¹ Staffordshire Record Office (hereafter SRO), D3451/5/38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46 (Pattingham Overseers' Accounts); SRO, D3451/8/10 for a copy of the agreement for prosecuting felons; and D3451/2/42ff. for the churchwardens' accounts.

² E.g. John, Brewer, The sinews of power: war, money and the English state 1688–1783 (Cambridge, Mass., 1990)Google Scholar; Michael, Braddick, ‘State formation and social change in early modern England; a problem stated and approaches suggested’, Social History, XVI (1991), 1–17Google Scholar, and his thesis, ‘Parliamentary lay taxation c. 1590–1670: local problems of enforcement and collection with special reference to Norfolk’ (Cambridge, 1988)Google Scholar, forthcoming as The roots of the tax state: local responses to parliamentary lay taxation in England c. 1590–1670 (Royal Historical Society, Woodbridge)Google Scholar; Fletcher, A. J., Reform in the provinces: the government of Stuart England (New Haven, 1986)Google Scholar; Coleby, A. M., Central government and the localities: Hampshire 1649–1689 (Cambridge, 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roberts, S. K., Recovery and restoration in an English county: Devon local administration 1646–70 (Exeter, 1985)Google Scholar; Norrey, P. J., ‘The restoration regime in action: the relationship between central and local government in Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire’, The Historical Journal, XXXI (1988), 789–812CrossRefGoogle Scholar and an important article by Joanna Innes which touches on the issue of state power (and which came to my attention after I had completed a draft of this article), ‘Parliament and the shaping of eighteenth-century English social policy’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., XL (1990)Google Scholar. See also Philip, Corrigan and Derek, Sayer, The great arch: English state formation as cultural revolution (Oxford and New York, 1985)Google Scholar. For other studies which contribute to the questions raised in this paragraph see also Norma, Landau, The justices of the peace, 1679–1760 (Berkeley, 1984)Google Scholar; Beattie, J. M., Crime and the courts in England 1660–1800 (Princeton, 1986)Google Scholar; Glassey, Lionel K. J., ‘Local government’, in Clyve, Jones, ed. Britain in the first age of party 1680–1750: essays presented to Geoffrey Holmes (London, 1987)Google Scholar; Forster, G. C. F., The East Riding justices of the peace in the seventeenth century (East Yorkshire Local History Society Pamphlet Series, XXX, 1973)Google Scholar; Forster, G. C. F., ‘Government in provincial England under the later Stuarts’, Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 5th ser., XXXIII (1983)Google Scholar; Cockburn, J. S., ‘The North Riding justices, 1690–1750’, Yorks. Arch. Journ., XLI (1965)Google Scholar; Quintrell, B. W., ed. Proceedings of the Lancashire justices of the peace at the sheriff's table during assizes week 1578–1694 (Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, CXXI, 1981)Google Scholar; and articles on local government in the Victoria County Histories, Ward, W. R., ‘County government c. 1660–1835’, in VCH Wiltshire, V, 170–94Google Scholar; Cox, D. C., ‘County government 1603–1714’, in VCH Shropshire, III, 90–114Google Scholar; Baugh, G. C., ‘County government 1714–1834’, in VCH Shropshire, III, 115–34Google Scholar; Harris, B. E., ‘County government 1660–1888’, in VCH Cheshire, II, 61–74Google Scholar. The works of J. C. D. Clark have had a major influence on views of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but are not concerned primarily with questions of local administration; see esp. his Revolution and rebellion: state and society in England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Cambridge, 1986)Google Scholar. I am grateful to Tim Wales for first drawing my attention to Michael Braddick's important thesis, cited above; and to Dr Braddick for allowing me to read his unpublished paper, ‘The early modern English state and the question of “differentiation”, 1550–1770’. The interesting collection of essays in Lee, Davison, Tim, Hitchcock, Tim, Keirn and Shoemaker, Robert B., eds., Stilling the grumbling hive: the response to social and economic problems in England, 1689–1750 (New York, 1992)Google Scholar came to my attention after this article had been submitted for publication.

³ In this article ‘state’ policies refer to policies that were national in scope, whether they derived from the common law or existing statute law or were a product of new legislation or directives from the executive branch of government. The justices of the peace and parish officers such as the constables, overseers and surveyors, were all part of the apparatus of the state, though they did not always act in ways which served the interests of the state, or ‘extensive authority’, to use Michael Braddick's term (Braddick, , ‘State formation and social change in early modern England’, esp. pp. 5, 8).Google Scholar

⁴ Keith, Wrightson and David, Levine, Poverty and piety in an English village: Terling, 1525–1700 (New York, 1979)Google Scholar and see also their analysis of a village of a different sort in The making of an industrial society: Whickham 1560–1765 (Oxford, 1991), esp. pp. 295–308Google Scholar; Keith, Wrightson, English society 1580–1680 (London, 1982)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Two concepts of order: justices, constables and jurymen in seventeenth-century England’, in John, Brewer and John, Styles, eds. An ungovernable people: the English and their law in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (New Brunswick, N.J., 1980)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Alehouses, order and reformation in rural England, 1590–1660’, in Eileen, and Stephen, Yeo, eds. Popular culture and class conflict 1590–1914: explorations in the history of labour and leisure (Brighton, 1981), pp. 1–27Google Scholar; see also Sharpe, J. A., ‘Enforcing the law in the seventeenth-century English village’, in Gattrell, V. A. C., Bruce, Lenman, AND Geoffrey, Parker, eds. Crime and the law: the social history of crime in Western Europe since 1500 (London, 1980), pp. 97–119Google Scholar; Cynthia, Herrup, The common peace: participation and the criminal law in seventeenth-century England (Cambridge, 1987)Google Scholar; Fletcher, Reform in the provinces, esp. chs. 4, 8 and Conclusion.

⁵ Kent, Joan R., The English village constable, 1580–1642: a social and administrative study (Oxford, 1986).Google Scholar

⁶ Braddick, , ‘Parliamentary lay taxation’Google Scholar; see also Colin, Brooks, ‘Public finance and political stability: the administration of the land tax, 1688–1720’, The Historical Journal, XVII (1974)Google Scholar on how much the success of the land tax owed to the fact that assessors and collectors were drawn from village/parish elites.

⁷ Brewer, , The sinews of powerGoogle Scholar. I intend to discuss the state's success in extracting local resources on another occasion.

⁸ Fletcher, , Reform in the provincesGoogle Scholar; Coleby, , Hampshire, 1649–1689Google Scholar; Sharpe, J. A., Crime in seventeenth-century England (Cambridge, 1983)Google Scholar provide some evidence of this fact. See also Beattie, , Crime and the courtsGoogle Scholar; Innes, , ‘Parliament and the shaping of eighteenth-century English social policy’, esp. pp. 67–75Google Scholar; and two articles by Norma, Landau on the enforcement of the settlement laws, ‘The laws of settlement and the surveillance of immigration in eighteenth-century Kent’, Continuity and Change, III (1988), 391–420Google Scholar and ‘The regulation of immigration, economic structures and definitions of the poor in eighteenth-century England’, The Historical Journal, XXXIII (1990), 541–71.Google Scholar

⁹ SRO, D3451/2/3, D3451/5/2–46 (Pattingham); D783/2/3/1 (Alrewas); Hertfordshire Record Office (hereafter HRO), D/P26/7/1 and D/P26/12/1 (Bushey); D/P7/12/1 and 2, D/P7/25/1 (Ashwell); D/P 110/5/1 (Thundridge); Norfolk and Norwich Record Office (hereafter NNRO), PD358/41 (Shelton); PD219/92 (East Harling); PD50/43 (Gissing). On the nature and extent of relief provided to the poor by the later seventeenth century see also Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, esp. pp. 187–91Google Scholar; and for detailed local examinations of poor relief which also cover this period, see Tim, Wales ‘Poverty, poor relief and the life-cycle: some evidence from seventeenth-century Norfolk’, in Smith, Richard M., ed. Land, kinship and life-cycle (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 351–403Google Scholar; Brown, W. Newman, ‘The receipt of poor relief and family situation: Aldenham, Hertfordshire 1630–90’Google Scholar, in ibid. 405–22; Rushton, P., ‘The poor law, the parish and the community in North-East England, 1600–1800’, Northern History, XXV (1989), 135–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tom, Arkell, ‘The incidence of poverty in England in the later seventeenth century’, Social History, XII (1987), 23–47Google Scholar. See also Snell, K. D. M., Annals of the labouring poor: social change and agarian England 1660–1900 (Cambridge, 1985), ch. 3 and esp. pp. 105–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar for evidence, which supports that presented here, concerning the range and extent of relief provided in the parish during the eighteenth century.

¹⁰ 3 & 4 W & M, c. 11; 8 & 9 Wm III, c. 30.

¹¹ E.g. Paul, Slack, Poverty and policy in Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1988), pp. 193–4.Google Scholar

¹² This is based on the accounts cited in n. 9. For references to the badging or marking of the poor see, for example, the Pattingham Overseers' Accounts, SRO, D3451/5/2, where such entries occur in 1685–6, 1697–8 and then more frequently during the early eighteenth century (1700–1, 1704–5, 1707–8, 1711–12, 1715–16, 1719–20, 1723–4, 1727–8, 1728–9, 1730–1). In Ashwell (Herts.) the overseers recorded the cost of badges in 1701–2 and 1721, but in 1718 the constables entered into their accounts charges for making fifteen badges and putting them on, HRO, D/P7/12/1; D/P7/9/1.

¹³ 9 Geo II, c. 7; on the implementation of this act see also Innes, , ‘Parliament and the shaping of eighteenth-century social policy, pp. 70, 73Google Scholar. The Webbs' discussion of workhouses in English local government: English poor law history, Part I: the old poor law (London, 1927), pp. 215ffGoogle Scholar. has been superseded by the recent study of Hitchcock, T., ‘The English workhouse. A study in institutional poor relief in selected counties 1696–1750’ (D.Phil, thesis, Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar cited in Innes, , ‘Parliament and the shaping of eighteenth-century English social policy’, n. 13.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See above, n. 1.

¹⁵ SRO, Quarter Sessions Order Books (hereafter Q/SO), XII, fo. 202 (Epiph. 1729). Some of the books lack pagination in whole or in part; sometimes references will be given to folios, in other cases only to the date of the court, e.g. Mich. 1700 for Michaelmas sessions, 1700.

¹⁶ HRO, D/P7/12/2, 5 Feb. 1728; D/P7/25/1, 8 Feb. 1728.

¹⁷ HRO, D/P7/12/2, 7 Apr. 1729 and a memorandum in D/P7/25/1, 5 June 1729; D/P7/12/2, 1730s and esp. 1737–8, 1739–40 for earnings of the poor.

¹⁸ A very high percentage of the total number of sessions orders in Staffordshire in the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries were issued in response to appeals from parishes against removal orders. The fact that the original orders had been issued by two or three justices out of sessions would suggest that much of the business of petty sessions was also concerned with settlement matters, while parish records provide additional evidence of local preoccupation with such matters. See SRO, Q/SO, vols. VII, X, XI, XII, XIII (vols. VIII and IX are not extant); and as examples of parish records see settlement examinations, settlement certificates and removal orders for Pattingham, SRO, D3451/5/60ff., 109ff., 223ff. and overseers' accounts of Pattingham and Alrewas, SRO, D3451/2/3, D3451/5/2–46; D783/2/3/1. For a detailed examination of the enforcement of the settlement laws in Kent during the eighteenth century, which argues that they were used to control migration and not merely to remove the indigent poor, see the articles by Norma Landau, cited in n. 8. On the use of petty sessions for settlement business in Kent see Landau, , ‘Laws of settlement’, p. 393Google Scholar; and idem, Justices of the peace, pp. 215–18.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Wrigley, E. A. and Schofield, R. S., The population history ofEngland 1541–1871 (Cambridge, MA, 1981), p. 341Google Scholar; Appleby, A. B., ‘Grain prices and subsistence crises in England and France, 1590–1740’, Journal of Economic History, XXXIX (1979), 865–87, esp. pp. 876–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁰ 11 Wm III, c. 18, continued by 1 Anne, Stat. 2, c. 13; 13 Anne, c. 26; 17 Geo II, c. 5.

²¹ SRO, Q/SO, X, Trans. 1699, Mich. 1699; XI, Easter 1716, Mich. 1718; Hardy, W. J./Le Hardy, William, ed. Hertfordshire County Records, 9 vols. (Hertford, 1905–1939), VII, 172, 286, 299–300, 306–7Google Scholar; see also VII, 169, 177. On the enforcement of the laws against vagrants during the later seventeenth century see also Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, pp. 211–12Google Scholar and Innes, , ‘Parliament and the shaping of eighteenth-century social policy’, p. 73Google Scholar, who states that the act 11 Wm III, c. 18 ‘took speedy effect throughout the country’.

²² SRO, 0783/2/2/1 (1698–9, 1700–1); the number given for Alrewas is an estimate based on the total sums spent on travellers by the three other townships within the parish as well as the constables' detailed listing of passengers in Alrewas township. For similar evidence see other constables' accounts: e.g. SRO, D3451/6/2–42 (Pattingham); HRO, D/P7/9/1 (Ashwell); D/P110/5/1 (Thundridge).

²³ SRO, Q/SBe/5, nos. 10, 13, 15–17, 18–35; and Q/SBe/6, where most of nos. 1–75 are receipts and orders for payment of expenses to constables for conveying vagrants.

²⁴ See Le, Hardy, ed. Herts. County Records, VII, 171Google Scholar; SRO, Q/SO, XI (Easter 1724). For examples of contractors trying to renegotiate their contracts see Le, Hardy, ed. Herts. County Records, VII, 182Google Scholar; SRO, Q/SO, XIII, fos. 8v (Easter, 1729), 121 (Mich. 1733). In Hertfordshire the position of contractor was abolished by quarter sessions in July 1740, in the wake of an act passed in June which, according to the justices, declared that the office ‘is become useless’ (Le, Hardy, ed. Herts. County Records, VII, 279).Google Scholar

²⁵ Where such materials do exist there seems to be evidence of continuing support for the regulation of such conduct, at least intermittently; and even the parish presentments found in sessions records sometimes attest to local willingness during the later seventeenth century to prosecute such offenders. See esp. Shoemaker, Robert B., Prosecution and punishment: petty crime and the law in London and rural Middlesex, c. 1660–1725 (Cambridge, 1991)Google Scholar whose sources do include petty sessions records; and see also Sharpe, , Crime in seventeenth-century EnglandGoogle Scholar and Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, ch. 8Google Scholar. Local petitions about bastardy, which did still sometimes come before sessions, were not as numerous in the Staffordshire sessions rolls of the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries as they had been in the 1620s and 1630s; but were still a regular item of business (SRO, Q/SO, III, IV, for the 1620s and 1630s; and SRO, Q/SO, VI, X, XI, XII, XIII and XIV for the later seventeenth and eighteenth centuries). The Brockman diaries show that parishes in the Elham division of Kent continued to bring occasional bastardy cases before their local justice during both the 1690s and the 1720s; the Brockmans dealt with 3–5 such cases a year from the immediate neighbourhood (BL Add. MS 42598, pp. 33, 35–6, 37, 42, 46, 48, 53, 63, 64, 68–72, 75, 76, 78, 80, 169, 170, 171(2), 172, 177, 180, 182, 184, 187(3), 189–90, 190; Add MS 42599, pp. 27, 37, 39, 41, 44). See also Landau, , Justices of the peace, p. 178.Google Scholar

²⁶ See esp. Adrian, Shubert, ‘Private initiative in law enforcement: associations for the prosecution of felons, 1744–1856’, in Victor, Bailey, ed. Policing and punishment in nineteenth century Britain (London, 1981), pp. 25–41Google Scholar; David, Philips, ‘Good men to associate and bad men to conspire: associations for the prosecution of felons in England 1760–1860’, in Douglas, Hay and Francis, Snyder, eds. Policing and prosecution in Britain 1750–1850 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 113–70Google Scholar; and King, P. J. R., ‘Prosecution associations and their impact in eighteenth-century Essex’Google Scholar in ibid. 171–207; Beattie, , Crime and the courts, pp. 48–50.Google Scholar

²⁷ SRO, Q/SR/553, no. 4; Q/SO, XIII, fo. 116; compare signatures on D3451/8/10 with names of victims in Q/SO, XIII, fos. 115V, 130V, 135V; XIV, fos. 44, 107, 206v; Q/SR/553, 554; Q/SM/e 1, pt. 1, fo. 251; D3451/2/54.

²⁸ SRO, D3451/8/10; D3451/2/42 (Churchwardens' accounts 1734–5).

²⁹ An agreement of the inhabitants of Stoke on Trent in 1693 for the prosecution of horse thieves is mentioned by Philips, , ‘Associations for the prosecutions of felons’, p. 122Google Scholar (citing Douglas, Hay's thesis, ‘Crime, authority and the criminal law: Staffordshire 1750–1800’Google Scholar). Philips also cites a similar agreement in Maghull (Lanes) in 1699 (p. 122), as does Shubert, , ‘Private initiative in law enforcement’ (p. 26)Google Scholar. For parish prosecution associations in Essex before 1750 see the evidence from East Ham (1739) and Steeple Bumpstead (late 1740s) in King, , ‘Prosecution associations in Essex’ (p. 180)Google Scholar. The notebooks kept by William and James Brockman, justices in the Elham division of Kent, reveal that property crimes constituted a significant proportion of the offences which parishioners there reported to their local magistrate during the 1720s. They record a steady trickle of larceny cases, along with an occasional housebreaking or highway robbery, and cases of theft of all kinds slightly exceeded the number of assaults they dealt with (BL Add. MS 42599, property offences: pp. 11V, 13V(2), 20V, 23V, 26, 28, 29, 34, 38(3), 39, 40; assaults: pp. 15V, 24V(2), 26(2), 27, 29–30, 30, 31, 40). See also Landau, , Justices of the peace, p. 178Google Scholar. For discussion of the prosecution of property crimes in the early eighteenth century in Surrey and Sussex, see Beattie, , Crime and the courts, ch. 5.Google Scholar

³⁰ E.g. see the penalties imposed on constables and/or churchwardens for failure to enforce the following statutes: 5 Eliz, c. 4; 35 Eliz, c. 4; 39 Eliz, c. 4; 39 Eliz, c. 21; 43 Eliz, c. 3; 43 Eliz, c. 7; 1 Jac 1, c. 7; 1 Jac I, c. 9; 1 Jac I, c. 31; 4 Jac I, c. 5; 7 Jac I, c. 4; 3 Car I, c. 4.

³¹ See Kent, Village constable, ch. 7.

³² For ordinances and statutes containing fines of 10s: 13 Anne, c. 26 (cons.); 20s: Ordinance 19 Apr. 1650, Firth, C. H. and Rait, R. S., eds., Acts and ordinances of the interregnum 1642–60 (London, 1911, reprinted Holmes Beach, Florida, 1972) [hereafter Firth and Rait], II, 385–6Google Scholar (cons, and chws.), 17 Geo II, c. 38 (range of 20s to £5-chws. and overs.); 40s: 14 Car II, c. 10 and 15 Car II, c. 3 (4.0.S per week-cons.), 22 Car II, c. 12 (cons, and survs.), 3 & 4 W & M, c. 12 (survs.), 1 Geo I, c. 2 (survs.), 1 Anne, c. 12 (cons., chws. and overs.), 19 Geo II, c. 21 or house of correction for one month if insufficient goods for distress (cons.); £5: 14 Car II, c. 6 (cons, and chws.), 14 Car II, c. 10 and 15 Car II, c. 3 (cons.), 22 Car II, c. 1 (cons., chws., and overs.), 3 W & M, c. 12 (survs.), 7 & 8 W & M, c. 32 (cons.), 3 & 4 Anne, c. 16 (cons.), 6 Anne, c. 17 (cons.), 9 Geo II, c. 7 (overs.); £10: Ordinance 26 June 1657, Firth and Rait, II, 1179 (cons.), Ordinance 31 Mar. 1654, Firth and Rait, II, 862 (survs.), Ordinance of 11 July 1650, Firth and Rait, II, 401–2 (cons.), Ordinance 18 Apr. 1651, Firth and Rait, II, 513 (cons.), 7 Anne, c. 2 and succeeding acts (chws, overs, and cons.); £20: 13 Anne, c. 26 (cons.), 17 Geo II, c. 5 (cons.), 17 Geo II, c. 3 (overs.); gaol: Ordinance, 31 Mar. 1654, Firth and Rait, II, 868 (survs.), 14 Car II, c. 6 (survs.), 17 Geo II, c. 38 (chws and overs.).

³³ Ordinance of 31 Mar. 1654, Firth and Rait, II, 862; 14 Car II, c. 6; 13 Anne, c. 26; 17 Geo II, c. 5.

³⁴ Ordinances of 3 July 1644 and 14 Aug. 1649, in Firth and Rait, I, 464; II, 230.

³⁵ 13 Car II, Stat. 2, c. 3; 25 Car II, c. 1; 29 Car II, c. 1; 15 Car II, c. 9; 16 & 17 Car II, c. 1.

³⁶ 15 Car II, c. 9; 16 & 17 Car II, c. 1.

³⁷ Poll tax: 12 Car II, c. 9; 18 & 19 Car II, c. 1; 29 & 30 Car II, c. 1; 1 W & M, c. 13; 5 & 6 W & M, c. 14; hearth tax: 14 Car II, c. 10; 16 Car II, c. 3.

³⁸ E.g. 7 & 8 Wm III, c. 5; 7 & 8 Wm III, c. 18; 9 Wm III, c. 32.

³⁹ 14 Car II, c. 12; 11 Wm III, c. 18; HRO, Hertford Borough Records, XX, fo. 379V; Le, Hardy, ed. Herts. County Records, VII, 36Google Scholar; 13 Anne, c. 26; 17 George II, c. 5.

⁴⁰ 14 Car II, c. 3; 4 & 5 Anne, c. 21; 7 Anne, c. 2; on rewards for impressment, as well as penalties for failure, see also Gilbert, Arthur N., ‘Army impressment during the War of the Spanish Succession’, The Historian, XXXVIII (1976), 689–708 and esp. pp. 693–5, 706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ On the Pattingham agreement see above, n. 1; Ordinance of 27 Feb. 1652 in Firth and Rait, II, 577–8; 10 Wm III, c. 12. See transfers of such certificates, beginning in the mid-1720s, in Hertfordshire in Le, Hardy, ed. Herts. County Records, VII, 200, 213(2), 216, 274, 292, 300.Google Scholar

⁴² E.g. Coleby, , Hampshire 1649–1689Google Scholar; Norrey, , ‘The restoration regime in action’Google Scholar; Innes, , ‘Parliament and the shaping of eighteenth-century English social policy’.Google Scholar

⁴³ Examination of any set of detailed parish accounts for the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries reveals the extent to which local officials relied on other inhabitants for assistance in carrying out their duties. For some evidence of such dependence in an earlier period see Kent, , Village constable, esp. pp. 234–9Google Scholar; and see also Herrup, The common peace, esp. ch. 4.

⁴⁴ See Kent, , Village constable, esp. pp. 40, 47–8, 54–5Google Scholar for some evidence for the later sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.

⁴⁵ These points are based on the parish records examined for this study, and will be more fully explored on another occasion.

⁴⁶ Apart from occasional rewards of the kind discussed above; see nn. 34–40.

⁴⁷ On the importance of high constables, and justices' efforts to exert greater control over them, see also Morrill, J. S., Cheshire 1630–1660: county government and society during the English Revolution (London and New York, 1974), pp. 237–9Google Scholar; Roberts, , Recovery and restoration in an English county, pp. 115ff.Google Scholar; Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, pp. 135–7Google Scholar; Forster, , East Riding justices, p. 39Google Scholar; Quintrell, , ed. Proceedings of Lancashire justices, pp. 17–18, 19, 21.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ SRO, Q/SO, v, fos. 272, 277; VI, fos. 48, 57, 109–109V; VII, Epiphany 1659/60, Mich. 1660, Epiph. 1660/I, fos. 93–93V, 122V (Epiph. 1664/5), 135V (Trans. 1665), 150V (Epiph. 1665/6). See also Q/SO, V, fos. 287–8, 311–12; VI, fo. 110V requiring high constables to account for particular funds. On the development of accounting procedures see also Roberts, , Recovery and restoration in an English county, pp. 190, 214.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ SRO, Q/SO, XI, Epiph. 1720.

⁵⁰ Le, Hardy, ed. Herts. County Records, V, 341, 350, 421, 493–5.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid, VI, 436, 450, 454, 463, 479, 482(2), VII, 5, 19, 25, 33, 37, 41–2, 71–2, 82, 88, 94, 102, 113, 129, 134, 146, 149, 154, 155–6, 177, 243–4, 283; VII, 182–3.

⁵² See below, n. 75 for one apparently short-lived attempt in Staffordshire in 1649 to make both churchwardens and constables accountable to high constables, and n. 101 concerning a churchwardens' oath in the 1650s. For a number of the ordinances and statutes which conferred particular responsibilities on churchwardens, often associating them with other parish officers, and which imposed penalties for failure see n. 32.

⁵³ Ordinance of 1654, Firth and Rait, II, 868; 14 Car II, c. 6.

⁵⁴ E.g. Gissing (Norfolk), NNRO, PD50/120 (one item from 1656; the rest are eighteenth-century); Thundridge (Herts), HRO, D/P110/5/1 (from 1655/6); Alrewas (Staffs), SRO, D783/2/4/1 (from 1674).

⁵⁵ 3 & 4 W & M, c. 12; 1 Geo I, Stat. 2, c. 42.

⁵⁶ BL Add. MS 36, 663, fos. 374, 380, 382, 386.

⁵⁷ E.g. see Litde Munden Parish Book, H.R.O, D/P71/5/2.

⁵⁸ E.g. BL Add. MS 42598, pp. 29, 31, 41, 43, 44, 54, 55, 60, 74, 169, 183; Crittall, E., ed. The justicing notebook of William Hunt 1744–1749 (Wiltshire Record Society, XXXVII, 1982) p. 22 (no. 21), p. 24 (no. 36).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ E.g. East Harling Constables' Accounts, NNRO, PD219/127 (1732); Waltham Constables' Accounts, Leicestershire Record Office (hereafter LRO), DE625/60; East Harling Overseers' Accounts, NNRO, PD219/92 (1719); Lincolnshire Archives Office (hereafter LAO), North Somercotes Parish 12/1; and see expenses for presentments in the surveyors' accounts listed in n. 54.

⁶⁰ E.g. BL Add. MS 42598, pp. 27, 28, 30, 31, 34, 59, 60, 184; Crittall, , ed. Notebook of William Hunt, p. 22 (no. 28), p. 23 (no. 33), p. 27 (no. 97).Google Scholar

⁶¹ 7 & 8 Wm III, c. 29; 8 & 9 Wm III, c. 16; 1 Geo I, Stat. 2, c. 52. For sessions orders authorizing additional assessments for highways see, for example, SRO, Q/SO, XII: single orders at Trans. 1717 and Epiph. 1718, Trans. 1718 (2), Epiph. 1719 (1), Epiph. 1720 (2), Easter 1722 (4), Trans. 1722 (2), Mich. 1722 (1), Epiph. 1723 (4) Easter 1723 (2), Trans. 1723 (1), Mich. 1723 (1). Such orders continue in the later 1720s and the 1730s.

⁶² Usually such warrants were directed to the constable who was made responsible for the appearance of the overseers to render account, or to the constable and churchwardens in the case of warrants for the selection of new overseers. See Kent, , Village constable, pp. 29–30, 188.Google Scholar

⁶³ This is based on examination of the following overseers' accounts: Pattingham (Staffs), SRO, D3451/2/3 and D3451/5/2–46; Alrewas (Staffs), SRO, D783/2/3/1; Ashwell (Herts) HRO, D/P7/12/1 and 2; Bushey (Herts), HRO, D/P26/12/1; Shelton (Norfolk), NNRO, PD358/41 and Gissing (Norfolk), NNRO, PD 50/44(8), PD50/43. The accounts of Bushey and Shelton contain signatures of the justices who had endorsed them. See also Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, p. 189.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ E.g. BL Add. MS 42598, pp. 5, 34, 58, 59 (approval of accounts); pp. 5, 30, 31, 36, 46 (appointments); Crittall, , ed. Notebook of William Hunt, p. 22Google Scholar, no. 27 (appt.), p. 27, nos. 92 (accounts signed), 96 (accounts and appt.).

⁶⁵ See above, nn. 10, 12.

⁶⁶ 3 & 4 W & M, c. 11; 8 & 9 Wm III, c. 11; 17 Geo II, c. 38; see also 17 Geo II, c. 3 which required the overseers to give public notice in church the Sunday after a rate had been allowed by a justice, and which entitled any parishioner to examine the rating list for a fee of Is and to procure a copy for 6d.

⁶⁷ See Kent, Village constable, esp. ch. 3.

⁶⁸ Ibid. ch. 2.

⁶⁹ Ibid. ch. 3, esp. pp. 65–72.

⁷⁰ Le, Hardy, ed. Herts. County Records, V, 424 (2).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Hardy, , ed. Herts. County Records, I, 121.Google Scholar

⁷² There are regular orders concerning the appointment of constables in Le, Hardy, ed Herts. County Records, V, VI, VII.Google Scholar

⁷³ 14 Car II, c. 6.

⁷⁴ The judges' orders are included or mentioned in sessions records, SRO, Q/SO, V, fo. 47; VII, fo. 67V (Epiph. 1662/3). The judges on the western circuit also rejected the custom of house row in the selection of constables or, as they were called in the west, tithingmen. In an order issued in 1657 at the assizes in Somerset the judges argued that this practice led to the office being filled by hired persons, and they ordered that no more deputy tithingmen were to serve unless they had been approved by two justices (Cockburn, J. S., ed. Somerset assize orders 1640–1639, Somerset Record Society, LXXI, 1971, p. 48, no. 143Google Scholar).

⁷⁵ SRO, Q/SO, V, fos. 301, 311–12.

⁷⁶ E.g. see Pattingham constables' accounts for 1651–2, 1657–8 and 1658–9 and the churchwardens' accounts for 1652–4, 1658, SRO, D3451/6/1; D3451/2/3; and tne constables' and churchwardens' accounts for Mavesyn Ridware in the 1650s, SRO, D3712/4/1; and see precepts ordering attendance at monthly meetings that were sent to the constable of Salwarpe (Worcs), Hereford and Worcester Record Office (hereafter HWRO), 850 SALWARPE, BA 1054/1, Bundle A, nos. 15, 42, 140, 175, 256, 293, 294. On interruptions in monthly meetings in some counties see Roberts, , Recovery and restoration in an English county, pp. 183, 185ff.Google Scholar; Morrill, , Cheshire 1630–1660, pp. 235–6Google Scholar; Anne, Hughes, Politics, society and civil war in Warwickshire 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), p. 280.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Atkinson, J. C., ed. North Riding quarter sessions records, 9 vols. (North Riding Record Society, I–IX, 1884–1892), V, 44Google Scholar; VI, 31.

⁷⁸ E.g. see local records for Waltham and Branston (Leics), LRO, DE625/60 and 720/30; Wymeswold (Leics), BL Add. MS 10457; Pattingham and Mavesyn Ridware (Staffs), SRO, D3451/6/1, D3712/4/1; East Harling and Shelton (Norfolk), NNRO, PD358/33, PD219/59, PD219/126; and Salwarpe (Worcs) where, like Norfolk, such meetings seem to have been held four times a year, HWRO, 850 SALWARPE, BA 1054/1, Bundle A and BA 1054/2, Bundle D, nos. 14, 16, 18, 19. On the diversity in the development monthly meetings and petty sessions in various parts of the country see Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, pp. 122ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ The term had been used earlier in some counties, such as Norfolk; e.g. see East Harling constables' accounts, 1645, PD219/126; Shelton constables' accounts for 1661, PD358/33.

⁸⁰ See above, n. 55.

⁸¹ Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, esp. ch. 4, quotations at p. 135Google Scholar; Landau, , Justices of the peace, esp. ch 7 and ch 8, pp. 249–53.Google Scholar

⁸² This is based on evidence in the local accounts examined for this study; for a few examples of tax business being conducted at monthly meetings/petty sessions see SRO, D3451/6/12, 16, 19, 21, 26, 31; HRO, D/P7/9/1, 1733. Justices' notebooks also contain evidence of tax business being conducted at petty sessions, e.g. Crittall, , ed. Notebook of William Hunt, p. 22 (no. 28), p. 25 (no. 61)Google Scholar. See also Roberts, , Restoration and recovery in an English county, pp. 121–2, 183, 185ff.Google Scholar; Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, p. 133.Google Scholar

⁸³ E.g. Wrightson, , English society, p. 165Google Scholar; Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, pp. 137–42Google Scholar; Roberts, , Recovery and restoration in an English county, p. 186.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Roberts, , Recovery and restoration in an English county, p. 186.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See Kent, , Village constable, pp. 35–9Google Scholar and references cited there.

⁸⁶ There are regular entries in the accounts of Pattingham and Mavesyn Ridware, Staffs; and Branston, Waltham and Wymeswold, Leics. For one later seventeenth-century set of articles see those (14 in number) sent to Mr William Leigh, high constable of Totmonslow hundred (Staffs) in the 1690s for presentments to quarter sessions and assizes, BL Add. MS 36663, fos. 390–390V.

⁸⁷ This is based on the parish accounts examined for this study and several justices' notebooks BL Add. MSS 42598, 42599 (Brockmans); Rosenheim, James M., ed. The notebook of Robert Doughty 1662–1665 (Norfolk Record Society, LIV, 1989)Google Scholar; Crittall, , ed. Notebook of William HuntGoogle Scholar; Sharpe, J. A., ed. ‘William Holcroft His Booke’: Local office holding in late Stuart Essex, Essex Historical Documents, II (Chelmsford, 1986).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ For examples of such presentments before 1642 see Kent, , Village constable, pp. 192–3.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Le, Hardy, ed. Herts. County Records, VI, 289.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ibid, VI, 400–8, 426.

⁹¹ Ibid, VI, 445–6.

⁹² SRO, Q/SO, VI, fo. 42; VII, fo. 70; X (Trans. 1699); XI (Easter, 1715).

⁹³ SRO, D3451/6/1, D3451/6/3, 22, 31.

⁹⁴ See precept sent to constables of Salwarpe, Worcs. in HWRO, 850 SALWARPE, BA 1054/1, Bundle A, no. 67; later precepts of 1655, nos. 140, 215. Precepts to Salwarpe constables as early as 1650 had ordered them to present on oath to monthly meetings; see nos. 15, 42. See also entries in other constables' accounts of the 1650s showing that they had gone before a justice to swear to the truth of their presentments, e.g. SRO, D3712/4/1 (Mavesyn Ridware Parish Book: Cons, accounts 1655/6, 1657/8); LRO, DE625/60 (Waltham), DE 720/30 (Branston).

⁹⁵ E.g. see precepts in Worcestershire, HWRO, 850 SALWARPE, BA 1054/1, Bundle A., nos. 131, 277, 279; and entries in constables' accounts 850 SALWARPE, BA 1054/2, Bundle D, no. 14. See also Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, pp. 139–40Google Scholar. A general order on the enforcement of the vagrancy laws issued by the Staffordshire justices in 1716 empowered a single justice to examine constables on oath as to whether they had done their duty in passing vagrants (SRO, Q/SO, XI, Easter 1716).

⁹⁶ 3 & 4 W & M, c. 12; 1 Geo I, Stat 2, c. 42; see also a precept demanding presentments on oath, SRO, D783/2/2/2 (Alrewas). Local accounts provide ample evidence of presentments by surveyors, but usually they do not specify whether or not they were made on oath. However, there is evidence injustices' notebooks of such presentments being made on oath, and occasionally of a surveyor refusing to be sworn, e.g. BL Add. MS 42598, pp. 35, 59, 184 and p. 31 for refusal to be sworn.

⁹⁷ 7 & 8 Wm III, c. 32; 8 & 9 Wm III, c. 10; 3 & 4 Anne, c. 16; 10 Geo II, c. 25; and for discussion of other aspects of these statutes, see below, pp. 399–401.

⁹⁸ E.g. Brockman's notebook, BL Add. MS 42599, pp. 43, 44 (cases of the high constable swearing to the list of jurors); Crittall, , ed. Notebook of William Hunt, p. 30 (nos. 119–22)Google Scholar; HRO, D/P7/9/I, 1733, 1738, 1740.

⁹⁹ See Kent, , Village constable, pp. 66–7.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Firth and Rait, II, 862; and see also later highways acts, 14 Car II, c. 6; 3 & 4 W & M, c. 12; 1 Geo I, Stat 2, c. 42. For examples of surveyors taking oaths see SRO, D783/2/4/I (Alrewas surveyors' accounts); D3451/6/4ff. (Pattingham constables' accounts: from 1693) LRO, DE 625/60 (Waltham: from 1654); BL Add. MS 10457 (Wymeswold: from 1655) DE720/30 (Branston: from 1654); HRO, D/P12/9/1 (Baldock, 1693); NNRO, PD 219/12 (East Harling, 1732).

¹⁰¹ LRO, DE 625/60 (Waltham), fos. 84, 85, 87; DE 720/30 (Branston), 1655/6; NNRO, PD 358/33, pp. 80, 82, 104, 130 (Shelton: churchwardens, 1687, 1688, 1702, 1724); PD 219/92, 1702–3 (East Harling: overseers); HRO, D/P110/5/1, pp. 62b, 63a (Thundridge: overseer 1670/71).

¹⁰² LRO, DE 720/30; DE 625/60; for swearing of trained soldiers see DE 720/30, fos. 104, 112V, and see also a constable's account for Wymeswold which appears to refer to an oath being given to the trained soldier, BL Add. MS 10457, fo. 294.

¹⁰³ 5 Eliz I, c. 31.

¹⁰⁴ Precept to constable of Salwarpe, 14 Oct. 1663, HWRO, 850 SALWARPE, BA 1054/1, A 132; SRO, D3712/4/1 (Mavesyn Ridware Cons, accounts, 1663–4).

¹⁰⁵ 9 Wm III, c. 22; and see a precept directing the constable of Alrewas to give notice to the collector for births and burials to appear to give up his accounts on oath, SRO, D783/2/2/2, 23 May 1700.

¹⁰⁶ For orders concerning accounting by high constables, see above nn. 49, 51, 52; 12 Geo II, c. 29.

¹⁰⁷ 17 Geo II, c. 38; 7 & 8 Wm III, c. 29.

¹⁰⁸ I intend to discuss this in greater detail on another occasion, and what follows is a brief summary of the evidence.

¹⁰⁹ E.g. HWRO, 850 SALWARPE, BA 1054/1, Bundle A, nos. 90, 211, 243, 250, 254, 290, 291; and for similar documents from the 1660s, nos. 17, 18, 19, 240, 245, 259, 261, 292.

¹¹⁰ HWRO, 850 SALWARPE, BA 1054/1, A 190; Le, Hardy, ed. Herts. County Records, VI, 418–19, 424Google Scholar; LRO, DE720/30, fos. 54, 85.

¹¹¹ For some examples of printed forms, or references to them, see LRO, DE 625/60, fo. 152V; BL Add. MS 42596, fos. 22, 27, 28; Add. MS 42597, fos. 9, 10, 13; BL Egerton MS 2985, fo. 146; BL Harleian MS 5137, fo. 247.

¹¹² See such printed documents among the Pattingham records, SRO, 03451/5/223ff.; D3451/5/84ff.

¹¹³ BL Add. MS 42597, fo. 103.

¹¹⁴ See above, nn. 54, 67, 72, 76.

¹¹⁵ For some evidence on this see Kent, , Village constable, p. 170Google Scholar and references cited there.

¹¹⁶ HRO, D/P15/5/1 (Chipping Barnet Churchwardens' Book, 1657).

¹¹⁷ This is based on the local records examined for this study; see esp. Pattingham Churchwardens' accounts, SRO, D3451/2/3, D3451/2/4ff. and LAO, constables' accounts for Ingoldmells with Addlethorpe, Parish 12, esp. nos. 66, 67. See also Morrill, , Cheshire 1630–1660, pp. 229–30, 239–41Google Scholar; Hughes, , Warwickshire 1620–1660, p. 277.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ HRO, D/P7/5/1, p. 425; see also D/P7/9/1, the first page of the constables' accounts.

¹¹⁹ E.g. HRO, D/P71/5/2, 12 July 1664, 5 Sept. 1697, D/P7/9/1, 6 May 1736; SRO, D3451/5/17.

¹²⁰ E.g. HRO, D/P26/7/1, p. 97; D/P26/5/1, fo. 4 and fo. 42V; SRO, D3451/2/17; HRO, D/P7/25/1, 4 Nov. 1736.

¹²¹ HRO, D/P71/5/2, 2 May 1652; D/P7/9/1, 6 May 1736.

¹²² NNRO, PD219/126 (Cons' Accounts, 1678–9).

¹²³ SRO, D3451/5/31. As early as 1615 the vestry had set down a specific allowance for constables for every day and night they were engaged in parish business; see Kent, , Village constable, p. 173.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ SRO, D783/2/2/1, 1707–8 (Alrewas Constables' accounts).

¹²⁵ SRO, D3451/2/3; HRO, Q/SR 17, no. 675.

¹²⁶ HRO, D/P7/9/1, esp. 1685, but also 1661, 1662, 1668, 1669, 1680, 1686, 1688, 1689, 1690–1, 1697.

¹²⁷ E.g. SRO, D783/2/2/1, 1713–14 (Alrewas Constables' accounts); LAO, North Somer-cotes, Parish 12/1, 1669, 1689, 1697; and HRO, D/P7/5/1, p. 44 (Ashwell Churchwardens' Accounts 1681).

¹²⁸ SRO, Q/SO, VI, fo. 29; XI (Easter 1717); XI (Mich. 1718).

¹²⁹ SRO, D3451/6/1, D3451/2/3, D3451/2/7, D783/2/3/1 (1697–8).

¹³⁰ On establishment of workhouses in Ashwell and Burton see above, nn. 15, 16.

¹³¹ SRO, D3451/8/10.

¹³² Wrightson and Levine, Terling; Wrightson, ‘Two concepts of order’Google Scholar; idem, English Society 1580–1680, esp. chs. 6 and 7; idem, ‘Alehouses, order and reformation in rural England’; see also Sharpe, , ‘Enforcing the law in the seventeenth-century English village’Google Scholar; David, Underdown, Revel, riot and rebellion: popular politics and culture in England 1603–1660 (Oxford, 1987), esp. chs 2, 3Google Scholar; Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, pp. 239–40, 277–81Google Scholar. For other views see Martin, Ingram, ‘Religion, communities and moral discipline in late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England: case studies’, in Kaspar, von Greyerz, ed. Religion and society in early modem Europe 1500–1800 (London, 1984), pp. 177–93Google Scholar; Spufford, M., ‘Puritanism and social control?’ in Anthony, Fletcher and John, Stevenson, eds. Order and disorder in early modem England (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³³ Braddick, , ‘State formation and social change in early modern England’, p. 10.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ There are no leet records among the Pattingham court rolls from the 1660s onward; see SRO, D/1807. For the suggestion that the ‘justice of the manor’ was replaced by that of the gentry and the state, see also Sharpe, J. A., Crime in early modern England 1550–1750 (London, 1984), esp. p. 93.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Innes also suggests that ‘local authorities’ may have enforced ‘national legislation’ because it ‘effectively addressed their needs’, and because ‘they shared the concerns’ of the parliamentarians who had enacted the laws (‘Parliament and the shaping of eighteenth-century social policy’, pp. 68, 74Google Scholar).

¹³⁶ SRO, D3451/8/10. Did the vestry's actions perhaps also relate to the fact that the language of the courts had changed from Latin to English in 1733, making it easier for ordinary villagers such as the churchwardens to prosecute cases on behalf of the parish?

¹³⁷ SRO, D3451/6/32 (Constables' accounts, 1723–4); possibly he was the Mark Nock baptized in the parish in December, 1690, Thomas, H. R., ed. Pattingham parish register 1559–1812 (Staffordshire Parish Register Society, 1934), p. 86.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ SRO, D3451/6/39 (Constables' accounts, 1732–3); Q/SO, XIII, fos. 115V, 116; Q/SM/e. I, pt. II, fo. 251.

¹³⁹ SRO, 3451/6/40 (Constables' accounts, 1733–4); D3451/2/42, 43 (Churchwardens' accounts 1733–4, 1734–5); Q/SR/553. no. 4; Q/SO, XIII, fo. 130V.; Q/SM/e I, pt. II, fo. 253.

¹⁴⁰ SRO, D3451/2/43 (Churchwardens' accounts, 1734/5, which list expenses of £8 os 7d for three prosecutions of Nock in that year as well as costs of 3s 6d for going to Dudley about the kettle he stole).

¹⁴¹ SRO, D3451/6/40 (Constables' accounts, 1733–4); D3451/2/43 (Churchwardens' accounts, 1734–5); Q/SR/554, no. 4; Q/SO, XIII, fos. 135V, 136V, 141, 142V; Q/SM/e I, pt. II, fo. 255.

¹⁴² SRO, D3451/6/29 (Constables' accounts, 1720/1).

¹⁴³ SRO, D3451/6/40 (Constables' accounts, 1733–4); Thomas, , ed. Pattingham Parish Register, p. 104Google Scholar; SRO, D3451/2/39, 40 (Churchwardens' accounts); D3451/5/41 (Overseers' accounts); D3451/6/42 (Constables' accounts, 1737–8). She may be the Sarah baptized in 1688, a sister to the Mark Nock baptized in 1690 (Thomas, , ed. Pattingham parish register, p. 84Google Scholar), or possibly she was the widow of Michael Nock, who apparently died in 1721.

¹⁴⁴ SRO, D3451/2/46 (Churchwardens' accounts, 1737–8); D3451/5/308.

¹⁴⁵ SRO, D3451/5/36.

¹⁴⁶ Howell was taken before a justice by the constable in 1736–7, and on that occasion whipped; he was prosecuted for felony at parish expense in 1738–9; he was prosecuted again at parish expense at Translation sessions, 1741, when he was found guilty of stealing a brass kettle valued at 6d, and sentenced to be transported for 7 years (SRO, D3451/6/43; D3451/2/47, 48; Q/SO, XIV, fo. 107; Q/SM/e.I, pt II, fo. 298V).

¹⁴⁷ SRO, D3451/5/38 (Overseers' accounts).

¹⁴⁸ HRO, D/P7/25/1; D/P7/12/1, 2. Costs of poor relief continued to rise, despite th workhouse, and averaged nearly £140 a year between 1729 and 1739.

¹⁴⁹ The impressment of soldiers by parish officers seems to provide another illustration, of a somewhat different sort, of less-than-complete cooperation in enforcing the law; see Gilbert, , ‘Army impressment during the War of the Spanish Succession’Google Scholar. I plan to discuss this topic on another occasion.

¹⁵⁰ See Roberts, Stephen K., ‘Initiative and control: the Devon quarter sessions grand jury, 1649–70’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, LVII (1984), 165–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and also Roberts, , Recovery and restoration in an English county, pp. 84–8Google Scholar; Anthony, Fletcher, ‘Oliver Cromwell and the localities: the problem of consent’, in Colin, Jones, Malyn, Newitt and Stephen, Roberts, eds. Politics and people in revolutionary England: essays in honour of Ivan Roots (Oxford, 1986), pp. 198–9Google Scholar; Fletcher, , Reform in the provinces, pp. 118–21Google Scholar; Colby, , Hampshire 1649–1689, p. 52.Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ 7 & 8 Wm III, c. 32; 8 & 9 Wm III, c. 10; see orders in SRO, Q/SO, X. Mich. 1696, Trans. 1697. In Herts, there were regular orders for the return of jurors from 1711 onward, Le, Hardy, ed. Herts. County Records, VII, 114ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵² 3 & 4 Anne, c. 16.

¹⁵³ SRO, Q/SO, XII, fos. 114V–115.

¹⁵⁴ 10 Geo II, c. 25.

¹⁵⁵ E.g. see the following constables' accounts for some references to return of jury lists: HRO, D/P7/9/1, 1714, 1722–3, 1727, 1733, 1734, 1737, 1738, 1739, 1740. For some cases of constables presented to sessions for not returning lists see SRO, Q/SO, XII. Mich. 1719, 1721, Epiph. 1722, 1723; XIII, fo. 200 (Mich. 1736).

¹⁵⁶ The Staffordshire justices in 1734 were still complaining that gentlemen and others qualified for jury service were not being returned by constables, and that these officers were not posting their lists on the church doors (SRO, Q/SO, XIII, fo. 141V).

¹⁵⁷ See Beattie, , Crime and the courts, pp. 378–89 and esp. pp. 379–80, 387Google Scholar. For studies of the composition and conduct of juries see Green, Thomas A., Verdict according to conscience: perspectives on the English criminal trial jury 1200–1800 (Chicago, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the articles in Gockburn, J. S. and Green, Thomas A., eds. Twelve good men and true: criminal trial jury in England 1200–1800 (Princeton, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and see also Herrup, The common peace, ch. 6; Beattie, , Crime and the courts, pp. 389–99, 406–30.Google Scholar