² Among printed works, Wrightson, K. and Levine, D., Poverty and piety in an English village: Terling, 1525–1700 (London, 1979)Google Scholar; Macfarlane, Alan, The family life of Ralph Josselin (Cambridge, 1970)Google Scholar; idem (ed.), The diary of Ralph Josselin (London, 1976); idem, Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England: a regional and comparative study (London, 1970); Sharpe, J., Crime in seventeenth century England: a county study (Cambridge, 1983)Google Scholar; Hunt, W., The puritan moment (Harvard, 1983)Google Scholar; Walter, J., ‘Grain riots and popular attitudes to the law: Maldon and the crisis of 1629’, in Brewer, J. and Styles, J. (eds.), An ungovernable people (London 1980)Google Scholar. Notable among unpublished theses (to date) are Hull, F., ‘Agriculture and rural society in Essex, 1560–1640’ (PhD., London, 1950)Google Scholar; Wrightson, K., ‘The Puritan reformation of manners’ (PhD., Cambridge, 1974)Google Scholar; Quintrell, B. W., ‘The divisional committee for southern Essex during the Civil Wars and its part in local administration’ (M. A., Manchester, 1962)Google Scholar; idem, ‘The government of the county of Essex, 1603–1642’ (Ph.D., London, 1965); Elliott, N. C., ‘The Roman Catholic community in Essex, 1625–1700’ (B. Litt, Oxford 1976)Google Scholar. Wrightson, K., in his textbook, English society, 1580–1680 (London, 1982)Google Scholar makes extensive use of Essex examples.

³ Holmes, C., The Eastern Association in the English Civil War (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 34–48Google Scholar.

⁴ B(ritish) L(ibrary), Thomason Tracts, E462 (16).

⁵ Everitt, A., The community of Kent and the Great Rebellion (Leicester, 1966)Google Scholar; Underdown, D., Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973)Google Scholar; Morrill, J., Cheshire, 1630–1660 (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar. The examples of county studies are numerous. See, for example, Fletcher, A., A county community in peace and war: Sussex, 1600–1660 (London, 1975)Google Scholar; Blackwood, B. G., The Lancashire gentry and the Great Rebellion, 1640–1660 (Manchester, 1978)Google Scholar; Cliffe, J. T., The Yorkshire gentry from the reformation to the Civil War (London, 1969)Google Scholar; Smith, A. Hassell, County and court; government and politics in Norfolk, 1558–1603 (London, 1974)Google Scholar. Cf. Holmes, C., ‘The county community in Stuart historiography’, in Journal of British Studies, XIX (spring 1980)Google Scholar.

⁶ For London, Gentles, I., ‘The struggle for London in the Second Civil War’, in Historical Journal, XXVI (06 1983)Google Scholar. I hope to publish a further paper on the wider outbreak in 1648 in southern Britain. For Kent, whose fortunes to some extent related to those of Essex, see Everitt, Kent pp. 231–59. The outstanding contemporary account of that, and the Essex rising, is Carter, Matthew, A most true and exact relation of that as honourable as unfortunate expedition of Kent, Essex and colchester (London, 1650)Google Scholar.

⁷ Though not beyond the tidewater. The Lea was navigable and the Roding and Stour provided courses for the ribbon development of numerous villages. See F. Hull, op. cit. p. 216.

⁸ A definition suitable to identify all gentry has so far eluded historians. Those described here are so called in commissions of the peace and lists of J.P.s and various commissioners given in quarter sessions rolls. The antecedents of such families can be seen in Metcalfe, W. C. (ed.), The visitations of Essex (2 vols, Harleian Soc. London, 1878)Google Scholar.

⁹ Firth, C. H. and Rait, R. S. (eds.), A(cts) and O(rdinances of the Interregnum), I (London 1911), 1107Google Scholar; Journals of the House of Lords (L.J.), X, 244; E434 (22); Thomason 669f 12(20); Rushworth, J., Historical collections(second edition, London 1721), VII, 1101Google Scholar (all versions of the Essex petition); 669f12(19) (Essex petitioners' appeal to London); Bod(leian Library), Clarendon MSS 31, fos. 37v, 43, 56, 64 v, 67, 68 v.

¹⁰ Kishlanskv, M., The rise of the New Model Army (London, 1980), pp 148, 157, 187, 197–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar (for second petition), F ssex) R(ecord) O(ffice) T/B9/1 (Ralph Jossehn's diary, entries for 15 January 1647/8 and 14 May 1648), P(ublic) R(ecord) O(ffice), SP 21/24/68 (Derby House to Colonel Temple, 24 May 1648), SP 21/9/90–1 (Derby House orders to Admiralty Committee and to Ordnance, 26 May 1648), SP 21/24/84 (orders to Colonel Willoughby and Maurice Thomson, 29 May 1648), ibid 87 (orders to Temple, 30 May), SP 21/9/113 (warrant to Willoughby and Thomson, 3 June 1648)

¹¹ E431(5)

¹² B L Stowe MSS 842 (Colchester Committee Order Book), fo 14, Whitelocke, B., Memorials of the English affairs (Oxford, 1853), II 308Google Scholar, E438(15) (‘The Humble Petitions’) A manuscript note by Thomason informs that the author of this tract was ‘the Cob(b)ler of Agawame (sic), Nathaniel Ward’ He was minister of Shenfield The tract's date and tone coincide exactly with the petitioners' meeting at Chelmsford on 12 April.

¹³ Holmes, op.cit. pp. 16, 19–20; E.R.O. T/S 88, 178 (examples of parish subscriptions to oaths prescribed by Parliament, all from Rochford Hundred); E.R.O. D/Du 183/2 (court rolls of the manor of Rochford), Roll 7; E.R.O. D/DM T96/6, ibid. D/DMs C4/4, C5/2, 4 (Mildmay MSS).

¹⁴ B. L. Egerton MSS 2647, fo. 233; B. L. Additional MSS 15671, fo. 121; Stowe MSS 164, fo. 14V, 15; Smith, H., The ecclesiastical history of Essex under the Long Parliament and Commonwealth (Colchester, 1932), pp. 117, 122–4, 129–30, 152–3, 163Google Scholar; E.R.O. Q/SPe, fos. 4–8 (estreats of fines levied on recusants) A survey of four quarter sessions between epiphany and michaelmas 1647, revealed a series of 22 presentments for non-attendance at services, 30 for recusancy, 2 for sabbath-breaking and 2 for separatism (E.R.O. Q/SR 331–4). The parish of Great Burstead (Henry Farr's) complained against a separated congregation at epiphany 1646 (E.R.O. Q/SBa 2/59). ‘Diverse ministers’ petitioned the sessions at michaelmas 1645 about the neglect of presentments for misdemeanours and the need for stricter enforcement of discipline, (ibid. Q/SBa 2/58)

¹⁵ Smith, op. cit. pp. 93, 191 ff.; E 339(11); E438(4) (The Essex ministers' ‘Testimony’). W. Hunt, in The puritan moment, has emphasized the important role of aristocratic lay patrons in the promotion of ‘Puritanism’ in Essex. However, his definition of puritans by a distinct concept of social discipline is doubtful. Other Essex gentry, including Catholics, shared concern for social order but would not otherwise have associated for religious purposes with the puritans. Hunt also too keen to take Stephen Marshall or John Rogers, rather than, say, Ralph Josselin, as typical of the preaching ministry.

¹⁶ L.J. X, 243: E438(16); E443(13) (Essex ‘Engagement’); Rushworth, , Historical collections, p. 1119Google Scholar; see also Clarendon MSS 31, fo. 73, for Essex discontent.

¹⁷ For Farr's background, see Holmes, op. cit. p. 40; idem, ‘The affair of Colonel Long: relations between Parliament, the Lord General and the County of Essex in 1643’, in Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, 3rd series, II, (1970). 669f12(35); SP 28/129 show pay accounts in good order in 1643–4; Stowe MS 164 shows the arrears by 1646: see fos. 4, 19, 20, and 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 18, 21 for the Dragoons' long-running case. See also E.R.O. Q/SBa 2/58 (petition of Thomas Graves), ibid. 61 (Order for John Burnham) and 65 (petitions of William Haleston and Captain Sparrow's troop); Morrill, J. S., ‘Mutiny and discontent in English provincial armies, 1645–7’ in Past and Present, LVI (1972), 49 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁸ SP 16/516/41 (Order for the Essex musters); Bod. Tanner MS 57a, fo. 83; Journals of the House of Commons (C.J), v, 563; Carter, , A most true, pp. 102–18Google Scholar; E445(42); E446(9), (10), (23).

¹⁹ H(istorical) M(anuscripts) C(ommission) 12th Report (1891), appendIX, part IX, pp. 19–31Google Scholar (the ‘Beaufort MS’), p 21; Clarendon MS 31, fo. 109. This action was a soldiers' tactic employee elsewhere, Morrill, ‘Mutiny’.

²⁰ L.J., X, 306, Carter, , A most true, p. 121Google Scholar; E446(23); E447(2); Rushworth, , Historical collections p. 1131Google Scholar (duplicated pagination in this edition); Whitelocke, , Memorials, pp. 326 and 328Google Scholar. The Indemnity Ordinance is not printed in A. and O. Many Essex petitioners ultimately came in to help Fairfax in Essex (Rushworth, op. cit. p. 1150).

²¹ For Lucas see Young, P., ‘The life and death of Sir Charles Lucas’, in Essex Review, LVII (1948) 113–30Google Scholar; Newman, P. R., Royalist officers in England and Wales, 1642–1660 (London, 1981), p. 240Google Scholar. Thomas, , Fairfax, Lord, ‘Short Memorial’ in Maseres, F. (ed.), Select Tracts (London, 1815), II, 450Google Scholar. For Capel see Edward, , earl of Clarendon, , A history of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England (ed. Warburton, , Oxford, 1849), IV, 362Google Scholar; Hutton, R., The Royalist war effort, 1642–6 (London, 1981) pp. 59–67Google Scholar; Kingston, A., Hertfordshire during the Great Civil War (London and Hertford, 1894) p. 81Google Scholar. His debts incurred in the king's cause are itemised in B.L. Add. MS 40630, fo. 285.

²² E461 (35); E.R.O. Q/SBa 2/61 (petition of John Wallis – about Mauleverer); Newman, , Royalist officers, pp. 118, 150, 179–80. 249Google Scholar.

²³ E447 (15); B. L. Harleian MS 454 (Sir Humphrey Mildmay's diary); B. L. Stowe MS 164, fo. 19; ibid. Harleian MS 6244, fo. 5v (Appleton's contacts with Essex Committee); E447(22) (for Ratcliffe); Newman, , Royalist officers, pp. 242, 255Google Scholar. Lunsford was probably Colonel Sir Thomas Lunsford, who was in London recruiting for the king early in 1648 ( Gentles, , Struggle for London, p. 290Google Scholar). However, he might have been Colonel Sir Herbert Lunsford, who had been authorized to raise recruits for French service and transport them from Erith, Kent, on 14 March (SP 21/9/36–7).

²⁴ ‘A diary and plan of the siege of Colchester’ in E.R.O., broadsheets; E448(11); Newman, pp. 39, 49, 57, 69, 80, 128, 156, 175, 345, 372. Campion's sequestration is conveniently detailed in E.R.O. T/P83/7.

²⁵ B. L. Stowe MS 164, fo. 15; Beaufort MS, p. 23; Bod. Fairfax MS 32, fo. 166, E461 (35) (both versions of the list of prisoners); Newman, pp. 12, 84, 250, 380.

²⁶ B. L. Stowe MS 164, fo. 20V.

²⁷ Carter, , A most true, pp. 148, 158Google Scholar.

²⁸ E462 (16).

²⁹ Bod. Fairfax MS 32, fo. 166.

³⁰ The opinion of the Derby House Committee, cf. SP 21/24/113; E461 (24).

³¹ Carter, , A most true, pp. 124–5Google Scholar; Beaufort MS, p. 21; E447(2); Cambridge University Library, Baumgartner (Patrick) MS 33: Wilson, Arthur, ‘Observations of God's providence in the tract of my life’, pp. 53–6Google Scholar.

³² E448(18). Every thirteenth Essex bachelor, every tenth married man and every fifth Londoner and Kent man was to die.

³³ See E.R.O. Q/SBa 2/58, 59, Petitions of Richard Allsop, and Q/SO1/260, of his wife.

³⁴ E449 (30). Vesey himself was captured and court-martialled for inciting his men to fight for the king against the Parliament (Rushworth, , Historical collections, p. 1161)Google Scholar.

³⁵ E.R.O. Q/SBa 2/70.

³⁶ E.R.O. Q/SBa 2/124; ibid. Q/SO1/259V, 264. These Essex awards stand in contrast with the Surrey magistrates' practice after 1600 of awarding £4 per annum quite readily cf. Surrey quarter sessions order book and sessions rolls (Kingston 1938), pp. 35, 48Google Scholar.

³⁷ Clarendon MS 31, fos. 94, 95. A good example of the propaganda Royalists brought to bear on local sensibilities is E445(15), 30 May 1648. It harped upon the fate of the Surrey petitioners and went on: ‘Remember how highly you are now engaged, you have provoked the enemies, and if you languish, consider what kind of hot water they have for you…if they can but perswade you to sit still till they have rid themselves of some businesse they have in other parts and strengthened themselves sufficiently to subdue [you] you are like to find how both you, and the whole Kingdome, shall pay for your credulity. [It then advises piety, decency and sobriety appropriate to a cause guided by God.]…get your commission from His Majesty if it be possible, if not from that Authority which is next unto him amongst those that continue in Loyalty. Till one of these can be done, the King's restraint is your commission to the performance of all these just and honourable actions that tend to His deliverance and the good of the Church and Kingdome’.

³⁸ Clarendon MS 31 fo. 109; Carter, (A most true, pp. 80–4, 96–9Google Scholar) said that Norwich was at Rochester by chance and was travelling (by a very peculiar route!) from London to Sussex. Norwich was granted a Parliamentary pass to leave the kingdom on 10 May (L.J., x, 250). This was voided on 24 May (ibid. p. 280). By then he had been in England for a year (Warner, ed., The Nicholas papers, I (London, Camden Society, 1886), 86)Google Scholar. Clarendon also thought Norwich's presence accidental, as Holland sent him a commission to take charge (op. cit. pp. 377–8, 391–5). E446(9); Whitelocke, , Memorials, pp. 323–4Google Scholar; Rushworth, , Historical collections, p. 1138Google Scholar, where it is claimed that royalist papers taken at Maidstone showed their designs against Parliament and City.

³⁹ E435(39); SP 21/24/192, 222, 312–13.

⁴⁰ E462(16). See also Clarendon MS 31, fos. 110, 131; SP 21/24/135–6; Carter, , A most true, pp. 139Google Scholar; Clarendon, op. cit. p. 395.

⁴¹ Firth, C. H. (ed.), The Clarke papers (London, the Camden Society, 1891–2), II. 28–9Google Scholar.

⁴² H.M.C. 13th Report, Appendix, part 1 (1891); Portland MS, p. 469. The Beaufort MS and E462 (16) reveal royalist attitudes to country recruits.

⁴³ Portland MS, p. 470. See also SP 21/24/192. For royalist interest in the Dutch see Rushworth, , Historical collections, pp. 1222–3Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Fairfax MS, 32, fo. 162.

⁴⁵ E431 (23).

⁴⁶ Clarendon MS 30, fo. 209.

⁴⁷ Ibid. fo. 207 V. The reference to the incitement of petitions indicates considerable forethought in royalist plans: ‘And in ord[e]r to ye worke in this interstitium [sic] of Winter, all the Countys wilbe set to appeare in person with their Petic[i]ons at Westm[inste]r as they did at ye beginning of ye Parl[iamen]t w[hi]ch course did (we knowe) at that time give a great stroke to the benefit of that fac[ti]on and will conduce as much (if not far more) now, to ye good of his Ma[jes]ty’. For the truth of this remark see Fletcher, A. J., The outbreak of the English Civil War (London, 1981), pp. 191–227 et seqGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁸ Nicholas papers, p. 89. See also Clarendon MS 31, fos. 119, 120 for Hyde's endorsement.

⁴⁹ Nicholas papers, p. 96.

⁵⁰ The naval revolt is well documented in collections such as the Tanner and Clarendon MSS in the Bodleian, the Portland MSS and the State Papers. (See Hamilton, W. (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, domestic series, 1648–9 (London, 1983), esp. pp. 360 ffGoogle Scholar.) For modern accounts see Powell, J. R. and Timings, E. K. (eds.), Documents relating to the Civil War, 1642–8 (London, Navy Records Society, 1963), pp. 300 ff.Google Scholar: Kennedy, D. E., ‘The English naval revolt of 1648’, in E(nglish) H(istorical) R(eview), LXXVII (04 1962)Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Lyndon, Brian, ‘The Parliament's army in Essex, 1648’ in Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, LIX (Autumn and Winter 1981)Google Scholar.

⁵² Clarendon, , A history, pp. 277–8Google Scholar.

⁵³ Ibid. p. 331.

⁵⁴ Ibid. pp. 346–51.

⁵⁵ Ibid. pp. 366, 379, 395. Though clearly prejudiced in his opinions, Clarendon was not personally involved in these events and so had no tracks to cover. Through correspondence with Capel and Hopton, he had formed an optimistic view of the enterprises of the Irish, the navy and English Cavaliers. He regretted the exiled Court's failure to act upon the enthusiasm for the king's cause, which was reported to him as to other exiles. The emphasis he places upon the 1648 conspiracy does not seem to me to be explicable in terms of the criticisms of his probity by Hutton, R. in E.H.R. XCVII (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholarand Wanklyn, M. in Southern History, III (1981)Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ E450(26); SP 21/24/79.

⁵⁷ It appears from sequestration papers that a modest number of active and committed Royalists lived among Essex landowners. If Essex Parliamentarianism was instigated by a nucleus of some 50 gentlemen, there was a similar Cavalier hard core among the resident gentry. Often, sequestered estates belonged to prominent Royalists who resided elsewhere. This merely serves to emphasize the cosmopolitan, rather than localist, interest of Royalist gentry in Essex. Those who lived there, like the Lucases, had associations with those who did not, like the earl of Newcastle. At present, I do not have sufficient information to define absentee Royalist landowners' influence upon Essex tenants and stewards. As far as I am aware, such underlings did not leap to join the Parliamentarians to bilk their landlords.

In March 1648 the Essex Sequestration Commissioners sent to the Committee for Compounding a list of 115 persons then sequestered for ‘delinquency’ in the six divisions of Essex (Green, M. A. E., ed., C(alendar of the Proceedings of the) C(ommittee for) Compounding), I (London, 1889), pp. 94–5)Google Scholar. These included Anglican clergy and recusants. There were also many non-residents, some of whom were notable Royalists: the duke of Buckingham, the earls of Newcastle, Northampton, Lindsey and Cleveland, Lord Capel, Lord Hopton, Sir William Campion, Sir Henry Compton and Sir John Paulett. Among those listed whose principal residence was in the county some, like Sir John Tyrrell or Sir Humphrey Mildmay, disclaimed any active service for the king, though their sympathies were demonstrable. Still, there was a handful of gentry of senior county status who had actively served the king, as soldiers, household servants or administrators: the earl of Carlisle, Sir Benjamin Ayloffe, Henry Appleton, Sir Thomas Bendish, Sir Henry Clarke, John Denham, John and Thomas Fanshaw, Sir William Howard, Sir John, Sir Charles and Sir Thomas Lucas, Henry Neville (alias Smith), Sir Alexander Ratcliffe and Sir Edward Sydenham. Gentlemen of lesser standing, like John Aylett, Nicholas Blincoe, Patrick Winch, Thomas Freeman, Richard Symonds (the diarist) and John Tolcarne (or Tolkins) were listed; others, like Lynn, Lynsey and Captain Thomas Bonyman, were not. We know that, directly or indirectly involved subsequently in the 1648 campaign were Ayloffe, Appleton, Charles Lucas, Denham, Ratcliffe, Sydenham (in Surrey) and Lynn, Lynsey and another Bonyman. There was also a Major ‘Blincott’ among the Colchester prisoners. However, the March 1648 list is incomplete; it omits completed compositions as well as delinquents and recusants of lesser status.

Essex sequestration records were complicated in 1649 when the County Committee was empowered locally to sequester delinquents in the rising (C.C.C. pp. 141, 179). Fragments of sequestration business exist in SP 28/209B, B. M. Stowe 164 and Harleian 6244 and E.R.O. D/DOt/TI. These sources indicate more about some of those listed in March for whom there is no further mention in C.C.C, for example Mr Soames of Goldingham Hall or Mr Bennett. Other active soldiers, Anthony Browne, Edmund Fisher, John Lynn and John Searle, figure in both these records and C.C.C. cases but not the list. However, some of those in SP 28 or Stowe 164, Colonel Thornhill of Gt Wigborough, Anthony Moxton, Mr Gardiner of Woodham Ferrers or Captains Lynsey, Bramston and Bonyman, for example, have no mention anywhere in C.C.C. It seems unlikely then, that an exact total of Essex Royalists is obtainable, though it is one of my current tasks to produce as full a list as possible.