, 1650. A Relation of the Cruelties and Barbarous Murthers, and Other Misdemeanours, Done and Committed by Some Foot-Souldiers, and Others, without Command, Upon Some of the Inhabitants of Enfield, Edmonton, Southmyms, and Hadley, in the County of Middlesex, and Their Servants and Cattle. London, 1659. A Relation of the Riotous Insurrection of Divers Inhabitants of Enfield, and Places Adjacent Humbly Offered to the Consideration of the Members of Parliament. London, 1659. Reynardson, Abraham. The Vindication of Abraham Reinaldson, the Late Mayor of the City of London. London, 1649. Rich, Barnaby. The Irish hubbub, or, The English hue and Crie Briefly Pursuing the Base Conditions, and, Most Notorious Offences of the Vile, Vaine, and Wicked age, No lesse Smarting then Tickling: a Merriment Whereby to Make the Wise Laugh, and Fooles to be Angry. London, 1618. Rich, Robert, William Tomlinson, and George Fox. Copies of Some Few of the Papers Given into the House of Parliament in the Time of Iames Naylers Tryal There, Which Began the Fifth of December, 1656. To the Speaker of the Parliament of England, These to Be Read. London, 1657. Rigby, Joseph. An Ingenious Poem, Called The Drunkards Prospective, or Burning-glasse. London, 1655. The Routing of the Ranters Being a Full Relation of Their Uncivil Carriages, and Blasphemous Words and Actions at Their Mad Meetings, Their Several Kind of Musick, Dances, and Ryotings, and Their Belief and Opinions Concerning Heaven and Hell. With Their Examinations Taken before a Justice of Peace, and a Letter or Summons Sent to Their Sisters or Fellow Creatures in the Name of the Divel, Requiring Them to Meet Belzebub, Lucifer, Pluto, and Twenty More of the Infernall Spirits at the Time and Place Appointed. Also, a True Description How They May Be Known in Al Companies and the Names of the Chief Ring-Leaders of This New Generation That Excell All Others in Wickednesse. London, 1650. The Rump Ululant, or Penitence Per Force; Being the Recantation of the Old Rust-RoguyRebellious-Rampant, and Now Ruinous Rotten-Rosted Rump. To the Tune of Gerrards Mistresse. London, 1660. Saunders, Thomas, John Okey, and Mathew Allured. To His Highness the Lord Protector, &C. And Our General the Humble Petition of Several Colonels of the Army. London, 1654. Sheppard, Samuel. The Committee-Man Curried. A Comedy [in Five Acts, in Prose and Verse] Presented to the View of All Men. ... A Piece Discovering the Corruption of Committee-Men, and Excise-Men; the Unjust Sufferings of the Royall Party, the 258

Disaffection.indb 258

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Divellish Hypocrisie of Some Roundheads, the Revolt for Gaine of Some Ministers. Not without Pleasant Mirth, and Variety. London, 1647. ———. Good-Ale Monopolized, and the Tapsters Persecuted. London, 1654. ———. Mercurius Phreneticus. Communicating Intelligence as Well Forraign as Domestick, to All the Mad-Men, Moon-Men, Phrenetick-Men, Phanatick, Melancholy, Mastfull, Merry People of Great Brattain. London, 1652. Sir Arthur Hesilrigs Lamentation, and Confession: Upon his being Voted from Sitting in this Long-expected Parliament, Feb. 21. 1660. London, 1660. Sir Arthur Haselrig’s Last Will and Testament with a Briefe Survey of His Life and Death. London, 1661. Stevenson, Matthew. Bellum Presbyteriale, or, as Much Said for the Presbyter as May Be Together with Their Covenants Catastrophe : Held Forth in an Heroick Poem. London, 1661. Strange and True Newes from Glocester, or, a Perfect Relation of the Wonderful, and Miraculous Power of God Shewed for Injustice, at Fairford, ... Where an Innumerable Company of Froggs and Toads (on a Sudden) over-Spread the Ground, Orchards and Houses of the Lord of the Town, and a Justice near Adjacent: And How They Divided Themselves into Two Distinct Bodies, and Orderly Made up to the House of the Said Justice; Some Climing up the Walls, and into the Windows and Chambers: And Afterwards How Strangely and Unexpectedly They Vanisht Away to the Admiration of All. Also a Great and Terrible Earth-Quake, Which Spoyld Several Houses, Towns and Castles. The Raining of Blood, and Hail-Stones of a Pound and a Half Weight, a Great Part of a Forrest Being Burnt up with Fire from Heaven. Likewise the Wonderful Example of Gods Justice in the Sudden and Dreadful Death of the Clark’s Daughter of Brokington in Glocestershire, in the Presence of the Whole Congregation. London, 1660. Strange Predictions or, a Prophesy Foretelling What Alteration Shall Be, in the Year One Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Three. The Tune Is Packingtons Pound. London, 1652. Symonds, E.M. “The Diary of John Greene (1635–57)”. The English Historical Review, 44:173 (1929), 106–17. T., W. Dolor, Ac Voluptas, Invicem Cedunt. Or Englands Glorious Change, by Calling Home of King Charles the Second. Together Vvith the Royalists Exaltation, and the Phanatiques Diminution. London, 1660. T., S. The Last Words of Thomas Lord Pride. London, 1659. Taylor, John. Ale Ale-Vated into the Ale-Titude or, a Learned Oration before a Civill Assembly of Ale-Drinkers. London, 1653. ———. The Anatomy of the Separatists, Alias, Brownists the Factious Brethren in These Times, Wherein This Seditious Sect Is Fairely Dissected, and Perspicuously Discovered to the View of World : With the Strange Hub-Bub, and Formerly Unheard of HurlyBurly, Which Those Phanatick and Fantastick Schismatiks Made on Sunday ... The 8 of May ... At the Sermon of the Right Rev. Father in God, Henry, Bishop of Chichester. London, 1642. Thomason, George. Ten Queries. London, 1653. Thompson, William. Englands Standard Advanced. Or a Declaration from M. Will. Thompson and the Oppressed People of This Nation, Now under His Conduct in Oxfordshire, Dated at Their Randeazvouz, May 6. 1649. London, 1649. To the Inhabitants and Souldiery of the City of London. London, 1659. 259

Disaffection.indb 259

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

To the Supream Authority of England The Commons Assembled in Parliament, The Humble Petition of Divers Wel-affected WEOMEN. London, 1649. To the Supream Authority of this Nation, the Commons Assembled in Parliament: The Humble Petition of Divers Wel-affected Women Inhabiting the Cities of London, Westminster, the Borough of Southwark, Hamblets, and Places Adjacent. London, 1649. To the Supream Authority of the Nation, the Commons of England, Assembled in Parliament, In behalf of Lieut. Coll. John Liburn. London, 1649. A Total Rout or a Brief Discovery, of a Pack of Knaves and Drabs, Intituled Pimps, Panders, Hectors, Trapans, Nappers, Mobs, and Spanners: The Description of Their Qualities, Is Here Set Down in Brief. London, 1653. The Tragical Actors of the Martyrdome of the Late King Charles. London, 1660. A True Narrative of the Examination, Tryall, and Sufferings of James Nayler in the Cities of London and Westminster, and His Deportment under Them. With the Copies of Sundry Petitions and Other Papers, Delivered by Severall Persons to the Lord Protector, the Parliament, and Many Particular Members Thereof, in His Behalf. With Divers Remarkable Passages (Relating Thereto) before His Journey to Bristol, Whither He Is Now Gone Towards the Filling up the Measure of His Sufferings. London, 1657. The True and Perfect Relation of the Taking of Captain James Hind: On Sabbath-Day Last in the Evening at a Barbers House in the Strand Neer Clements Church. With the Manner How He Was Discovered and Apprehended: His Examination before the Councel of State; and His Confession Touching the King of Scots. Also, an Order from the Councel of State Concerning the Said Captain Hind; the Bringing of Him Down to Newgate (Yesterday) in a Coach; and His Declaration and Speech Delivered in Prison. London, 1651. The True Discovery of a Bloody Plot Contrived by the Phanaticks. London, 1661. Tuesday, May 10th. 1659. The Parliament Doth Resolve and Declare, that all Persons Whatsoever Shall Pay, and hereby are Required to Pay in all Arrears and Growing Duties, for Customs, Excise and new Impost, Monethly Taxes, and all Other Moneys due and Payable to the Common-wealth. London, 1659. Turner, John. A Commemoration, or A Calling to Minde of the Great and Eminent Deliverance from the Powder-Plot. London, 1654. Twelve Brave Bells of Bow, in Hyder E. Rollins, ed., Cavalier and Puritan: Ballads and Broadsides Illustrating the Period of the Great Rebellion, 1640–1660. New York, 1923. The Two City Iuglers, Tichborn, and Ireton: Being a Dialogue wherein, Their Rebellions, Treacheries, Treasons, and Cheats, are Fully Discovered and Brought to Light. London, 1660. The Vindication of Christmas, or His twelve Yeares Observations upon the Times, Concerning the Lamentable Game Called Sweepstake; Acted by General Plunder, and Major General Tax; with his Exhortation to the People; a Description of that Oppressing Ringworm Called Excise; and the Manner How our High and Might Christmas Ale that Formerly Would Knock Down Hercules, & Trip up the Heels of a Giant, Strook Deep consumption with a Blow from Westminster. London, 1653. A Vindication of Strong-Beere and Ale, Shewing the Excellency of our English Vineyard Consisting of our Native Commodities. Wherein is Declared, the Wonderfull Bounty and Patience of God. The Wicked and Monstruous Unthankfulnesse of Man. The Unregarded Injuries Done to Those Creatures, Groaning, as it were, to be Delivered from the Abuses Proceeding, from Disdainfull Aspertions of Ignorant from the Intemperance of Sinfull [brace] Man. London, 1647. 260

Disaffection.indb 260

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Violet, Thomas. Proposals Humbly Presented to His Highness Oliver, Lord Protector of England, &C. And to the High Court of Parliament Now Assembled for the Calling to a True and Just Accompt All Committee-Men, Sequestrators, Treasures, Excize and Custom-Commissioners, Collectors of Monthly Assessments and All Other Persons That Have Been Entrusted with the Publick Revenue or Have in Their Custody Any Thing of Value Appertaining to the Commonwealth. London, 1656. Walwyn, William. A Manifestation from Lieutenant Col. John Lilburn, Mr. William Walwyn, Mr. Thomas Prince, and Mr. Richard Overton (now prisioners [sic] in the Tower of London) and Others, Commonly (though unjustly) Styled Levellers. London, April 1649. Whalley, Edward. To the Supreame Authoritie the Parliament of the Common-wealth of England. London, 1652. The Zealovs Sovldier. London, 1646. Secondary Sources Amussen, Susan Dwyer. An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England. Oxford, 1988. ———. “Punishment, Discipline, and Power: The Social Meanings of Violence in Early Modern England”, Journal of British Studies, 34:1 (1995), 1–34. Amussen, Susan Dwyer and Kishlansky, Mark A. Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England: Essays Presented to David Underdown. Manchester, 1995. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. New York, 2006. Archer, I., Barron, C. and Harding, V. Hugh Alley’s Caveat: The Markets of London in 1598. London, 1998. Arnade, P.J., Howell, M.C. and Simons, W. “Fertile Spaces: The Productivity of Urban Space in Northern Europe”. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 32:4 (2002), 515–48. Ashton, Robert. Counter-Revolution: The Second Civil War and Its Origins, 1646–8. New Haven, CT, 1994. ———. “From Cavalier to Roundhead Tyranny”. In Reactions to the English Civil War, 1642–1649, ed. J.S. Morrill, 187–207. New Haven, CT, 1984. Ashworth, William J. Customs and Excise: Trade, Production, and Consumption in England, 1640–1845. Oxford, 2003. Austin, J.L. How to do Things in Words. Cambridge, MA, 1962. Ayers, Edward. “Towards Place, Space and Time”. In The Spatial Humanities: GIS and the Future of Humanities Scholarship, ed. D. Bodenhamer, J. Corrigan and T.M. Harris, 1–13. Bloomington, IN, 2010. Aylmer, G.E. “Did the Ranters Exist?” Past and Present, 117 (1987), 208–19. Bach, Kent and Harnish, Robert. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA, 1979. Bakhtin, Mikhail. Rabelais and his World, trans. Helene Iswolsky. Bloomington, IN, 1984. Beier, A.L., Cannadine, David and Rosenheim, James M. The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone. Cambridge, 1989. 261

Disaffection.indb 261

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beik, William. Urban Protest in Seventeenth-Century France: The Culture of Retribution. Cambridge, 1997. Bellany, Alastair. The Politics of Court Scandal in Early Modern England: News, Culture and the Overbury Affair, 1603–1660. Cambridge, 2002. ———. “‘Raylinge Rymes and Vaunting Verse’: Libellous Politics in Early Stuart England”. In Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England, ed. Kevin Shape and Peter Lake, 285–310. London, 1994. Bellany, Alistair and Cogswell, Thomas. The Murder of King James I. New Haven, CT, 2015. Bennett, Judith. Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World, 1300–1600. Oxford, 1996. Bennett, Ronan. “War and Disorder: Policing the Soldiery in Civil War Yorkshire”. In War and Government in Britain, 1598–1650, ed. Mark Charles Fissel, 248–71. Manchester, 1991. Bercé, Yves Marie. History of Peasant Revolts: The Social Origins of Rebellion in Early Modern France. Ithaca, NY, 1990. Blickle, Peter. Resistance, Representation, and Community: The Origins of the Modern State in Europe. Oxford, 1997. Boswell, Caroline. “Popular Grievances and Royalist Propaganda during the Interregnum”, The Seventeenth Century, 27:3 (2012), 313–34. ———. “Provoking Disorder: The Politics of Speech in Protectorate Middlesex”, Journal of British Studies, 53:4 (2014), 885–908. Bound, Fay. ‘“An Angry and Malicious Mind’? Narratives of Slander at the Church Courts of York, c.1660–c.1760”, History Workshop Journal, 56:1 (2003), 59–77. Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power, trans. Gino Raymond and Matthew Adamson. Cambridge, 1991. ———. The Logic of Practice, trans. R. Nice. London, 1992. Bowen, Lloyd. “David Underdown, Royalist Conspirators and the Character of English Politics”, History Compass, 11:5 (2013), 341–51. ———. “Seditious Speech and Popular Royalism 1649–60”. In Royalists and Royalism during the Interregnum, ed. Jason McElligott and David L. Smith, 44–66. Manchester, 2010. Braddick, Michael. God’s Fury: England’s Fire: A New History of the English Civil Wars. New York, 2008. ———. Parliamentary Taxation in Seventeenth-Century England: Local Administration and Response. London, 1994. ———. “Introduction: Christopher Hill’s The World Turned Upside Down, Revisited”, Prose Studies, 36:3 (2014), 175–84. ———. “Introduction: The Politics of Gesture”. Past and Present, 223, suppl. 4 (2009), 9–35. ———. “Popular Politics and Public Policy: The Excise Riot at Smithfield in February 1647 and Its Aftermath”, The Historical Journal, 34:3 (1991), 597–626. ———. State Formation in Early Modern England, c.1550–1700. Cambridge, 2000. Braddick, M.J. and Walter, J. “Grids of Power: Order, Hierarchy and Subordination”. In Negotiating Power in Early Modern Society, ed. M.J. Braddick and J. Walter, 1–42. Cambridge, 2001. 262

Disaffection.indb 262

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. Negotiating Power in Early Modern Society: Order, Hierarchy, and Subordination in Britain and Ireland. Cambridge, 2001. Braudel, Fernand. Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century, Vol. II:The Wheels of Commerce. Tr. Sian Reynold. New York, 1982. Brennan, Thomas. “Taverns and the Public Sphere in the French Revolution”. In Alcohol: A Social and Cultural History, ed. Mack P. Holt, 107–20. Oxford, 2006. Brewer, John and Styles, John A. An Ungovernable People: The English and Their Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. New Brunswick, NJ, 1980. Brown, James. “Drinking Houses and the Politics of Surveillance in Pre-industrial Southampton”. In Political Space in Pre-Industrial Europe, ed. Beat Kümin, 61–80. Farnham, 2009. Burgess, Glenn. “On Revisionism: An Analysis of Early Stuart Historiography in the 1970s and 1980s”, Historical Journal, 33:3 (1990), 609–27. Bushaway, R.W. “Rite, Legitimation and Community in Southern England, 1700– 1850: The Ideology of Custom”. In Conflict and Community in Southern England: Essays in the Social History of Rural and Urban Labour from Medieval to Modern Times, ed. Barry Stapleton, 110–34. New York, 1992. Butler, Judith. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York, 1997. Calhoun, Craig J. Habermas and the Public Sphere. Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought. Cambridge, MA, 1992. Capp, Bernard. “A Door of Hope Re-opened: The Fifth Monarchy, King Charles and King Jesus”, Journal of Religious History, 32:1 (2008), 16–30. ———. “Fear, Myth and Furore: Reappraising the Ranters: II”. Past & Present, 140:1 (2001), 164–71. ———. England’s Culture Wars: Puritan Reformation and its Enemies in the Interregnum, 1649–1660. Oxford, 2012. ———. “The Fifth Monarchists and Popular Millenarianism”. In Radical Religion in the English Revolution, ed. J.F. McGregor and Barry Reay, 165–90. New York, 1984. ———. “The Religious Marketplace: Public Disputations on Civil War and Interregnum England”. English Historical Review, 129:536 (2014), 47–78. ———. When Gossips Meet: Women, Family and Neighborhood in Early Modern England. Oxford, 2004. Certeau, Michael de. The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven F. Randall. Berkeley, CA, 1984. Clark, Peter. “The Alehouse and the Alternative Society”. In Puritans and Revolutionaries, ed. D.H. Pennington and K. Thomas, 47–72. Oxford, 1978. ———. The English Alehouse: A Social History, 1200–1830. New York, 1983. Clark, Stuart. Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. Oxford, 1997. Coffman, D’Maris. “The Earl of Southampton and the Lessons of Interregnum Finance”. In Royalists and Royalism during the Interregnum, ed. Jason McElligott and David L. Smith, 235–56. Manchester, 2010. ———. Excise Taxation and the Origins of Public Debt. Basingstoke, 2013. ———. “The Fiscal Revolution of the Interregnum: Excise Taxation in the British Isles, 1643–1663” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 2008). 263

Disaffection.indb 263

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cogswell, Thomas. “The Politics of Propaganda: Charles I and the People in the 1620s”. The Journal of British Studies, 29:3 (1990), 187–215. ———. “Underground Verse and the Transformation of Early Stuart Culture”. In Political Culture and Cultural Politics in Early Modern England: Essays Presented to David Underdown, ed. Susan Dwyer Amussen and Mark A. Kishlansky, 277–300. Manchester, 1995. Coleby, A. “Military–Civilian Relations on the Solent 1651–1689”, The Historical Journal, 29:4 (1986), 949–61. Collins, Jeffrey. “The Church Settlement of Oliver Cromwell”. History 87:285 (2002), 18–40. Collinson, Patrick. Elizabethan Essays. London, 1994. Corns, Thomas N. The Royal Image: Representations of Charles I. Cambridge, 1999. Cowan, Brian. The Social Life of Coffee: The Emergence of the British Coffeehouse. New Haven, CT, 2005. Cressy, David. Bonfires and Bells: National Memory and the Protestant Calendar in Elizabethan and Stuart England. Thrupp, 2004. ———. Dangerous Talk: Scandalous, Seditious and Treasonable Speech in Pre-Modern England. Oxford, 2010. ———. England on Edge: Crisis and Revolution, 1640–1642. Oxford, 2006. Cross, Claire. Church and People, 1450–1660: The Triumph of the Laity in the English Church. Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1976. Cust, Richard. “News and Politics in Early Seventeenth-Century England”, Past and Present, 112 (1986), 60–90. Cust, Richard and Hughes, Ann. Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics, 1603–1642. New York, 1989. ———. The English Civil War. Arnold Readers in History. New York, 1997. Dabhoiwala, Faramerz. “The Pattern of Sexual Immorality in Seventeenth-andEighteenth-Century London”. In Londinopolis, ed. P. Griffiths and M. Jenner, 86–104. Manchester, 2000. Damrosch, Leopold. The Sorrows of the Quaker Jesus: James Nayler and the Puritan Crackdown on the Free Spirit. Cambridge, MA, 1996. Davis, C. Fear, Myth and History: The Ranters and the Historians. Cambridge, 1989. Davis, Natalie Z. Society and Culture in Early Modern France. Stanford, CA, 1975. De Groot, Jerome. Royalist Identities. New York, 2004. Donagan, Barbara. “Varieties of Royalism”. In Royalists and Royalism during the English Civil Wars, ed. Jason McElligott and David L. Smith, 66–88. Cambridge, 2007. Dow, Frances. Radicalism in the English Revolution, 1640–1660. Oxford, 1985. Durkin, Neil. “His Praeludiary Weapons: Mocking Colonel Hewson Before and After the Restoration”. In Subversion and Scurrility: Popular Discourse in Europe from 1500 to the Present, ed. Dermot Cavanagh and Tim Kirk, 106–24. Aldershot, 2001. Durston, Christopher. Cromwell’s Major Generals: Godly Government during the English Revolution. Manchester, 2001. ———. “Puritan Rule and the Failure of Cultural Revolution”. In The Culture of Puritanism, 1560–1700, ed. Durston and Jacqueline Eales, 210–33. Basingstoke, 1996. Everitt, Alan. “The English Urban Inn, 1560–1700”. In Perspectives in English Urban History, ed. A. Everitt. London, 1973. 264

Disaffection.indb 264

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. Perspectives in English Urban History. London, 1973. Faller, Lincoln. Turned to Account: The Forms and Functions of Criminal Biography in Late Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-century England. Cambridge, 1987. Firth, C.H. Cromwell’s Army: A History of the English Soldier during the Civil Wars, the Commonwealth, and the Protectorate. London, 1992. ———. The Last Years of the Protectorate, 1656–1658. New York, 1964. Firth, C.H. and Gardiner, Samuel Rawson. The Last Years of the Protectorate, 1656– 1658. New York, 1964. Fissel, Mark Charles. War and Government in Britain: 1598–1650. Manchester, 1991. Flather, Amanda. Gender and Space in Early Modern England. Woodbridge, 2007. Fletcher, Anthony. A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660. New York, 1975. Fletcher, Anthony and Stevenson, John. Order and Disorder in Early Modern England. Cambridge, 1985. Forester, C.F. “Government in Yorkshire During the Interregnum”, Northern History, XII (1976), 84–104. Fox, Adam. Oral and Literate Culture in England, 1500–1700. Oxford Studies in Social History. Oxford, 2000. Foxley, Rachel. The Levellers: Radical Political Thought in the English Revolution. Manchester, 2013. Freist, Dagmar. Governed by Opinion: Politics, Religion and the Dynamics of Communication in Stuart London, 1637–1645. International Library of Historical Studies. London, 1997. Friedman, Jerome. The Battle of the Frogs and Fairford’s Flies: Miracles and the Pulp Press During the English Revolution. New York, 1993. Gentles, Ian. The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms, 1638–1652. Harlow, 2007. ———. The New Model Army in England, Ireland, and Scotland, 1645–1653. Cambridge, MA, 1992. ———. “Political Funerals During the English Revolution”. In London and the Civil War, ed. S. Porter, 206–24. New York, 1996. Goffman, Erving. “The Interaction Order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address”, American Sociological Review, 48:1 (1983), 1–17. Goldie, Mark. “The Unacknowledged Republic: Office-Holding in early Modern England”. In The Politics of the Excluded, c.1500–1850, ed. Tim Harris, 153–94. New York, 2001. Gowing, Laura. Domestic Dangers: Women Words, and Sex in Early Modern London. Oxford, 1998. ———. ‘“The Freedom of the Streets’: Women and Social Space, 1560–1640”. In Londinopolis: Essays in the Cultural and Social History of Early Modern London, ed. P. Griffiths and M. Jenner, 130–51. Manchester, 2000. Green, I.M. “The Persecution of ‘Scandalous’ and ‘Malignant’ Parish Clergy during the English Civil War”, The English Historical Review, 94:372 (1979), 507–31. Gregg, Pauline. Free-Born John: A Biography of John Lilburne. London, 1961. Griffiths, Paul. “Politics Made Visible: Order, Residence and Uniformity in Cheapside, 1600–45”. In Londinopolis: Essays in the Cultural and Social History of Early Modern London, ed. P. Griffiths and M. Jenner, 176–96. Manchester, 2000. 265

Disaffection.indb 265

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. Youth and Authority: Formative Experiences in England, 1560–1640. Oxford, 1996. Griffiths, Paul, Fox, Adam and Hindle, Steve. The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England. New York, 1996. Griffiths, Paul and Jenner, Mark S.R. Londinopolis: Essays in the Cultural and Social History of Early Modern London. Manchester, 2000. Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought. Cambridge, MA, 1989. Hailwood, Mark. Alehouses and Good Fellowship in Early Modern England. Woodbridge, 2014. ———. “Alehouses, Popular Politics, and Plebian Agency in Early Modern England”. In Locating Agency: Space, Power and Popular Politics, ed. Fiona Williamson, 51–76. Newcastle, 2010. Hanrahan, Paul. “Bottles in the Palace Royal Collection”. Material Culture Review / Revue de la culture matérielle, 6 (1978), 52–73. Harding, Vanessa. “Cheapside: Commerce and Commemoration”, Huntington Library Quarterly, 71:1 (2008), 77–96. ———. Hugh Alley’s Caveat: The Markets of London in 1598. London, 1998. Harris, Tim. London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II: Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration until the Exclusion Crisis. Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History. Cambridge, 1987. ———. The Politics of the Excluded, c.1500–1850. New York, 2001. ———. “Propaganda and Public Opinion in Seventeenth-Century England”. In Media and Revolution: Comparative Perspectives, ed. Jeremy D. Popkin, 48–73. Lexington, MA, 1994. ———. Restoration: Charles II and His Kingdoms, 1660–1685. London, 2005. Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Cambridge, MA, 1989. Hay, D., Linebaugh, P., Rule, J.G., Thompson, E.P. and Winslow, C., eds., Albion’s Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England. 1st American ed. New York, 1975. Heath, Dwight. Drinking Occasions: Perspectives on Alcohol and Cultures. New York, 2000. Highmore, Ben. The Everyday Life Reader. New York, 2002. Hill, Christopher. “The Lost Ranters? A Critique of J.C. Davis”, Past and Present, 24 (1987), 134–40. ———. The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas During the English Revolution. New York, 1972. Hill, C., Pennington, D.H. and Thomas, K. Puritans and Revolutionaries: Essays in Seventeenth-Century History Presented to Christopher Hill. Oxford, 1978. Hindle, Steve. “Dearth and the English Revolution: The Harvest Crisis of 1647– 1650”, Economic History Review, Special Issue (2007), 1–34. ———. “‘Not by Bread Only?’ Common Right, Parish Relief, and Endowed Charity in a Forest Economy, c.1600–1800”. In The Poor in England, 1700–1850, ed. S. King and A. Tompkins, 39–75. Manchester, 2003. ———. The State and Social Change in Early Modern England, c.1550–1640. New York, 2000. 266

Disaffection.indb 266

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hirst, Derek. “The Failure of Godly Rule in the English Republic”, Past and Present, 132:1 (1991), 33–66. ——— “The Politics of Literature in the English Republic”, The Seventeenth Century, 5 (1990), 137–8. Hitchcock, Tim, and Shore, Heather. The Streets of London: From the Great Fire to the Great Stink. London, 2003. Hodgson, Crawford. “On the Medieval and Later Owners of Eslington”. In Archaeologia Aeliana Third Series, vi (1910). Holmes, Clive. “Drainers and Fenmen: The Problem of Popular Political Consciousness in the Seventeenth Century”. In Order and Disorder in Early Modern England, ed. Anthony Fletcher and John Stevenson, 166–95. Cambridge, 1985. ———. Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire. Society for Lincolnshire History and Archaeology. Lincoln, 1980. Holt, Mack P. Alcohol: A Social and Cultural History. English ed. Oxford and New York, 2006. Hopper, Andrew. “The Farnley Wood Plot and the Memory of the Civil Wars in Yorkshire”. The Historical Journal, 45:2 (2002), 281–303. ———. Turncoats and Renegades: Changing Sides during the English Civil War. Oxford, 2012. Howell, Roger. Newcastle Upon Tyne and the Puritan Revolution: A Study of the Civil War in North England. Oxford, 1967. Hughes, Ann. Gangraena and the Struggle for the English Revolution. Oxford and New York, 2004. ———. Gender and the English Revolution. New York, 2012. ———. “A ‘lunatick revolter from loyalty’: the Death of Rowland Wilson and the English Revolution”, History Workshop Journal, 60:1 (2006), 192–204. ———. “Parliament Tyranny? Indemnity Proceedings and the Impact of the Civil War: A Case Study from Warwickshire”, Midland History, 11 (1986), 49–78. ———. Politics, Society, and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660. Cambridge, 1987. ———. “Public Disputations, Pamphlets and Polemic”, History Today, 41 (Feb. 1991), 27–33. Hughes, Edward. Studies in Administration and Finance, 1558–1825, with Special Reference to the History of Salt Taxation in England. Manchester, 1934. Hunt, Lynn A. The Invention of Pornography: Obscenity and the Origins of Modernity, 1500–1800. Cambridge, MA, 1993. Hutton, Ronald. The Restoration: A Political and Religious History of England and Wales, 1658–1667. Oxford, 1985. ———. The Rise and Fall of Merry England: The Ritual Year, 1400–1700. Oxford, 1994. Ingram, Martin. Church Courts, Sex, and Marriage in England, 1570–1640. Cambridge, 1987. ———. “Law, Litigants, and the Construction of ‘Honour’: Slander Suits in Early Modern England”. In The Moral World of the Law, ed. Peter Coss, 134–60. Cambridge, 2000. ———. “Reformation of Manners in Early Modern England”. In The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England, ed. Paul Griffiths, Adam Fox and Steve Hindle, 47–88. New York, 1996. 267

Disaffection.indb 267

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jenner, Mark S.R. “The Roasting of the Rump: Scatology and the Body Politic in Restoration England”, Past and Present, 177:1 (2002), 84–120. Keblusek, Marika. “Wine for Comfort: Drinking and the Royalist Exile Experience, 1642–1660”. In A Pleasing Sinne: Drinking and Conviviality in Seventeenth Century England, ed. Adam Smyth, 55–68. Cambridge, 2004. Kelsey, Sean. Inventing a Republic: The Political Culture of the English Commonwealth. Politics, Culture, and Society in Early Modern Britain. Manchester, 1997. Kingston, Ralph. “Mind Over Matter? History and the Spatial Turn”, Cultural and Social History, 7:1 (2010), 111–21. Kishlansky, Mark A. The Rise of the New Model Army. Cambridge, 1979. Knoppers, Laura Lunger. Constructing Cromwell: Ceremony, Portrait, and Print, 1645– 1661. Cambridge, 2000. ———, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Literature and the English Revolution. Oxford, 2012. ———. “‘Sing Old Noll the Brewer’: Royalist Satire and Social Inversion, 1648– 1660”, The Seventeenth Century, 15 (2000), 32–51. Kümin, Beat. Political Space in Pre-Industrial Europe. Burlington, VT, 2009. ———. “Public Houses and Their Patrons in Early Modern Europe”. In The World of the Tavern, ed. Beat Kümin and B. Ann Tlusty, 44–62. Burlington, VT, 2002. Kümin, Beat and Osborne, Cornelie. “At Home and in the Workplace: A Historical Introduction to the ‘Spatial Turn’”, History and Theory, 52 (2013), 305–18. Kümin, Beat and Tlusty, B. Ann. The World of the Tavern: Public Houses in Early Modern Europe. Burlington, VT, 2002. Lake, Peter and Pincus, Steven. “Rethinking the Public Sphere in Early Modern England”, Journal of British Studies, 45:2 (2006), 270–92. Lake, Peter and Questier, Michael. “Agency, Appropriation and Rhetoric under the Gallows: Puritans, Romanists and the State in Early”, Past & Present, 153 (1996), 64–108. ———. Anti-Christ’s Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists, and Players in Post-Reformation England. New Haven, CT, 2002. ———. “Puritans, Papists, and the ‘Public Sphere’ in Early Modern England: The Edmund Campion Affair”, Journal of Modern History, 72:3 (2000), 587–628. Laqueur, Thomas. “Crowds, Carnival and the State in English Executions, 1604– 1688”. In The First Modern Society: Essays in Honor of Lawrence Stone, ed. A.L. Beier, D. Cannadine and J.M. Rosenheim, 305–56. Cambridge, 1989. Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Cambridge, MA, 1991. Lindley, Keith. Fenland Riots and the English Revolution. London, 1982. ———. “Riot Prevention and Control in Early Stuart London”, Transactions of the Royal History Society, 33 (1983), 109–26. Ludington, Charles. The Politics of Wine: A New Cultural History. New York, 2013. Malcolm, Joyce. “The Role of the Militia in the Development of the Englishman’s Right to Be Armed: Clarifying the Legacy”, Journal on Firearms and Public Policy (1993), 139–51. Manning, Brian. The English People and the English Revolution, 1640–1649. London, 1976. Martin, A. Lynn. Alcohol, Sex, and Gender in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. New York, 1992. 268

Disaffection.indb 268

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. “Drinking and Alehouses in the Diary of an English Mercer’s Apprentice, 1663–1674”. In Alcohol: A Social and Cultural History, ed. Mack P. Holt, 93–105. Oxford, 2006. Masschaele, James. Peasants, Merchants, and Markets: Inland Trade in Medieval England, 1150–1350. New York, 1997. ———. “The Public Space of the Marketplace in Medieval England”. Speculum, 77:2 (2002), 383–421. Masters, Betty. The Public Markets of the City of London Surveyed by William Leybourn in 1677. London, 1974. Mayers, Ruth E. 1659: The Crisis of the Commonwealth. London, 2004. McCall, Fiona. Baal’s Priests: The Loyalist Clergy and the English Revolution. Farnham, 2013. McElligott, Jason. “The Politics of Sexual Libel: Royalist Propaganda in the 1640s”, Huntington Library Quarterly, 67:1 (2004), 75–99. ———. Royalism, Print and Censorship in Revolutionary England. Woodbridge, 2007. McElligott, Jason and Smith, David L. Royalists and Royalism during the English Civil Wars. Cambridge, 2007. ———. Royalists and Royalism during the Interregnum. Manchester, 2010. McGregor, J.F., and Reay, Barry. Radical Religion in the English Revolution. New York, 1984. McShane, Angela. “The Extraordinary Case of the Blood-Drinking and Flesh-Eating Cavaliers”. In The Extraordinary and the Everyday in Early Modern England, ed. McShane and Walker, 192–210. Basingstoke, 2010. ———. “Material Culture and ‘Political Drinking’ in Seventeenth Century England”, Past and Present, 222, suppl. 9 (2014), 247–76. ———. Political Broadside Ballads of Seventeenth Century England. ed. Angela McShane. London, 2011. ———. “Subjects and Objects: Material Expressions of Love and Loyalty”, Journal of British Studies, 48:4 (2009), 871–86. McShane Jones, Angela. “Roaring Royalists and Ranting Brewers: The Politicisation of Drink and Drunkenness in Political Broadside Ballads from 1640 and 1689”. In A Pleasing Sinne: Drink and Conviviality in Seventeenth Century England, ed. Adam Smyth, 69–87. Cambridge, 2004. Morrill, John S. Cheshire 1630–1660; County Government and Society during the English Revolution. New York, 1974. ———. “The Ecology of Allegiance in the English Revolution”, Journal of British Studies, 26 (1987), 451–67. ———. “The Church in England, 1642–9”. In Reactions to the English Civil War, 1642–1649, ed. J.S. Morrill, 89–114. New York, 1984. ———. Reactions to the English Civil War, 1642–1649. London, 1982. ———. Revolt in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War, 1630– 1648. 2nd ed. New York, 1998. Morrill, John S. and Walter, J. “Order and Disorder in the English Revolution”. In Order and Disorder in Early Modern England, ed. Anthony Fletcher and John Stevenson, 137–65. Cambridge, 1985. Morton, A.L. The World of the Ranters: Religious Radicalism in the English Revolution. London, 1970. 269

Disaffection.indb 269

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Muir, Edward. “The Virgin on the Street Corner: The Place of the Sacred in Italian Cities”. In Religion and Culture in the Renaissance and Reformation, ed. Steven E. Ozment, 25–40. Kirksville, MO, 1989. Muldrew, Craig. The Economy of Obligations: The Culture of Credit and Social Relations in Early Modern England. Basingstoke, 1998. ———. Food, Energy and the Creation of Industriousness. Cambridge, 2011. Nicholls, James. The Politics of Alcohol: The History of the Drink Question in England. Manchester, 2009. Ogborn, Miles. Spaces of Modernity: London’s Geographies, 1680–1780. New York, 1998. Orr, David A. Treason and the State: Law, Politics, and Ideology in the English Civil War. Cambridge, 2002. Matthew, H.C.G. and Harrison, Brian, eds. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford, 2004. Ozment, Steven E. Religion and Culture in the Renaissance and Reformation. Kirksville, MO, 1989. Peacey, Jason. “News, Pamphlets, and Public Opinion”. In The Oxford Handbook of Literature and the English Revolution, ed. Laura Lungers Knoppers, 173–89. Oxford, 2012. ———. Politicians and Pamphleteers: Propaganda During the English Civil Wars and Interregnum. Burlington, VT, 2004. ———. Print and Public Politics in the English Revolution. Cambridge, 2013. ———. “Reviving the Radicals: Clement Writer and the Historiography of the English Revolution”, Prose Studies, 36:3 (2014), 243–55. Pennell, Sara. “‘Great Quantities of Gooseberry Pye and Baked Blod of Beef’: Victualling and Eating Houses in Early Modern London”. In Londinopolis: Essays in the Social and Cultural History of Early Modern London, ed. P. Griffiths and M Jenner, 228–49. Manchester, 2000. Peters, Kate. Print Culture and the Early Quakers. Cambridge, 2005. Pincus, Steven. “‘Coffee Politicians Does Create’: Coffeehouses and Restoration Political Culture”, The Journal of Modern History, 67:4 (1995), 807–34. Pocock, J.G.A. The Machiavellian Moment. Princeton, NJ, 1975. Popkin, Jeremy D. Media and Revolution: Comparative Perspectives. Lexington, KY, 1995. Porter, S. London and the Civil War. New York, 1996. Postles, D. “The Market Place as Space in Early Modern England”. Social History, 29:1 (2004), 41–58. ———. “Penance and the Market Place: A Reformation Dialogue with the Medieval Church (c.1250–c.1600)”, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 54:3 (2003), 441–68. Potter, Lois. Secret Rites and Secret Writing: Royalist Literature, 1641–1660. Cambridge, 1989. Raymond, Joad. The Invention of the Newspaper: English Newsbooks, 1641–1649. Oxford, 1996. Reay, Barry. “Quakerism and Society”. In Radical Religion in the English Revolution, ed. J.F. McGregor and Barry Reay, 141–64. New York, 1984. ———. The Quakers and the English Revolution. New York, 1985. 270

Disaffection.indb 270

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reece, Henry. The Army in Cromwellian England, 1649–1660. Oxford, 2013. Roberts, Stephen K. Recovery and Restoration an English County: Devon Local Administration 1646–1670. Exeter, 1985. Rogers, P.G. The Fifth Monarchy Men. London, 1966. Rollison, David. A Commonwealth of the People: Popular Politics and England’s Long Social Revolution, 1066–1649. Cambridge, 2010. ———. “The Specter of the Commonalty: Class Struggle and the Commonweal in England Before the Atlantic World”. William and Mary Quarterly, 63:2 (2006), 221–52. Roots, Ivan Alan. Commonwealth and Protectorate: the English Civil War and Its Aftermath. New York, 1966. Russell, Conrad. Parliaments and English Politics, 1621–1629. Oxford, 1979. Schwoerer, Lois. “No Standing Armies:” The Anti-Army Ideology in Seventeenth Century England. Baltimore, MD, 1974. Scott, James C. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven, CT, 1990. ———. The Moral Economy of the Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Southeast Asia. New Haven, CT, 1976. ———. “State Simplification: Nature, Space and People”. In Political Order, ed. Ian Shapiro and Russell Herndon, 82–122. New York, 1996. Scribner, Robert W. For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation. Oxford, 1994. Searle, John. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, 1969. Seaward, P., Goldie, M. and Harris, T. The Politics of Religion in Restoration England. Cambridge, 1990. Sewell, William. Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago, IL, 2005. Shapiro, Ian and Hardin, Russell. Political Order. New York, 1996. Sharp, Buchanan. In Contempt of All Authority: Rural Artisans and Riot in the West of England, 1586–1660. Berkeley, CA, 1980. Sharpe, J.A. “Defamation and Sexual Slander in Early Modern England”. Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, University of York (1980). ———. “‘Last Dying Speeches’: Religion, Ideology and Public Execution in Seventeenth-Century England”, Past and Present, 107 (1985), 144–67. Sharpe, Kevin. “An Image of a Doting Rabble: The Failure of Republican Culture in Seventeenth-Century England”. In Refiguring Revolutions: Aesthetics and Politics from the English Revolution to the Romantic Revolution, ed. Kevin Sharpe and Steven N. Zwicker, 25–56. Berkeley, CA, 1998. ———. Image Wars: Promoting Kings and Commonwealth, 1603–1660. New Haven, CT, 2010. Sharpe, Kevin and Lake, Peter. Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England. London, 1994. Sharpe, Kevin and Zwicker, Steven N. Refiguring Revolutions: Aesthetics and Politics from the English Revolution to the Romantic Revolution. Berkeley, CA, 1998. Shepard, Alexandra. Accounting for Oneself: Worth, Status, and the Social Order in Early Modern England. Oxford, 2015. 271

Disaffection.indb 271

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. “‘Swil-bols and Tos-pots’: Drink Culture and Male Bonding in England, c.1560–1640”. In Love, Friendship and Faith in Europe: 1300–1800, ed. Gowing, Hunter and Rubin, 110–30. New York, 2005. ———. “Manhood, Credit and Patriarchy in Early Modern England, c.1580–1640”, Past and Present, 167:1 (2000), 75–106. ———. Meanings of Manhood in Early Modern England. Oxford, 2003. Smith, Nigel. Literature and Revolution in England, 1640–1660. New Haven, CT, 1994. Smith, Steven R. “The London Apprentices as Seventeenth-Century Adolescents”. In Rebellion, Popular Protest and the Social Order in Early Modern England, ed. Paul Slack, 149–61. Cambridge, 1984. Smyth, Adam. A Pleasing Sinne: Drink and Conviviality in Seventeenth-Century England. Cambridge, 2004. Soja, Edward W. “In Different Spaces: Interpreting the Spatial Organization of Societies”. In Proceedings: 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta (2001), s1.4 ———. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. New York, 1989. Spufford, M. “Puritanism and Social Control?” In Order and Disorder in Early Modern England, ed. Anthony Fletcher and John Stevenson, 41–57. Cambridge, 1987. Spurr, John. The Restoration Church of England, 1646–1689. New Haven, CT, 1991. Stoyle, Mark. Loyalty and Locality: Popular Allegiance in Devon during the English Civil War. Exeter, 1994. Thompson, E.P. “The Crime of Anonymity”. In Albion’s Fatal Tree: Crime and Society in Eighteenth-Century England, ed. Hay, Linebaugh, Rule and Thompson, 255–308. New York, 1975. ———. Customs in Common. New York, 1991. Tlusty, B. Ann. Bacchus and Civic Order: The Culture of Drink in Early Modern Germany, Studies in Early Modern German History. Charlottesville, VA, 2001. Tubb, Amos. “Mixed Messages: Royalist Newsbook Reports of Charles I’s Execution of the Leveller Uprising”, Huntington Library Quarterly, 67:1 (2004), 59–74. Underdown, David. “The Chalk and the Cheese: Contrasts among the English Clubmen”, Past and Present, 85 (1979), 25–48. ———. A Freeborn People: Politics and the Nation in Seventeenth-Century England. Oxford, 1996. ———. Pride’s Purge: Politics in the Puritan Revolution. Oxford, 1971. ———. Revel, Riot, and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603–1660. Oxford, 1985. ———. Royalist Conspiracy in England, 1649–1660. Hamden, CT, 1971. ———. Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum. Newton Abbot, 1973. Vallance, Ted. “The Captivity of James II: Gestures of Loyalty and Disloyalty in Seventeenth-Century England”, Journal of British Studies, 48:4 (2009), 848–58. Valpy, Richard. Nineteen Centuries of Drink in England. London, 1884. Voloshinov, V.N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, 1986. Walker, Garthine. Crime, Gender and Social Order in Early Modern England. Cambridge, 2003. Walsham, Alexandra. Charitable Hatred: Tolerance and Intolerance in England, 1500– 1700. Manchester, 2006. 272

Disaffection.indb 272

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Walter, John. “Grain Riots and Popular Attitudes to the Law: Maldon and the Crisis of 1639”. In Crowds and Popular Politics in Early Modern England, 27–66. Manchester, 2006. ———. “The English People and the English Revolution Revisited”, History Workshop Journal, 61:1 (2006), 171–82. ———. “Gesturing at Authority: Deciphering the Gestural Code of Early Modern England”, Past and Present, 203, suppl. 4 (2009), 96–127. ———. “Grain Riots and Popular Attitudes to the Law: Malson and the Crisis of 1639”. In An Ungovernable People, ed. John Brewer and John A. Styles, 47–84. New Brunswick, NJ, 1980. ———. ‘“The Pooremans Joy and the Gentlemans Plague’: A Lincolnshire Libel and the Politics of Sedition in Early Modern England”. Past and Present, 203:1 (2009), 29–67. ———. Understanding Popular Violence in the English Revolution: The Colchester Plunderers. Cambridge, 1999. Walter, John and Wrightson. Keith. “Dearth and the Social Order in Early Modern England”, Past and Present, 71 (1976), 22–42. Warmington, A.R. Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire, 1640– 1672. London, 1997. Watt, Tessa. Cheap Print and Popular Piety, 1550–1640. Cambridge, 1991. Weil, Rachel. “Matthew Smith versus the ‘Great Men’: Plot-Talk, the Public Sphere and the Problem of Credibility in the 1690s”. In The Politics of the Public Sphere in Early Modern England, ed. Peter Lake and Steven Pincus, 232–51. Manchester, 2007. ———. “Sometimes a Scepter is Only a Scepter: Pornography and Politics in Restoration England”. In The Invention of Pornography: Obscenity and the Origins of Modernity, 1500–1800, ed. Lynn A. Hunt, 125–53. New York, 1993. ———. “Thinking About Allegiance in the English Civil War”, History Workshop Journal, 61 (2006), 183–91. Wheeler, James Scott. The Making of a World Power: War and the Military Revolution in Seventeenth-Century England. Stroud, 1999. Williamson, Fiona. Locating Agency: Space, Power and Popular Politics. Newcastle, 2010. ———. Social Relations and Urban Space: Norwich, 1600–1700. Woodbridge, 2014. ———. “The Spatial Turn of Social and Cultural History: A Review of the Current Field”, European History Quarterly, 44:4 (2014), 703–17. Withington, Phil. “Company and Sociability in Early Modern England”, Social History, 32:3 (2007), 291–307. ———. “Intoxicants and Society in Early Modern England”, The Historical Journal, 54:3 (2011), 631–57. ———. “Renaissance Drinking Cultures and Popular Print”. In Intoxication and Society: Problematic Pleasures of Drugs and Alcohol, ed. J. Herring, C. Regan, D. Weinberg and P. Withington, 135–52. Basingstoke, 2012. ———. “Urban Citizens and England’s Civil Wars”. In The Oxford Handbook of the English Revolution, ed. Mike Braddick, 312–29. Oxford, 2015. Wood, Andy. The 1549 Rebellions and the Making of Early Modern England. Cambridge, 2007. 273

Disaffection.indb 273

19/09/2017 11:26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

———. “Fear, Hatred and the Hidden Injuries of Class in Early Modern England”, Journal of Social History, 39:3 (2006), 803–26. ———. The Memory of the People: Custom and Popular Sense of the Past in Early Modern England. Cambridge, 2013. ———. “The Place of Custom in Plebian Political Culture: England, 1550–1800”, Social History, 22:1 (1997), 46–60. ———. The Politics of Social Conflict: The Peak Country, 1520–1770. Cambridge, 1999. ———. “The Queen is ‘a goggyll eyed hoore’: Gender and Seditious Speech in EarlyModern England”. In The English Revolution c.1590–1720: Politics, Religion and Communities, ed. Nicholas Tyacke, 81–94. Manchester, 2013. ———. Riot, Rebellion and Popular Politics in Early Modern England. New York, 2002. ———. “Subordination, Solidarity and the Limits of Popular Agency in a Yorkshire Valley c.1596–1615”, Past & Present, 193 (2006), 41–72. Woolrych, Austin. Commonwealth to Protectorate. London, 2000. ———. “The Cromwellian Protectorate: A Military Dictatorship?”, History, 75 (1990), 207–31. ———. “Introduction”. In Complete Prose Works of John Milton, Vol. VII. New Haven, CT, 1980. Worden, Blair. The English Civil Wars, 1640–1660. London, 2010. ———. The Rump Parliament, 1648–1653. Cambridge, 1974. Wrightson, Keith. “Alehouses, Order and Reformation in Rural England, 1590– 1660”. In Popular Culture and Class Conflict 1590–1914: Explorations in the History of Labour and Leisure, ed. Eileen Yeo and Stephen Yeo, 1–27. Brighton, 1981. ———. English Society, 1580–1680. New Brunswick, NJ, 1982. ———. “The Politics of the Parish in Early Modern England”. In The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England, ed. Paul Griffiths, Adam Fox and Steve Hindle, 10–46. Basingstoke, 1994. ———. “Two Concepts of Order: Justices, Constable and Jurymen in SeventeenthCentury England”. In An Ungovernable People: the English and Their Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. John Brewer and John A. Styles, 11–46. London, 1980. Wrightson, Keith and David Levine. Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling, 1525–1700. Oxford, 1995. Yeo, Eileen and Yeo, Stephen. Popular Culture and Class Conflict, 1590–1914: Explorations in the History of Labour and Leisure. Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1981. Zagorin, Perez. Rebels and Rulers, 1500–1660. 2 Vols. Cambridge, 1982. Zaret, David. Origins of Democratic Culture: Printing, Petitions, and the Public Sphere in Early-Modern England. Princeton, NJ, 2000. ———. “Petitioning Places and the Credibility of Opinion in the Public Sphere in Seventeenth-Century England”. In Political Space in Pre-Industrial Europe, ed. Beat Kümin, 175–95. Burlington, VT, 2009. ———. “Religion, Science, and Printing in the Public Spheres in SeventeenthCentury England”. In Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig Calhoun, 212–35. Cambridge, MA, 1992.

274

Disaffection.indb 274

19/09/2017 11:26

Index

Adamites ​224, 230 Adams, Richard ​218 Adultery Act ​5, 211 Airey, Thomas ​219 Aiskew ​210 Alcock, William ​134–5 ale, beer and cider ​73–5, 78, 80–2, 93–5, 101, 135, 155, 157, 238 excise on ​13, 16, 84, 165, 170–2, 184, 186, 196 regulation of ​72, 76–7, 79, 88 role in social life ​114, 115 selling without a license ​90, 117 alehouses ​15, 71, 74–5, 80, 81 n.40, 86, 88, 113, 119, 210, 241. See also inns; taverns; victualling houses and disaffection ​16, 91–2, 95, 98, 118, 240 excise-men in ​193, 195, 240 licensing of ​84, 112 as places to socialize ​25, 81, 93, 102, 105 quartering in ​127, 155 regulation of ​35, 72, 80, 82–3, 87, 117 soldiers police ​145, 149, 151, 152, 162, 163 allegiance ​6–8, 18, 98, 100, 103, 105, 114, 150, 239, 241, 243 Allen, John ​218 Allen, Robert ​155 Allerton, Lockey ​110 Allerton ​110 Alley, Hugh ​29 Anabaptists ​123, 214, 225–30, 232 Andrewes, Thomas ​57–8 Anglicans ​80, 210, 211, 223, 226, 228–9, 239 persecution of ​208–9, 212, 213

Disaffection.indb 275

Anglo-Dutch War ​97 Annable, Thomas ​99 antinomians ​18 Appleby, Samuel ​108 Appleyard, Gamaliel ​209 apprentices ​55, 65, 128, 196, 214, 220–1 patronize ale and victualling houses ​81 political activism of ​11, 67, 146, 148, 158–63, 242–3 tensions with Quakers in Bristol ​132, 240 Arminianism ​206, 208, 210 army ​5, 17, 55 n.135, 56, 59, 70, 109, 125–9, 131, 133, 138, 140, 145, 148–9, 157, 162–3, 208, 215 Council of the Army ​53, 54, 56 artisans ​65, 71, 128, 137, 140–1, 144, 146, 240–1 Aschott ​71, 93 Ashburne ​219 Ashton, Robert ​210–11 Ashworth, William ​177 Assembly of Divines ​208, 229 Atkins, Alderman ​59 Atkinson, Peter ​95–6, 194–5 Atkinson, Steven ​123 Audland, John ​219–20 Ayers, Edward ​23 Bake, Richard ​213 ballads ​12, 43, 69, 70, 72, 98, 102, 113–15, 134, 150, 153, 160, 186, 216, 224. See also broadsides celebrate ale ​77 criticize people changing allegiances ​223 on dangers of alehouse sociability ​93 on fanatics ​226, 228, 231 mock Oliver Cromwell ​78–9

19/09/2017 11:26

INDEX ballads (contd) on Restoration ​116, 232, 233, 234, 238 on soldiers ​128, 134, 163 Banbury ​57 Bankes, Henry ​185 Baptists ​54, 132, 212, 219, 225–7 Barcroft, Captain ​95, 194–5 Barebone’s Parliament. See Parliament Barkstead, Major-General John ​83, 147, 150 Barlow, John ​156 Barnard, John ​157 Barton, Mr. ​213 Bateman, Sheriff ​143 Bates, Faith ​59 Battle of Worcester ​191 Battle of Edgehill ​145 battle of the frogs ​225–8 Bauthumley, Jacob ​28 Bayole, John ​182 Beake, Robert ​86 Beare, Elizabeth ​98 beer. See ale, beer and cider Beik, William ​192–3 Benfield, Gabriel ​156 Berkshire ​53, 127 Bernaud, Isabel ​123 Berwick ​63 Besse, Joseph ​215–20, 219 n.67 Beverly ​111, 216 Bewick, William ​111 Bingley ​147 Birch, Colonel ​49 Birkenhead, Sir John ​228 Birkett ​3–4 Bishop, George ​219–20, 221 Bishop lands ​237–8 Bishopsgate ​55 Black Boy Inn ​71–2, 93, 102, 106, 112 Blandford ​49 blasphemy ​15, 18, 28, 131, 132, 207, 216–17 James Nayler’s procession ​219 Blasphemy Act ​5, 207, 217 Bloodworth, Thomas ​86 Book of Common Prayer ​4, 101, 208–12 Booth, George Sir ​237 Boston ​68 Boteler, Major William ​132, 152, 221 Bowcocke, Christopher ​194–5 Bowles, Edward ​104 Braddick, Mike ​9, 110, 135, 167–8, 172, 177, 183

Bradford ​185, 197, 198, 237 Bradgate, Morris ​199 Bradshaw, Chief Justice ​61 Bradshaw, John ​151 brewers ​74, 77, 79, 149, 151, 171, 195 assert beer and ale is for the poor ​75–6 avoid measurement of their product ​184 excise’s impact on ​17, 72, 167, 171 and gaugers ​170, 197 Oliver Cromwell rumored to be ​78, 88 Brislington, Somerset ​220 Bristol ​48, 153, 155, 217, 218 garrison of protects Quakers ​132 riot against Quakers at ​219–22, 240 broadsides ​12, 14, 44, 69, 70, 79, 82, 93, 150, 223, 231. See also ballads on market crosses ​16, 48–9, 198, 217 on Colonel John Hewson ​160 on excise-men ​166, 186 on fanatics ​205, 224, 225, 226, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234–5 on health-drinking ​102 on religious sects ​224 on return of Charles II ​57, 115, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236 on soldiers ​128, 129 Brotherton, Ann ​90 Brotherton, Frances ​90 Brown, Christopher ​202 Brown, James R. ​94 Browne, James ​198 Browse, Edward ​94 Brunton, George ​210 Brunton, Thomas ​210 Bruton ​116 Buckinghamshire ​184, 218 Buford ​57 Burroughs, Edward ​132 Burton, Barbara ​84 Camm, John ​219–20 Canne, John ​132 Capp, Bernard ​8, 82, 83, 84, 85, 90, 145, 215 Carter, Mary ​90 Carter, Phillip ​87 Carter, Richard ​90 Carter, Thomas ​90 Casley, Thomas ​216–17 Catholics ​4, 46, 64, 210, 213 cavaliers ​93, 128, 140, 150, 162, 189, 224, 228 Champion, Mary ​226

276

Disaffection.indb 276

19/09/2017 11:26

INDEX Chapter lands ​238 Charles I ​1, 3, 24, 28, 50, 64, 103, 151, 163, 165, 169, 207, 225 execution of ​21, 41, 111, 152 requests excise tax ​174 Charles II ​18, 21, 57, 72–3, 79, 103, 113, 117, 125, 127, 142, 191, 201–2, 206, 225, 227, 229, 232–6, 237–9 allegiance to ​48–9, 50, 68, 70, 154, 207 ballads celebrate imminent return of ​113 as conqueror of fanatics ​223, 232–4, 236 health-drinking to ​21–2, 71–2, 100, 102, 106, 107, 111, 114 officials of concerned with those who refuse to embrace drinking culture ​ 118 referred to as King of Scots ​96, 97 Restoration of ​3, 26, 115, 116, 161, 205, 225, 227, 228, 229, 232–6, 237–9 Charles Stuart. See Charles II Cheapside ​16, 31, 53, 59, 61. See also West Cheap produce market in ​23–35 Colonel Hewson hung in effigy in ​67, 159 1657 riot ​25–35 Cheapside Cross ​28 Cheshire ​83, 127, 165 n.3, 176, 237 Chester ​133, 154 Cholwill, Mary ​98 Christmas ​106, 147, 185, 202, 214, 224 celebration of prohibited ​4, 64 celebrations defended ​79 Church of England ​4, 30, 208, 238 cider. See ale, beer and cider civil wars ​2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 23, 25, 30, 36, 124–5, 129, 137, 196, 239 complicated practices of sociability ​9–100 created alternative interpretations of disaffection ​94, 95 divisiveness of ​9, 90, 91, 92, 107 material consequences of ​5 standing army continued following ​127 Clapton, John ​211 Clement Danes ​27 Clennell, William ​39, 40 Clerkenwell Fields ​146–7 Clewes, John ​210–11 cloth manufacturing and trade ​1, 2, 14, 110, 196, 198 excise on ​165, 170 n.23, 185 suffer from recession ​197

Coale, Joseph ​218 Coale, Josiah ​218 Coffman, D’Maris ​167, 168, 177, 199 Coke, Sir Edward ​169 Colchester ​14 Cole, William ​199, 200 Coleman, William ​106–7 Collingwood, Cuthbert ​43 Collingwood, George ​38, 43 Collingwood, Robert ​36, 39 Collingwood estate ​36, 37, 40, 43, 45. See also Eslington Sir Arthur Hesilrige’s claim to ​38, 44, 70 Collingwood family ​24, 36, 36 n.51, 37, 38, 45 assault Sir Arthur Hesilrige ​39, 70 Committee and Commissioners for Indemnity ​187 Committee for Plundered Ministers ​207 Committee for Propagation of the Gospel ​ 207 Committee for Regulating and Improving the Excise ​170 n.23, 171, 187 Committee for Scandalous Ministers ​207 Committee of Safety ​47, 66–7, 136, 196, 199 controlled by army ​5, 158, 206, 230 rise of ​231 unpopularity of ​159 committee-men ​175–6 Common Council ​30, 32, 88, 159 Commons. See Parliament Commonwealth ​51, 58, 92, 107, 156, 157, 187, 190, 214, 223 and common people ​6, 69, 78, 188, 241 and Levellers ​51, 70 officials ​13, 22, 25, 35, 46, 76, 93, 152 power of ​45, 47, 99 resentment against ​24, 48, 60, 153, 189 support for ​110 use of militias ​126 at war with Scots ​97, 111 Commonwealth acts and policies ​3, 5, 53–5, 64, 155 on abolishing monarchy ​21, 49, 52, 106 on excise ​170, 171, 177, 184, 185 on free quarter ​124, 162 on religion ​205, 207 on social reform ​90, 145 on use of fenlands and forests ​136, 138, 141, 144

277

Disaffection.indb 277

19/09/2017 11:26

INDEX Commonwealth’s arms ​62, 68, 239 Company of Butchers ​30 Company of Gardeners ​33 conservatism ​6, 7, 12, 239, 241, 242, 244 and royalists ​159, 160, 225 Cooke, Edward ​84 Corbet, Miles ​230 Cornhill ​58 costermongers ​16, 23–6, 29, 31–3, 45, 70, 81, 180, 241, 244 Council of State ​22, 30, 49, 52, 54, 57, 62–3, 66, 83, 131–2, 137, 141, 152–3, 170 Court of Aldermen ​26, 30, 31, 32 n.37, 33, 48 Court of Common Pleas ​42, 68 Court of the Star Chamber ​51 Covent Garden ​118 Coventry ​85–6 Cowley, Thomas ​156 Crofton, Zachary ​200, 201 Cromwell, Oliver ​4, 61–4, 67, 71, 78, 83–4, 88, 99–100, 126, 129, 132, 136, 142–4, 149, 151, 154, 156, 174–5, 196, 200, 207, 214, 219, 221 dislike of ​1–2, 78, 96–7, 112, 118, 143, 155, 239 excise and taxes of ​136, 141, 171, 174–5, 202 funeral of ​65–6 loyalty to ​109, 110, 241 suppresses Levellers ​5, 57, 173 Cromwell, Richard ​65, 66, 97, 196 Crouch, John ​59, 60, 76, 88, 134, 148–9, 174, 189–90 Crowe, John ​166, 168 custom, local ​2, 23, 38, 92, 95, 188, 241, 244 Cutts, Charles ​149 Dawson, William ​134–5 Day, John ​4 Davis, Natalie Zemon ​209 Daye, Thomas ​194 Dean lands ​238 Declaration of Breda ​238 Dendy, Colonel ​53, 158, 162 Denton, Captain John ​21, 22 Derbyshire ​183 Devon ​187, 213 Dingley, Northamptonshire ​211 Directory of Worship ​208

disaffected authors ​24, 25, 43, 79, 90, 137, 141, 168–9. See also royalist authors on excise-men ​165, 178, 188–9 Disbrowe, Major-General ​72, 139, 196 Dorset ​190, 218 Drayton ​178 n.51, 179–80 drinking houses. See alehouses Drury Lane ​147 Dun, Esquire ​44 Durham ​41, 44, 48–9, 154 Dyer, Thomas ​182 East Riding, Yorkshire ​186 Easter ​64, 210, 213 Edwards, Thomas ​131 Elizabethan Act of Uniformity ​4, 205, 208, 208 n.8 Ellis, Richard ​94 Endon, Samuel ​134–5 Enfield Chase ​140–4 English Revolution ​3, 7, 11, 16, 18, 22, 50, 80, 94, 109, 113, 123, 205, 229–30, 241–2, 244 consequences of ​6, 9, 12, 16, 23, 25, 30–1, 70, 72, 82–3, 90, 104, 107, 146, 157, 162, 189, 206, 229 episcopacy ​4, 208, 225, 226 Eslington ​24, 36, 39, 40, 43. See also Collingwood estate Hesilrige’s claim to ​37, 38 Evelyn, John ​66, 214 Exchange, the ​53, 57–62, 67–8, 158, 162 excise ​5, 15, 16, 52, 54, 72, 75, 77, 82, 84, 88, 91, 114, 129, 135, 148, 150, 170–1, 174, 177, 182, 187–8, 190, 192, 193, 195, 201, 240–1 on ale, beer and cider ​13, 16, 84, 165, 170–2, 184, 186, 196 Charles I proposes ​165 Charles II’s policy of ​119, 237–8 collection of ​130, 134, 136 n.65, 167, 180 evasion of ​183–4 on inland woolens ​196 and Levellers ​52, 60, 173 on meat ​185 needed for maintaining army ​127, 133, 162 polemics against ​13, 95, 168–70, 172, 199–200 resentment of ​17, 57, 189, 198, 202

278

Disaffection.indb 278

19/09/2017 11:26

INDEX resistance to ​55, 176, 178–9, 181, 184, 186 on salt ​170 n. 23 excise collectors. See excise-men excise commissioners ​171, 180, 181, 184, 186, 187, 198 Excise Committee. See Committee for Regulating and Improving the Excise excise farmers ​133, 169, 171, 186, 200 excise-men ​5, 14, 15, 17–18, 72, 95, 133–6, 167–9, 171, 175–6, 178, 182–6, 179, 188, 191–4, 200–1, 203, 236, 238, 240 assaults on ​160, 177, 184, 187, 189, 190, 196, 198, 199 hostility toward ​96, 124, 165–6, 172, 180, 195, 197, 204, 237 relations between women and ​181, 202, 243 Exeter ​1–2, 14, 48–9, 65, 85, 98, 108, 154, 155, 156, 212 Fairfax, Lord General Thomas ​129, 148 Fairford ​225–8 Fairford frogs ​225–8 fairs ​17, 24, 36, 40–2, 70, 152, 154, 157, 240 fanaticism ​222, 224, 227, 229, 230, 231, 233–4, 238 fanatics ​18, 147, 205–7, 209, 223–36, 239 Baptists as ​226, 227 Charles II as conqueror of ​232, 233, 234, 236 politicization of ​229–231 Presbyterians as ​228 Quakers as ​222 Farmer, Ralph ​220–1, 224 Farnley Wood Plot ​202, 238 Farrand, Roger ​194–5 Feake, Christopher ​231 Fidge, George ​191 Fifth Monarchists ​224, 231, 234–5, 238 London uprising ​234–5 Fleet Street ​158 Fleetwood, Major-General Charles ​161, 196, 230, 231 Fletcher, William ​123 Ford, Thomas ​212 Forest of Dean ​138–40, 142, 143, 144 Fox, George ​219 Friends. See Quakers Fuller, Thomas ​223

Gage, Frances ​27 Gallant, John ​88 Gandyer, John ​111, 112 Gardiner, William ​184 Gates, William ​238 Geree, John ​104 Gidlott, Samuel ​99 Gillibrowne, Nicholas ​99 Gisburne ​95–6, 194–5 Gloucester ​212, 225–6, 235 Goldsmith, Sarah ​217 Goldsmith, William ​135 Goldsmiths Row ​28 Goodman, John ​155 “good old cause” ​140, 142, 144, 206, 230–2, 234 Gracechurch Street ​33 Grebnerus, Paulus ​57–8 Greenwood, John ​209 Grievenson, Margaret ​210 Guildhall ​28, 65 Gunpowder Treason Day ​64, 65, 65 n.183 Gunter, Widow ​96 Gunton, Timothy ​103, 104 habitus ​95, 95 n.113 Hacker, Colonel ​156 Hailwood, Mark ​102 Hall, Ralph ​183 Hammond, William ​118 Hampshire ​53, 83 Hanson, Henry ​202 Harding, Vanessa ​28, 29 Hardley, James ​118 Harris, Tim ​238 Harrison, Roger ​96 Hatch, William ​86 Hatfield Chase ​137 Haverfordwest ​180 health-drinking ​101, 107, 110, 111, 112, 240 association of with loyalty to the crown ​ 100, 104, 105 and drinking culture ​108 incorporated into verse ​113 is condemned ​16, 103 strengthens relationships ​71, 92, 102 Heart, Issabell ​181–2, 183 hearth tax ​202 Hebden, Roger ​215 Henley, Robert ​211

279

Disaffection.indb 279

19/09/2017 11:26

INDEX disaffection in ​80, 91, 94, 112 excise-men encountered in ​17, 167, 180, 190, 192–5 licensing of ​83 quartering of soldiers at ​96, 127, 155 soldiers’ presence in ​95, 152, 156, 157, 162 Instrument of Government ​126, 218 Ireton, Henry ​126 Ireton, John ​34 Islington ​88

herb-women ​29, 30, 31, 34–5 Hertfordshire ​53, 96, 185 Hesilrige, Bertram ​36 Hesilrige, Sir Arthur ​24, 35–45, 51, 70, 231, 241. See also Collingwood estate; Eslington Hesilrige, Sir Thomas ​36 heterodoxy ​18, 209, 211, 213, 224, 236 Hewitt, Elizabeth ​201 Hewitt, Tom ​201 Hewson, Colonel John ​67, 131, 158–63 Heywood, Thomas ​100–1 Higgory, William ​71, 72, 106, 114 High Court of Justice ​52, 56 Hill, Christopher ​6–7 Hill, Margaret ​59 Hind, Captain James ​191–2 Hindle, Steve ​75, 130 Hodgson, Christopher ​202 Holland, Samuel ​228 Hollister, Dennis ​219, 221 Holmes, Robert ​135 Holt, Daniel ​111 Horne, William ​198–9 Houghton, Margery ​183 Houghton, Rowland ​183 House of Commons. See Parliament House of Lords ​52, 175. See also Parliament Howard, Captain Charles ​63 Howgill, Francis ​132 Hoyle, Thomas ​106, 107 Hughes, Ann ​8, 11, 13, 131, 145, 217 Hull ​132 Humble Petition and Advice of 1657 ​218

James I ​28 Jenner, Mark ​67 Jessey, Henry ​227, 235 Johnson, Thomas ​213 Johnson, William ​210 Jones, Joan ​96, 156 Jones, William ​135 Josselin, Ralph ​216 Kelsey, Henry ​87 Kent ​127 Kiffin, William ​54 Killingbeck, Thomas ​238 Killington, Thomas ​155–6 Knight, John ​153 Knowles, Thomas ​96

Ibeson, James ​181, 183, 186, 192, 201 Independents ​18, 51, 215, 224, 226, 228, 229, 230 desire liberty of conscience ​208 as fanatics ​206, 228 as religious “Others” ​212 rift with Presbyterians ​209 rise of ​4 industrious poor ​73, 78, 80, 115, 161, 172, 178 civic officials lack compassion for ​24, 79 connections with royalists ​77, 243 negative impact of social policies on ​13, 16, 34, 79, 189 inns ​15, 25, 55, 71, 73, 85, 118, 146. See also alehouses; Black Boy Inn; taverns; victualling houses

Lake, Peter ​46 Lambert, Major-General John ​230, 231, 232, 237 Lambert, William ​112 Lancashire ​81, 83, 219, 237 Langdale, Sir Marmaduke ​96, 112 Laud, Archbishop William ​1, 206, 207–8 Lawson, John ​216 Leadenhall Market ​28 Leeds ​196 Leicester ​135, 213 Leicestershire ​83 Leigh, Richard ​3 Leiland, Alice ​27–8 Lester, Thomas ​195 Leveller women ​54–5, 60, 242–3 Levellers ​5, 25, 37, 51–5, 56, 70, 153, 172–4, 243 Agitators ​55, 172 mutiny of ​57–8 Lewes, Daniel ​132 Lewis, Samuel ​202 liberty of conscience ​4, 238

280

Disaffection.indb 280

19/09/2017 11:26

INDEX female agency in ​181 protests in ​47, 51–2, 54, 17, 179, 180, 198, 202 Quaker women preach in ​217, 243 soldiers monitor ​152, 154 used to communicate policies ​15, 46 Marten, Henry ​34–5 Masborough ​238 Mason, Philip ​85 Massey, Colonel Edward ​140 McCall, Fiona ​212 McShane, Angela ​100, 101, 102, 113 Meeres, John ​85 Middlesex ​89, 97, 111, 141–2, 143, 156 Midgley ​97 Milton, John ​109 Mitchell, Alice ​156 Mitton, Ambrose ​123 Monck, General George ​67, 69, 224, 225, 230 triumphs over fanatics ​231, 232 Monday, John ​156 Monmouth ​166 Montaigne, Richard ​21 monthly assessment ​5, 127, 133, 168 Moore, John ​108 Moorfields ​146–7 Morgan, John ​154 Morrice, Phillip ​157 Muldrew, Craig ​74 Musgrave, John ​37

Lilburne, George ​37 Lilburne, John ​37, 38, 43, 51–4, 57, 172–4 imprisonment of ​56 popularity of ​243 Lilburne, Robert ​37 Lincoln’s Inn ​146 Lindley, Keith ​137 Little Robston ​134 Lockier, Rachel ​27 Lockier, Robert ​55–7 Lockier, Ursella ​27 London ​14, 53, 64, 89, 97, 118, 128–9, 149–51, 159, 163, 170, 185, 191, 198–9, 224, 233–4, 237 abolition of monarchy declared in ​50, 51, 54, 58, 59 burning of bonfires banned in ​65, 66 Charles II’s return to ​69, 116, 233 garrison ​146 Leveller agitation in ​55, 56 militia of ​126, 147, 157 Oliver Cromwell’s entry into ​61 public street markets of ​24, 26, 29–31 riot at Smithfield meat market in ​176 soldiers in ​136, 145, 148, 154, 235 threat of counter-revolution in ​177 unrest in ​32, 55–7, 60, 67, 158, 160, 176, 199, 220, 234, 237–8 Long, William ​96 Long Parliament ​4, 167, 170, 177, 206–8 Louth, Simon ​211 Lowe, Roger ​81 Ludlow ​48 Lyme, Leonard ​213 Mabbot, Gilbert ​57 Magna Carta ​237 major-generals ​2, 71–2, 83, 126, 129, 139, 147, 150, 161, 196, 231, 237 Manchester, Edward Montagu, 2nd Earl of ​ 57 Manckwoles, Henry ​236 market crosses ​3, 15, 21, 22, 48, 50, 217, 240 proclamations at ​16, 46, 47, 49, 70, 154 Quakers’ at ​18, 218 market towns ​21, 48, 50, 53, 68 marketplaces ​16–17, 23, 24–5, 27–8, 35, 41–3, 45, 48, 60, 62, 69–70, 147, 180–1, 193, 196, 215, 240 Charles proclaimed king of England in ​ 21–2, 48–9, 58–9

Nashe, Thomas ​100–1 Nayler, James ​219, 221–2, 231 Neas, Jane ​128 Nedham, Marchamont ​42, 154 Nelson, William ​181–3 Nendike, Christopher ​21 New Exchange. See Exchange, the New Malton, Yorkshire ​21–4, 49, 70, 106 Newcastle ​37 Newgate prison ​59, 107, 128, 142, 143, 199 Nicholson, William ​86 Noble, Michael ​211–12 Noble, Thomas ​106–7 Nominated Assembly. See Parliament Norfolk ​83, 84, 165 n.3 Norfolke, Thomas ​97 North Crowley ​218 North Riding, Yorkshire ​22, 106, 211 Northumberland ​24, 35, 36, 38, 44

281

Disaffection.indb 281

19/09/2017 11:26

INDEX Nottinghamshire ​213 Nuttall, Henry ​99 Nye, Philip ​228, 229 n.99 Ogle, Captain Henry ​41 Ogle, Thomas ​38, 39 Okey, Colonel ​140 Old Exchange. See Exchange, the Opley, Robert ​181–3 Ormskirk ​189 Oulsover ​216 Overton, Colonel Robert ​132 Overton, Richard ​54 Palace Yard ​51, 53 Parker, Abigail ​108–10 Parker, Henry ​66 Parker, Lewis ​108 Parkinson, Reginold ​123 Parliament. See also House of Lords calls for a free parliament ​115, 231, 237 healths offered to confusion of ​97, 98, 100 Long Parliament ​4, 88, 125, 147–8, 167, 170, 174–5, 176–7, 206–7, 208, 238 Nominated Assembly (Barebone’s Parliament) ​138–9, 219 Pride’s purge ​4, 156, 172 Rump Parliament ​4, 21, 24, 47–8, 50, 53, 57–8, 68, 76–9, 83, 126–7, 129, 170–1, 187, 208 Rump Parliament (restored) ​5, 43, 67–9, 70, 158, 163, 196–9, 224–5, 230–1, 237 Second Protectorate Parliament ​139, 141, 196, 218 Short Parliament ​169 of 1629, 174 tensions between Oliver Cromwell and ​ 175 Third Protectorate Parliament ​196 parliamentarians ​6, 11, 24, 51, 93, 159, 174, 185, 197, 242 Parnell, James ​216 Parsons, Thomas ​128 Pattison, Roger ​106–7 Peacey, Jason ​13, 242 Peacock, Edward ​96 Pearse, John ​155–6 Peasants’ Revolt ​29 peddlers. See costermongers Pelliton, George ​155

Pembridge, Anne ​156 Pembridge, William ​156 Pepys, Samuel ​67, 68, 116, 158, 159, 235 Perryman, Martin ​85 Petition of Right ​127, 169, 174, 237 Phillips, John (soldier) ​123 Phillips, John (songwriter) ​76 Pickering ​152 Pierce, John ​211 Pierce, William ​128 Pocklington ​96 political culture ​2, 3, 4, 7–8, 12, 13, 26, 118, 130, 162, 178, 185, 200, 239, 242–3 Pontefract ​84, 95 Poole ​132 popular agency ​2, 11, 14, 67, 92, 111, 146, 148, 158–63, 178–81, 220, 241–3 popular culture ​117, 151, 243 Portsmouth ​96, 145, 156 Potter, Henry ​86–7 Poulgreen, John ​86–7 Powell, James ​221 Powell, Vavasor ​231 Prayer Book. See Book of Common Prayer Presbyterianism ​4, 208, 225, 226 Presbyterians ​18, 140, 224, 225–9, 237 execution of Charles I unpopular with ​51, 174 as fanatics ​206, 212, 225–9 tensions with Independents ​208, 209 Prescott, Captain ​133–4, 134 n.56 Prescott, Daniel ​187 Preston ​49 Pride, Colonel Thomas ​88–9, 148, 149–51, 162, 163 Pride’s Purge ​156, 172 Prince, Elizabeth ​182 Prince, Thomas ​54 Prince Charles. See Charles II Protectorate ​3, 4, 5, 30, 38, 63–4, 93–4, 126, 138, 152–5, 162, 175, 205, 207, 222 legitimacy of ​46–7, 65, 142, 196 reform campaigns ​90–2, 211 policies toward drainage, enclosure and disafforestation ​90–2, 136–8, 144–5, 170–1, 211, 222 rise of ​1 Prynne, William ​101, 103, 104, 107 against excise ​172, 174, 175, 186, 199 Pullein, William ​185 Pulleyne, Henry ​134

282

Disaffection.indb 282

19/09/2017 11:26

INDEX Purefoy, Major George ​129 Puritans ​51, 80, 95, 145, 212, 216 and moral reform ​79, 82, 90, 93, 115, 151, 213, 240 Purkis, Matthew ​212 Pym, John ​169–70 Quaker and Conventicle Acts ​241 Quakers ​5, 18, 123, 132, 212, 214, 217–18, 230–1 accusations against ​209, 221 assaults on ​132, 220, 235, 237, 240–1 conflated with Ranters ​224, 225 as fanatics ​215, 222, 228 persecution of ​216, 218, 219 women ​217, 243 Questier, Michael ​26 radicalism ​6, 206, 214, 222, 224, 226, 235, 241 in army ​130, 131, 133, 219, 220, 231 growth of ​124, 205, 215, 221 Rainsborough, Colonel William ​56, 107 Ranters ​28, 215, 217, 224, 225, 230 Rede, Lieutenant Colonel John ​132 Reece, Henry ​131 Reeder, John ​84–5 Reforestation Act of 1668 ​140 religious pluralism ​18, 206, 207, 208, 215, 218 Restoration ​3, 159, 161–2, 232, 234–6, 237–9 ballads celebrate ​232, 233, 238 church settlement ​238–9 excise collected during ​167, 201 political culture of ​161, 239 and social drinking ​115–19 Reynardson, Abraham ​50, 54 Rich, Barnaby ​101, 103, 104 Rich, Justice ​141–3 Richardson, Thomas ​135 Ridley, Matthew ​123 Rigby, Joseph ​104, 105 Robinson, Thomas ​218 Rogers, John ​185, 231 Royal Exchange. See Exchange, the royalism ​6, 8, 12, 18, 73, 97, 114, 125, 150–1, 157, 159, 236, 242 popular resistance as evidence of ​140–3, 159, 188 relationship to traditional customs and rights ​17–18, 113, 140, 142–3, 190

royalist authors ​17–18, 24, 33–4, 49, 60, 79, 88, 113, 125, 153, 157, 159–60, 163, 178, 188–9, 190, 206, 243. See also disaffected authors; royalists and royalist print royalist pamphleteers. See royalist authors and royalist print royalist print ​17–18, 26, 33, 49, 88, 89, 52–3, 59, 60, 61, 76, 88, 112, 116, 118, 127, 131, 136, 140, 153, 157, 159, 173, 174, 189, 223, 230–2, 237. See also royalist authors and royalists appeal to the commons ​16, 60, 78, 115, 125, 144, 162, 189–90, 206, 242 on army ​149, 150, 231 on Charles II ​113–16, 162, 232–6 connect popular disaffection to royalist opposition ​145, 149, 150, 151, 236 desire to unite populace under vanguard of royalism ​236 on drinking ​16, 72, 76–8, 80, 88, 114, 117–18 on excise-men ​168, 173, 185 on fanatics ​18, 205, 223, 224, 230, 231, 232–6 royalists ​7, 16, 21–2, 24, 56, 66, 72, 76–7, 92, 93, 99, 100, 108, 112, 152, 161, 172, 175, 208–10, 228, 235, 238, 242. See also royalist authors conspiracy of ​63, 93–4, 139–40, 142, 150, 154, 237 social drinking in culture of ​113–14 Royston, ​96 Rugg, Thomas ​66, 67, 69, 116, 158, 159 Rule of the Major-Generals ​2, 71, 85, 126, 129, 150 Rump Parliament. See Parliament Ryall, Edmond ​198 Salisbury ​147, 217 Salisbury Court ​147 salt tax ​170 n.23 Salway, Humphrey ​104 Saunderson, Thomas ​230 Savery, Nicholas ​65 Savile, John ​107–8 Saye and Sele, Lord ​29 Scaise, John ​218 Scott, James C. ​9 Scott, Thomas ​225 Seare, Agnes ​27–8

283

Disaffection.indb 283

19/09/2017 11:26

INDEX Second Conventicle Act of 1670 ​241 Second Protectorate Parliament. See Parliament sectarians. See sectaries sectaries ​4, 15, 80, 123, 130–1, 133, 213, 215, 223, 225, 233, 235, 237 existence blamed on Presbyterians and Independents ​228–9 as fanatics ​206, 208, 225 growing number of ​5, 231 legislation and policies against ​5, 207, 217, 222 Sedgwick, Laurence ​84 sedition ​1–2, 29, 53, 58, 63, 71–2, 82, 92–103, 105–8, 108–12, 128–9, 155–7, 241 and women ​58–9, 108–10, 128, 156 Seekers ​224 Self-Denying Ordinance ​125 sequestrators ​175 Sharp, Buchanan ​137 Shaw, William ​194–5 Shelley, Edward ​184 Shelley, Thomas ​184 Shenton, John ​58–9 Sheppard, Samuel ​89–90, 176, 177, 223 Shepton Mallet ​94 Shield, John ​216, 219 Shoreditch ​84 Short, William ​155–6 Short Parliament ​169 Slaidburn ​123 Smith, John ​211 Smithfield market ​88, 148, 176, 176 n.47, 180, 191 Soja, Edward ​23 Solemn League and Covenant ​229, 230 Somerset ​56, 71, 84, 94, 237 Southwark ​53, 150 St. John, Oliver ​169, 207 St. John’s Street ​148 St. Paul’s Cathedral ​31, 56, 158, 214 fruit, vegetable and herb markets moved to ​23–4, 26, 28, 30, 33–5 Stanley, William ​213 Stapleton, Robert ​38–42 Stationers Company ​57 Staw, William ​95–6 Stevenson, Matthew ​229 Stiles, John ​108–10 Stockdale, Thomas ​111

Stones, Jane ​218 Strangways, Sir John ​169 Strike, Captain ​152 Stuarts ​18, 36 n.51, 94, 146, 234, 236 dearth orders of ​75 health-drinking to ​92, 108, 112, 113, 114, 125, 244 loyalty to ​62, 93, 97, 106 policies of enclosure, drainage and disafforestation ​137, 138, 144 Restoration of ​115, 151, 159, 162 Style, Margaret ​155 Sudlery, Mathew ​184 Sutcliffe, Edward ​97 Swaffham ​84, 137–8 Tapson, John ​109–10 taverns ​17, 21, 22, 25, 27, 71–3, 80–1, 91, 93, 94, 104, 112, 118, 167, 177, 239. See also alehouses; inns; victualling houses soldiers quartered in ​127, 155 tax collectors. See excise-men; excise farmers; excise commissioners taxes. See excise; hearth tax; monthly assessment; salt tax Taylor, John ​77, 78, 118, 223 Temple Bar ​61, 156 Templer, Richard ​155 Thackston, Robert ​99 Thames, river ​147, 228 Third Protectorate Parliament. See Parliament Thirty Years’ War ​125 Thompson, William ​56 Thornbury, Thurstone ​27 Thruscross ​90 Thurgood, William ​157 Thurloe, John ​196, 221 Tichborne, Robert ​32–5, 89–90 Timberlyne, John ​107 tipplers ​12, 81, 101–2, 104, 152, 210 celebrate Restoration ​235 excise-men provoke ​95, 194 health-drinking of ​71–3 policies against ​87–8 Tolzey Court ​220, 240 Tories ​239 Tower of London ​37, 44, 50, 54 Treason Act of 1649 ​93 Triers and Ejectors ​207

284

Disaffection.indb 284

19/09/2017 11:26

INDEX Turner, John ​64 Tyler, William ​156 Underdown, David ​7 Uniformity, Elizabethan Act of ​4, 205, 208, 208 n.8 Ulverstone ​219 Upper Bench ​14, 39, 42 Valpy, Richard ​105–6 Vane, Sir Henry ​44, 230, 231–2 Venner, Thomas ​234 victuallers ​17, 81, 81 n.40, 111, 118 collaborate to resist regulation ​86–8, 241 and excise tax ​72, 170 victualling houses ​16, 53, 62, 80–1, 83–5, 86, 88–9, 90, 92–3, 240. See also alehouses; inns; taverns excise-men at ​95, 96 health-drinking at ​105, 111–12 soldiers at ​135, 151 Violet, Thomas ​175 Wade, Major John ​140, 142, 144 Wade, Samuel ​97 Wales ​165 n.3, 176 Walke, William ​198, 198 n.120, 237 Walker, Henry ​147 Walker, William ​194 Walsham, Alexandra ​240 Walter, John ​9, 242 Walton, Colonel ​49 Walwyn, William ​54 Warren, Henry ​213 Warwickshire ​129 Wastfield, Robert ​218 Waterman, Captain Edward ​27 Waterton, John ​90 Watson, Henry ​210 Waugh, Dorthy ​217 Webb, Lieutenant John ​131 Weeks, Mary ​27 Weil, Rachel ​8, 94, 105, 117

Welsh, Thomas ​96 West Cheap ​29, 31, 70. See also Cheapside West Leigh ​87 West Riding Petition ​181, 183, 186, 201, 216 West Riding, Yorkshire ​83, 84, 110, 197, 202, 211 Westburton ​211 Western Rising ​138 Westonzoyland ​83 Whigs ​239 Whitby ​97 Whitchurch ​133 White, Lucretia ​27 Whitehall ​53, 54, 147, 170 Whitehead, John ​218 Whitelocke, Bulstrode ​61, 231 Whittingham ​35 n.49, 38, 43, 70 fair at ​24, 36, 40–2, 70 marketplace at ​24, 40 n.69, 41, 42 Wilkinson, James ​107–8, 114 Williams, Hugh ​155 Williams, James ​156 Williamson, Elizabeth ​216–17 Williamson, John ​21, 22 wine ​72, 73, 79, 82, 116, 117 drunk by elites ​80, 112, 114 excise on ​84, 95 Withington, Phil ​91, 107 Wood, Andy ​41, 94, 241 Woodbridge, John ​108–10 Wookey ​132 Worcestershire ​187 Wright, Christopher ​97 Yorkshire ​22, 83–4, 110, 127, 129, 183, 196–7, 202, 209, 211 North ​212 West ​14, 84 Younge, Elizabeth ​86 Zaret, David ​12

285

Disaffection.indb 285

19/09/2017 11:26

STUDIES IN EARLY MODERN CULTURAL, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL HISTORY I Women of Quality Accepting and Contesting Ideals of Femininity in England, 1690–1760 Ingrid H. Tague II Restoration Scotland, 1660–1690: Royalist Politics, Religion and Ideas Clare Jackson III Britain, Hanover and the Protestant Interest, 1688–1756 Andrew C. Thompson IV Hanover and the British Empire, 1700–1837 Nick Harding V The Personal Rule of Charles II, 1681–85 Grant Tapsell VI Royalism, Print and Censorship in Revolutionary England Jason McElligott VII The English Catholic Community, 1688–1745 Politics, Culture and Ideology Gabriel Glickman VIII England and the 1641 Irish Rebellion Joseph Cope IX Culture and Politics at the Court of Charles II, 1660–1685 Matthew Jenkinson X Commune, Country and Commonwealth: The People of Cirencester, 1117–1643 David Rollison

Disaffection.indb 286

19/09/2017 11:26

XI An Enlightenment Statesman in Whig Britain: Lord Shelburne in Context, 1737–1805 Edited by Nigel Aston and Clarissa Campbell Orr XII London’s News Press and the Thirty Years War Jayne E. E. Boys XIII God, Duty and Community in English Economic Life, 1660–1720 Brodie Waddell XIV Remaking English Society: Social Relations and Social Change in Early Modern England Edited by Steve Hindle, Alexandra Shepard and John Walter XV Common Law and Enlightenment in England, 1689–1750 Julia Rudolph XVI The Final Crisis of the Stuart Monarchy: The Revolutions of 1688–91 in their British, Atlantic and European Contexts Edited by Stephen Taylor and Tim Harris XVII The Civil Wars after 1660: Public Remembering in Late Stuart England Matthew Neufeld XVIII The Nature of the English Revolution Revisited Edited by Stephen Taylor and Grant Tapsell XIX The King’s Irishmen: The Irish in the Exiled Court of Charles II, 1649–1660 Mark R .F. Williams XX Scotland in the Age of Two Revolutions Edited by Sharon Adams and Julian Goodare

Disaffection.indb 287

19/09/2017 11:26

XXI Alehouses and Good Fellowship in Early Modern England Mark Hailwood XXII Social Relations and Urban Space: Norwich, 1600–1700 Fiona Williamson XXIII British Travellers and the Encounter with Britain, 1450–1700 John Cramsie XXIV Domestic Culture in Early Modern England Antony Buxton XXV Accidents and Violent Death in Early Modern London, 1650–1750 Craig Spence XXVI Popular Culture and Political Agency in Early Modern England and Ireland: Essays in Honour of John Walter Edited by Michael J. Braddick and Phil Withington XXVII Commerce and Politics in Hume’s History of England Jia Wei XXVIII Bristol from Below: Law, Authority and Protest in a Georgian City Steve Poole and Nicholas Rogers

Disaffection.indb 288

19/09/2017 11:26

Using a series of case studies from counties, boroughs, and the London metropolis, Boswell argues that factional discourses and shifting power relations complicated traditional patterns of social interaction that supported the social and political orders. Localized disaffection was broadcast beyond communities in newsbooks, pamphlets, and broadsides, shaping political rhetoric that refashioned grassroots grievances to promote royalist desires. By uniting disparate people who were alienated by the policies of interregnum regimes, such literature helped to create the spectre of a unified, royalist commons that materialized in the months leading up to Charles II’s Restoration. Grassroots agitation – from disaffected mutters to ritualistic violence against officials – informed the broad political culture that shaped debates over governance during one of the most volatile decades in British history.

Studies in Early Modern Cultural, Political and Social History Cover image: The Yard of an Inn (oil on canvas), Teniers, David the Younger (1610–90) / Sheffield Galleries and Museums Trust, UK Photo © Museums Sheffield / Bridgeman Images. Cover design: riverdesign.co.uk

Caroline Boswell

Caroline Boswell is Associate Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.

Disaffection aND E v e ryday Life I N Interregnum England

How did ordinary English men and women respond to the transformations that accompanied the regicide, the creation of a republic, and the rise of the Cromwellian Protectorate? This book forgoes the hunt for popular political allegiance in favor of recovering grassroots responses to the tangible consequences of revolution. The book delves into the spaces where everyday practices, social interactions, and power struggles intersected with the macro-politics of regime change. Tussles at local alehouses, encounters with excise collectors in the high street, and contests over authority at the marketplace reveal how the sites and scenes of everyday life became places where national politics were felt in the most ordinary of activities.

Disaffection and Everyday L ife in Interregnum England Caroline Boswell