Hisrory of European Ideas, Vol. IO, No. 1. pp. 13-29, 1989 Printed in Great Britain

0191-6599/89 s3.oo+o.oo 0 1989 Pergamon Press plc

POPULAR POLITICAL OPINION IN ENGLAND 1660-1685*

BUCHANAN SHARP?

This essay provides an opportunity to tackle, in a preliminary fashion, an enterprise that has long intrigued me, namely attempting to recover the views and opinions of the English people during the early modern period-limited on this occasion to the years 1660-85-on the major political and religious events of their own times. There does exist a considerable body of contemporary pamphlets, broadsides, and other printed material on the political and religious issues of the period, but that material might be more accurately regarded as evidence of attempts to shape popular opinion on issues rather than as genuine expressions of that opinion. Direct evidence of popular expression is hard to discover, but it can be found.

Since the government of Charles II was concerned to keep track of potentially subversive political views, court records, such as indictments for seditious words and related offences like scandalous words and spreading false news, are a rich source of material about popular attitudes. In particular, the surviving indictments at assizes (the semi-annual circuits of the common law judges) provide a substantial body of evidence. The assize indictment tiles covering seventeen counties yielded 241 indictments for words over the years 1660 to 1685. Almost all were for seditious words except for a few examples of scandalous words and spreading false news.’ Search in the records of other courts produced a much smaller yield although the nature and contents of the indictable words did not substantially differ from those in the assize records.2 The indictments that are the central concern of this essay do not constitute all of the indictments for words on the assize circuits surveyed. There are gaps in the files of virtually every documented circuit.3 Nonetheless, surviving assize indictments represent a good continuous record of popular political attitudes and allow us to follow fluctuations over the whole period.

Given the problem of record survival it is impossible to be absolutely sure how the indictment total_ for 1660-85 compares with earlier periods. It is certain that indictments for words, both before and after 1660, rose and fell with political circumstances, levels of popular interest in issues and government security concerns.4 Nonetheless, one senses that beginning in the years immediately before the Civil War there was an upsurge in both the expression and the prosecution of seditious words. This upsurge appears to have continued into the Restoration period and beyond; it provides support for the oft-repeated assertion that the events of 1640-60 marked an important turning point in the political

*The research for this article was aided by grants from the American Philosophical Society and the Academic Senate Research Fund of the University of California, Santa Cruz.

TDepartment of History, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, U.S.A.

13

14 Buchanan Sharp

education of large segments of the English population. After 1660 high politics were routinely the stuff of alehouse conversations.

The large number of post-Restoration indictments for seditious words also reflects a heightened governmental anxiety about possible threats to political and social stability. Recent work on real or rumored republican plots against the government of Charles II reveals the depth of official fears and insecurities.s Moreover, a thorough reading of the state papers and privy council register leaves the impression that Charles II’s government spent an enormous amount of time and effort worrying about its opponents and trying to ferret out their plots. Part of that concern was a focus on seditious words, accounts of which, along with depositions of witnesses and examinations of suspects, were regularly forwarded to the government in London by sympathetic local officials. When reports were received in London, the Privy Council routinely forwarded them to the attorney-general, the judges of assize or the local justice of the peace to take the appropriate action to bring the accused to trial. The decision on which court should have jurisdiction appears to have been determined by the seriousness with which the words were regarded. Dangerous words were referred to King’s Bench or assizes while the less threatening were left to quarter sessions.6 No matter which court, the punishments were largely the same. Normally, the guilty party was fined, spent a period of time in the pillory with a paper on his head explaining the offence and then entered a bond for his future good behavior.

The indictable words under consideration were not the expression of any single social group; seditious opinions were voiced by people ranging from gentry to laborers. Nonetheless, in tallying the social status of those indicted for words it is clear that the vast majority were drawn from plebeian ranks. There was a total of 228 individuals named in the assize indictments and the status of 216 is recorded. Seventeen were from the gentry, including the wife of one gentleman. Twelve were clergymen, one was a doctor and one a merchant. The other 185 were decidedly plebeian: sixty-eight yeoman (including three wives), three husband- men, sixty laborers, one grazier, seven assorted retailers, six victuallers or innkeepers, thirty-five artisans in a variety of trades, a draper’s wife, a gardener’s wife, two spinsters and a widow.’

Assize indictments for seditious words can be found scattered throughout virtually every year between 1660 and 1685, but there were two major waves of indictments concentrated in particular periods of political excitement. The first wave was in 1660-1665 and reflected discontents with the Restoration of Monarchy and Anglican Church.* A second wave was in 1679-85 and reflected concerns aroused by the Popish plot, the Exclusion crisis, the Rye House plot and the prospect of a Catholic successor to Charles II. The first wave of indictments reveals two substantially different kinds of opinion directed against the restored monarchy and church. One was the opinion of those who were self conscious supporters of Puritanism or the Cromwellian regime and enemies on principle of monarchy and episcopacy. The other kind of opinion consisted of scurrilous words about the King and his family sometimes accompanied by expressions of anti-Catholicism. Underlying this sort of popular opinion there may have been some Cromwellian or Puritan sympathies but these are not obvious from the words themselves. On the face, they appear more like expressions of the anti-

Popular Political Opinion 1660-1685 15

popery which by this period had become part of every Protestant Englishman’s traditional birthright.

Both kinds of opinion were anti-catholic. By the Restoration, English anti- catholic sentiment already had a long history behind it. Its origins lay in the Protestant martyrdoms of Mary’s reign as explained, interpreted and mythologized by Elizabethan Protestants involved in what they regarded as an apocalyptic struggle against the forces of the anti-Christ represented by the Pope and his lieutenant, the King of Spain. In Elizabethan times anti-popery was a potent sentiment that supported the monarchy and English traditions of government against a foreign enemy and an associated domestic fifth column. In the reign of Charles I popular anti-popery sentiments were directed against a reputedly Catholic royal court that was regarded as subverting both English Protestantism and traditional restraints upon the exercise of royal authority. In effect, a popular sentiment that had been a bulwark of the monarchy in the reign of Elizabeth became increasingly alienated from the monarchy in the reign of Charles I. In the Restoration period anti-popery remained a potent sentiment among the populace which could become a mobilizing force if English institutions (Protestant by definition) came under a Catholic or foreign threat. A considerable body of recent scholarship has demonstrated that anti-popery transcended the divisions among English Protestants and between social classes. There is no evidence, for example, that Puritans or Dissenters were more anti- catholic than Anglicans. Moreover, every indication is that anti-popery was not specific to any social stratum. Rather it was a common, shared English prejudice. In fact, anti-popery helped to define English nationality in distinction to others; it was the ultimate expression of English xenophobia.g

In spite of shared anti-Catholicism important differences are revealed in the indictments between Puritan or Dissenting anti-popery and the traditional version. Puritan anti-Catholicism was part of a larger critique of established political and religious arrangements which were regarded as badly in need of radical reformation. It was particularly directed at the Anglican Church which, at least in the Restoration period, was regarded as indistinguishable from Catholicism. Traditional anti-popery was concerned not so much with the reform as the preservation of English political and religious institutions in the face of the presumed subversive threat posed by Catholicism in high places, including the royal court. From this perspective the Anglican church was a genuinely Protestant church under siege from foreign influences working through the court.

It is not surprising that expressions of Puritan and Cromwellian seditious opinions were widespread and vocal in the years immediately following the Restoration. Disappointment and chagrin at the failure of republicanism and puritanism to create a viable alternative to monarchy and episcopacy, combined with apprehension for the future status of Dissent, help account for the outburst of these words. Among the most articulate critics of the new regime were the nonconformist clergy faced with the loss of their ecclesiastical livings and, in future years, harassed by the provisions of the Five Mile Act and the Conventicle Act. The indicted clerical opinions were usually the result of words spoken in the course of Sunday sermons that aimed to prepare the godly for the times of

16 Buchanan Sharp

trouble and trial ahead. Sometimes they contained promises of future glory once the trial had been successfully endured. For example, James Fisher, a minister of Sheffield, was indicted for saying on August 2, 1661 that ‘Although the Church sitt now in sackcloth it will not be long before it shall be delivered and the saints shall rejoyce in the same.“O John Seaton, minister of Felton, Northumberland, was indicted for declaring on July 18, 1660 that ‘Now the times are come for the persecution and tryall of the saints. And wee are all turning back againe to

Egypt.’ Seaton was also indicted for his opinion that ‘The King and his Councell are about to turn out and displace all the Godly ministers and to putt a company of dumbe doggs that know not the word of God in their places.‘” This last statement provides an echo of Elizabethan Puritan charges against time serving

clergy. Other Puritan objections to the restored Anglican church were based on

Biblical literalism. Gilbert Rowell, a minister of Alnwick, Northumberland, was accused of stating on September 2, 1660 that ‘The Booke of Common Prayer imposed and intruded upon the people is unlawful1 to be used and it is not owned by God nor hath any authority out of the word of God.‘r2 On some occasions clerical words were marked with images of Apocalyptic struggle between the saints and the forces of evil. The saints were clearly an embattled minority surrounded by a reprobate multitude motivated only by a desire for material comfort. John Botts, a minister of Darfield, Yorkshire, was found guilty of saying on May 13, 1660: ‘Wee must fall downe againe and worship stocke and images, the workes of men’s hands. But rather let us shew ourselves men and gird every man his sword upon his thigh and sheath it in his neighbour’s bowel1 for I doe believe too many of us have popes in our bellies. Let us feare the King of heaven and worship him and bee not soe desireous of an earthly King which will tend to the imbroileing of us againe in Blood.‘” Throughout the Puritan or Dissenter words there ran the theme of anti-popery. John Seaton called the Book of Common Prayer ‘nothing else but the masse translated out of Greeke.’ According to John Botts, the King ‘would bring in superstition and popery.’ Finally, Thomas Smalewood, a Yorkshire clergyman indicted for words spoken on 4 July 1661, saw in the restored Anglican Church that ‘The whore ofBabylon is rising and setting up.‘14

In these early years after the Restoration the other source of seditious words in support of the Good Old Cause was to be found in a range of popular sympathisers, many of whom had, at one point or another, been in arms on behalf of Parliament or the Cromwellian regime. Often their words were simple expressions of support for Cromwell. One such example was Alexander Roe, a Yorkshire laborer, who was indicted in 1661 for saying that ‘Oliver governed the land as well as it was before or since.’ Another was Francis Ryder, a Yorkshire yeoman, indicted for words spoken late in 1665 that ‘Cromwell governed better then ever the King will doe and if Lambert had succeeded him Lambert governed as well.‘” Sometimes the words consisted of nostalgic references to past military service, with the additional hope that such service would be of future use. James Parker, a yeoman of Rodwell in Yorkshire, was accused of the following in 1663: ‘I served Oliver seaven yeares as a soldier and if anyone will put up the finger on the accompt that Oliver did ingage I will doe as much as I have done.‘i6 A

Popular Political Opinion 1660-1685 17

Northumberland laborer was indicted for saying in 1664 ‘I made nothing of killing five and twenty cavaleers on a day.“’ In late 1665, a Staffordshire yeoman was accused of condemning King, Duke of York and clergy as rogues and then stating that ‘if ever I put my foote into the stirrup againe I will kill five hundred of them’18

On some occasions the seditious words either justified the execution of Charles I or pointed to that act as an object lesson for his son. In June, 1660 a Yorkshire laborer was reputed to have said that Charles II’s ‘father’s head was taken off with an axe but a bill should serve to take off his.’ Another Yorkshire laborer was indicted in 1663 for his opinion that the ‘Parliament that tooke away the Kinge’s life was legal1 and just.‘iv Sometimes, dislike of the King was combined with religious concerns. Simon Oldfeild, a shoemaker of Canterbury, was found guilty of saying in December 1660 that Charles I ‘had a faire and legal1 tryall and those persons [regicides] which were lately executed for the same suffered wrongfully. And the King is noe more head of the church than I am. And I was alwayes against Kingly government.‘20 A year later a Staffordshire slater was indicted for declaring that ‘The old King was the causer of the Irish Rebellion and this King is noe better then another. And there is noe King on earth but King Jesus and the King is not Supreme Head of the Church.‘21 In 1663 a basketmaker was indicted at the Surrey summer assizes for his opinion that ‘the King hath brought Popery into this land and the Churches are just like musicke houses.‘22 Finally, like the opinions of Puritan clergy the views of laymen could easily drift towards visions of blood. In 1661 a Yorkshire laborer was accused of stating that ‘The King comming into England would cause great bloodshed and occacion greater misery and distresse to the land then ever yet we have seene or knowne.‘23

After this first peak of indictments of opinion in favor of Puritanism and the vanished republican regime, expressions of such sympathies appear to have become less common over the subsequent twenty years of Charles II’s reign. Nonetheless, times of political excitement could still arouse the supporters of the Good Old Cause. On March 16, 1677 Richard Wortts, a Nonconformist clergyman of Gestwick, Norfolk, is reported to have said at an illegal conventicle ‘I pray remember what I say. Write it downe in your harts. Time was, tyme is still to come, tyme hath beene and tyme will be againe. The wheele will turne.‘24 In the summer of 1679 a Yorkshire Quaker was indicted for his opinion that ‘The parliament will downe with the Lords and Bishops and will doe with this King as they did with the last.‘25 A year later George Wilson, a yeoman of North Shields, Northumberland, was found guilty of having said ‘I hope ere long the Whore of Babylon will be destroyed and her sister the Church of England. The clergy of England are a lot of drunken and debauched fellowes. The Liturgy differs from the Romish Masse only in Language.‘26 In 1681 William Beever of Penistone, Yorkshire is reputed to have said that ‘As long as this king reigns we must never have good government and there hangs a great judgment over the nation’s head for his wickednesse. There was good times when Oliver raigned and I wish there was as good now.‘27 Often the sentiments uttered were brief but to the point such as the statement in 1681 of Nicholas Cullen esq. of Dover: ‘The Presbiterian Government was the best government that ever was used in England’ or that a month later of a Dover laborer: ‘Old King Charles dyed according to law.‘28

18 Buchanan Sharp

Despite the continued expression of seditious words that reflected a nostalgic support of the parliamentary and Puritan cause such opinions represented a small minority of the opinions indicted at the assizes in the later years of Charles II.29

Among the seditious words indicted at assizes during the years 1660-65, there were many scurrilous attacks on the morals of the King and his immediate family. The words were generally blunt and crude and varied very little in content from person to person. 3o For example, in the summer of 1660 John Browne, a yeoman of Rathwell, Yorkshire was indicted for saying that ‘The King is a bastard and his mother is a whore.’ Another common version is to be found in the statement of Thomas Oakes, a yeoman of Hill Hampton, Herefordshire, ‘King Charles is a rogue, a bastard and a tyrant.’ Finally, there were the words of Anthony Beele, a Cumberland laborer, who was indicted for the following: ‘Hang the King, he is a knave and a whore maisterly rogue.‘31

A variation on the scurrilous words consisted of accusations that the King or Queen were Papists. Usually the words consisted of a blunt statement to that effect but a more elaborate example will suffice to illustrate the content of such words. At the Yorkshire winter assizes of 1664 Arthur Garforth, a yeoman of Steeton, was found guilty on two indictments of seditious words. On August 20, 1663, he said ‘The Kinge is a Roman Catholique and goes to Mass with the Queene and this government will alter and very shortly, for theise doinges are nought and cann never stand.’ A month later he stated that ‘There will be the greatest stirr ever there was yett for the Kinge hath declared himself to be a Roman Catholique and he goes to masse with the Queene and he had the declaration in his pocket.‘32 This last statement that he had a copy of the king’s declaration in his pocket is reminiscent of statements attributed to leaders or stirrers of traditional social protests in early modern England, like the Midland Revolt of 1607 or some food riots, who claimed their actions were legitimated by royal proclamations or by other declarations of official government policy.33

There was also a number of somewhat miscellaneous seditious words indicted in these years after the Restoration that have a traditional flavor to them. The words of John Caruth, a yeoman of Tynemouth, Northumberland, uttered in 1663 seem to be marked with an interesting combination of hope and faith: ‘If I had a Philosopher’s stone their should not a King raigne in England.‘34 From the same year the remarks of William Multhorp of Pontefract, Yorkshire are informed with the traditional magical power attributed to seventh sons. ‘What, is the Kinge better then another man? For Robin Bulman (meaninge one Robert Bulman of Pontefract, laborer) a seventh sonne, can cure seaven evills, and the kinge can but cure nine, soe that the Kinge is but two degrees better than Robin Bulman. Thou shalt see before a moneth end as many will rise in England and Scotland as will cut the throats of all those that were for the Kinge.‘35 More interesting are the prophetic words of Edward King of Westerham Kent, a shoemaker found guilty at the Kent summer assizes of 1662. “There are thirty thousand men of our judgement. At an houres warneinge and within a quarter of a yeare there will be the biggest fight that ever was knowne in England. Divide the land in fower parts and the third part wil bee for us and there wil be thirty thousand in armes if need shal bee.’ His utterances are a little like the sort of prophecies which had circulated in England since the early sixteenth century and

Popular Political Opinion 1660-1685 19

had usually gained currency in times of disorder particularly during the Pilgrimage of Grace and Kett’s Rebellion. Such prophecies had obtained a new lease of life and circulated widely in print during the Civil War and Interregnum.36

In subsequent years of Charles II’s reign there continued to be indictments for scurrilous language against the King. There were the usual opinions that ‘The King is a knave and a theife’, from Yorkshire in 1677 or ‘His Majestie is a pittyfull fellow and a rascally rogue’, from Kent in 1679.37 There was a new twist to such attitudes that stemmed from a growing awareness of the King’s amorous adventures. In 1677, after stating that Charles II’s mother had produced at least one bastard, a Yorkshire yeoman observed that ‘The King mynds nothing but women’.38 In 1681, Sir James Johnson of Great Yarmouth was fined500 pounds for his opinion that ‘The French king was to be commended for he could governe well and whore well but our King could do nothing but whore.‘3g A laborer of Guisborne, Yorkshire was indicted in 1684 for saying ‘The devil goe with the King. He is a rank whoremaster as ever was and as rank a rogue as ever reigned.‘40 Perhaps the most comprehensive treatment of the King’s iniquities is to be found in the words of William Beever of Penistone, Yorkshire in 1681. ‘The King and the Duke of Yorke are both Papists. The King keeps whores and has bastards. I hope to see all the Cavaliers hanged on a tree. The King is sick of the pox with useing soe many whores.‘41

Despite the colorful nature of these references to the King’s personal life there were far fewer indictments for such words in the years 1677-85. This is not because anti-popery disappeared but rather it had found a new villain in the King’s brother and heir, James, Duke of York, a known Roman Catholic. At the same time anti-popery found a champion in the King’s illegitimate son, James, Duke of Monmouth.

During the years of considerable political excitement following the revelation of the Popish Plot in 1678 traditional popular anti-Catholicism reached a peak of intensity that had not been seen since the period immediately preceding the Civil War. The degree to which Whig politicians like the Earl of Shaftesbury actually shared in that anti-popery sentiment or simply exploited it for their own purposes has never been fully determined. It is certain, however, that from the disclosure of the Plot through the Exclusion Crisis popular anti-catholic sentiments and the political plans of the Whig politicians ran in tandem. At the same time, popular anti-popery was never really the creature of the Whig politicians; it was a broadly based sentiment that would ultimately propel some members of the populace to independent political action. The main fear that whipped up anti-popery and mobilized the Whig politicians was the prospect ofthe succession to the throne of the Catholic Duke of York, Charles II’s brother. The Whig politicians, in the course of their attempt to exclude the Duke ofYork from the succession through parliamentary legislation, suggested an alternative successor, the undoubtedly Protestant though illegitimate Duke of Monmouth.42

There existed rumors that Monmouth’s mother had actually been married to Charles II and such rumors were spread both by word of mouth and by pamphlets and broadsheets in the course of the Exclusion Crisis. But the circumstance of Monmouth’s birth were not as important as his Protestantism and his genuine popularity. In the eyes of the Whig politicians the illegitimacy

20 Buchanan Sharp

could be ignored or remedied by some sort of parliamentary legislation. Monmouth’s aims in making an alliance with Shaftesbury and the Whigs are not entirely clear. Robin Clifton has recently argued, persuasively, that Monmouth was not moved by simple ambition for the throne nor was he merely the dupe of a skilled and ambitious politician like Shaftesbury. Instead, Monmouth’s alliance with the Whigs, which began in 1680, was based on a complex of motives. They included dislike of his uncle York stemming from a political feud, genuine concern about the fate of Protestantism, a continuing desire to vindicate his mother’s reputation and establish his legitimacy and resentment at a recent brief exile and loss of office at the direction of Charles II who had hoped thereby to lower the political temperature at court occasioned by the Monmouth-York feud. Above all, as Clifton has shown, much of Monmouth’s behavior can only be understood in terms of his deep sense of personal honor derived, no doubt, from his career as a soldier. 43 In his actions, Monmouth was very much like sixteenth century aristocratic rebels such as the Northern Earls or the Earl of Essex whose political behavior was determined by archaic conceptions of honor and lineage.44

Monmouth’s popularity had nothing to do with his connection to the Whig opposition. It was based on an already developing popular perception of him as the Protestant Duke who would preserve Protestantism in the face of the threat posed by the unpopular Duke of York. In November 1679, when Monmouth returned to England from his brief political exile, and before his actual alliance with Shaftesbury and the Whigs, he was greeted with great popular rejoicing and numerous celebratory bonfires. He was regarded as the ‘idol of the people’.45 No matter the ultimate aim of the Whig politicians-there can be little doubt that some of them, along with republican radicals on the fringe, hoped to make use of Exclusion as a means of imposing constitutional limits on royal power-one striking result of the Exclusion Crisis was further growth in Monmouth’s popularity. In the summer of 1680 Monmouth went on a progress to the west of England, ostensibly to garner support for the Whigs in their continuing political struggle to obtain parliamentary legislation to exclude the Duke of York from the succession. In the course of the progress hundreds of people met him on the outskirts of each town in order to escort him. On his entry he was usually greeted with bonfires, ringing Church bells and cries of ‘God Bless the Protestant Duke!’ Most significantly, during this visit to the west Monmouth touched once for the King’s Evil (scrofula), a disease it was popularly believed could be cured by a King’s touch. WhenMonmouth went on his second progress, to the northwest, in the autumn of 1682 he also touched for the King’s Evil. The symbolic importance of touching, a royal act, makes it difficult to accept fully Clifton’s view that Monmouth did not aspire unequivocally for the throne in these years. During the second progress Monmouth was again met by large crowds cheering for the Protestant Duke and crying ‘Let Monmouth reign!‘46

Meanwhile, the cause of Exclusion was lost and along with it the fortunes of the Whig party. In the years between the end of the last Exclusion Parliament in 168 1 and the revelation of the Rye House plot in 1683 the Tory reaction set in and the Whig party was broken. A number of lesser members of the party were tried and executed for treason. Shaftesbury fled to exile and early death in Holland, while some other party leaders along with Monmouth were implicated in the Rye

Popular Political Opinion 1660-I 685 21

House plot against the King’s life. As a consequence, Monmouth himself went into political exile in Holland in April 1684. The end of Exclusion and the decline of the Whigs did not apparently affect Monmouth’s popularity. On the contrary, the triumph of Charles II over his political enemies and the accompanying certainty that the Duke of York would be his successor undoubtedly made Monmouth even more popular as the last Protestant hope. Monmouth’s popularity as the defender of Protestantism against Popery carried over into the next reign when, after Charles II’s death, York succeeded as James II. On 11 June 1685 Monmouth returned to England andin a few days raised an army of three or four thousand men in the west country, the scene of his triumphant progress of 1680. Although he was accompanied by some exiled Whigs and republicans, this was not a Whig rebellion. The remaining Whigs in England were too politically demoralized to act when Monmouth arrived. It was the common people, moved by traditional anti-popery and by the magnetic pull of the person they regarded as the rightful Protestant King, who were drawn into rebellion that resulted in the deaths of over two thousand of them-at Sedgemoor, on the gibbet after the Bloody Assizes or as indentured convicts in the inhospitable climate of the West Indies.

The development traced out above can be substantiated by the pattern and content of assize indictments for seditious words. Beginning in 1679 popular denigration of the Duke of York started. Somewhat later, words in support of &Ionmouth or the Whig policy of Exclusion began. In subsequent years, there was an increase in indictments for words on York or Monmouth until they peaked in 1684-85 when they drowned out all other expressions of opinion indicted at the assizes. One can infer from the indictments that Monmouth’s popularity was national in scope and not confined to the west; he would have found willing recruits no matter in which region of the country he had landed. Some numbers might put the matter into clearer perspective. Assize records covering eighteen counties yielded, for the period 1679-85, 124 indictments for words; in eighty-eight instances the words were on Monmouth or York. Even more striking is the fact that of the eighty total indictments from 1684-85, seventy-three were for words on Monmouth or York. For the year 1685, there survive sixty-six indictments for words on Monmouth’s behalf; forty-four of them date from the period during or immediately after the rebellion.47

The counties whose assize files contained such a large total of seditious words were not directly involved in Monmouth’s rebellion but the range indicates the widespread nature of the Duke’s popularity. Moreover, the pattern of mounting popularity for Monmouth, peaking in 1685 from York’s accession as James II through the rebellion, can be matched in assize records from the rebellion’s locale. Although there are no surviving western circuit indictments, the gaol books exist for the period from 1670 onward. They are much fuller than those for other circuits and often record the words for which people were indicted. There are noted fifty-eight indictments for words in the years 1679-85 from the counties of Devon, Dorset, Hampshire, Somerset and Wiltshire. In twenty-seven instances the actual words are recorded: in twenty of these the words relate to Monmouth or York, with twelve dating from the actual period of the rebellion. Moreover, given the intense excitement that Monmouth’s presence generated in the west, there can be little doubt that virtually all of the other twenty-two

22 Buchanan Sharp

indictments for words that were simply noted as heard at the summer assizes 1685 contained expressions of support for the Protestant Duke.48

During the period of the Tory reaction, after the end of the last Exclusion Parliament, there were some expressions of indictable words that can be characterized as pro-Whig. For example in August 1683, William Upsold, a tailor of Haslemere, uttered words about the Rye House plot for which he was later convicted at the Surrey assizes. The words in fact represented the official Whig line on the plot. ‘None but Papists and Church Papists laid this plott upon the Presbiterians and there was noe plott. ‘49 In the same month William Launder, cordwainer of Petworth, Sussex, repeated a rumor that followed on the suicide in the Tower of London of a Whig grandee implicated in the Rye House Plot: ‘The Earl of Essex did not murder himselfe in the Tower. He did heare he was murdered there and he did beleive itt.‘50 Finally, in the summer of 1684 Thomas Burt, a yeoman of Kingston, Surrey, was indicted for words which began with praise for Oliver’s government and ended with ‘The Earle of Shaftesbury was the honestest man that ever was in England and is now a Saint in Heaven.‘s1 Despite opinions of this sort, articulate pro-Whig seditious words are very scarce among assize indictments in comparison to words on the two Dukes.

Most of the words spoken against York both as Duke and King were of a scurrilous nature. Typical examples include, from April, 1682 ‘The Duke of Yorke is the sonne of a whore’, from March 1683 ‘The Duke of Yorke is a Tory rogue’, from April, 1683 ‘The Duke of Yorke is a Papistly Rogue’, and from February, 1685 King James ‘is a rogue and a bastard’.52 There were, however, some more extensive verbal attacks on York. Although the research for this paper did not turn up any examples of the old accusation that York and the Catholics were responsible for the fire of London, there is at least one example of York being accused of involvement in the Popish plot. Robert Smith, a Norfolk yeoman, was found guilty in 168 1 of saying that ‘The Duke of York is a Papist and had a hand or was concerned in the late Popish Plot against the King. If the King suffered the Parliament to sett at Oxford or elsewhere but two monthes and Yorke were in England, his head should be severed from his body.‘53

The most fascinating words directed against York were those of William Burnam, a Kent laborer, found guilty at the winter assizes 1684 for opinions uttered on three separate occasions in March 1683. His words are informed not only with traditional anti-popery but with belief in witchcraft and visions of struggle against the forces of the Evil One. ‘The Duke of Yorke is a wizard. I pray hee may be consumed in Brimstone and Hell Fire. He rides about at night in fiery charriotts to torment soules and he is prepareing for a feild of blood. His witchcraft will lay the nation in blood and Popish slavery.’ On another occasion Burman more cannily recommended: ‘Pray tell the Duke [Monmouth] that my advice to him is to make an interest in every county of England to be his freinds to carry on the designs of him.‘54

Indictments for seditious words on Monmouth’s behalf only begin to appear in any number in the assize files from the period when the Tory reaction was in full flood. At the Sussex summer assizes of 1683 three laborers were found guilty of words uttered the previous December. It appears that they offered the following toast, no doubt in an alehouse: ‘Heer is confusion to the King and to the Duke of Yorke. And God blesse the Duke of Monmouth for hee is the man that must and

Popular Political Opinion 1660-1685 23

shall bee and lett us see who dare say to the contrary.‘55 Robert Buttall, a victualler of Shipdham, was indicted at the Norfolk winter assizes of 1684 for drinking to a toast following the disclosure of the Rye House Plot: ‘The Duke’s neck is soo thick that they could not cut off his head. If they went about to cut off his head there would bee a riseing in London.‘56 This statement incidentally represents a prefiguring of the gruesome events at Monmouth’s execution when it took five blows of the headsman’s axe to sever the Duke’s head from his body.

Many of the seditious words in favor of Monmouth consisted of toasts to the Duke made publicly in alehouses. Sometimes the toasts were accompanied with words denigrating his rival, the Duke of York. On 30 January 1685 Aron Farnberry, a laborer of Dorking Surrey, drank a health to Monmouth but would not drink to ‘a papist dog’. 57 The toast for Monmouth or against York was often offered in response to a toast made by York’s supporters. Robert Perkins’ statement in 1683 that ‘The Duke of Yorke is a Tory rogue’ was a riposte to others who pledged a health to York. The indictment notes that Perkins wanted to toast Monmouth.S* In a private house in Norwich during August 1683 a member of the company present offered a toast to York to which Simon Ollyet, a yeoman of Aylsham, responded: ‘The Duke of Monmouth is a Prince and will reigne Governor of this Kingdome once within a twelvemonth in spite of thousands such as the Duke of Yorke for he is a Papist.“’ Even before the revolt there are clear indications of a popular willingness to light on Monmouth’s behalf, although some of the popular bellicosity was fortified with drink. In September 1683 Thomas Ward, yeoman ofswafham, Norfolk, refused to drink a health to York but offered one to Monmouth: ‘I would spend my blood for him.‘60 In February, 1685 a Chelmsford, Essex yeoman stated in an alehouse that ‘I will fight for the Duke of Monmouth.‘6’ Sometimes, the fighting words were directed against York, like those of a Surrey yeoman who in June, 1684 said that he would lose his life before seeing the Duke of York become King.‘j2 Early in 1685, just after York’s accession as James II, a Norfolk yeoman, stated that ‘The Duke of Monmouth will come with an army to resist the King.‘63

Perhaps the most extravagant words spoken in favor of Monmouth and against York were those with which John Pannell, a weaver of Bury St. Edmunds, was charged with uttering early in 1685: ‘To the utmost of his ability he would assist the Duke of Monmouth against that Papist Dogg. Hee would bee one of the first to draw a sword against the Duke of Yorke to aid and assist the Duke of Monmouth to his right. The Duke of Yorke and the Pope his unkle may goe to the Devil1 for Hell is too good for such Papists and more titt for such a place was hee then to reign over Protestants. I question not but how to procure my liberty, for the Duke of Monmouth will now have his right either by faire or foule meanes and will have a hundred to follow him. Whereas the other will get none but bloody Papists. And for my part I will be the first man if possible to cut the other off.’ A few weeks later Pannell is reputed to have said ‘I will for the Duke of Monmouth take sword in hand and tight for him as long as there is blood in my body.‘64

Pannell’s statement, stripped of its rhetorical excess, reveals quite clearly the basis of Monmouth’s popular support. It was axiomatic that he was the legitimate heir to Charles II and, in returning to England, he was simply claiming his rightful inheritance. A Bristol supporter who happened to be in Essex said in

24 Buchanan Sharp

June 1685, ‘Itt would vex anybody to be disinherited.‘6s Another from Norfolk, after saying that Monmouth was fighting for his kingdom, asked, ‘can you blame him for fighteing for his owne. 7r66 The belief in Monmouth’s legitimacy was often expressed as a blunt statement such as ‘the Duke of Monmouth is the right heir to the Crowne and hee shall have it.‘67 Sometimes there was reference to the accusation of bastardy but it was usually dismissed: ‘They cannot make him a bastard for hee was borne in wedlocke.’ On other occasions, the assertion of Monmouth’s legitimacy was made in the face of the evidence: ‘The late King did often declare in Parliament that hee was not married to the Duke of Monmouth’s mother. Hee was married to her.‘69 Ultimately, Monmouth was legitimized in the opinion of his popular supporters because of his identification with Protestantism while York was illegitimized because of his identification with Catholicism.

The matter of York’s legitimate birth or his legal position as Charles II’s heir did not affect Monmouth’s supporters. A few statements survive among the indictments that York was a bastard but there appears to have been no systematic attempt made to question his legitimate birth. In the opinion of Monmouth’s supporters York was a Papist and was therefore illegitimate. He had no right to the throne or to rule Protestants. John Bentleys, a Surrey laborer, noted in March, 1685 that York had no more right to the throne than he.‘O Thomas Stephens, laborer of Nailesworth, was indicted at the Gloucestershire assizes for saying in July, 1685 that ‘I will not be governed by any popish rogue in England.‘7’ A month earlier Thomas Janus, a clergyman of Sedgley, Staffordshire was reputed to have said ‘Itt is not fitt a Popish king should reigne over us.’ The rest of his words indicate what Monmouth’s supporters believed was at stake in the rebellion. He prayed that God ‘mightest strengthen the hands of him that lights for the true protestant religion.‘72

In effect, popular opinion, as revealed in the indictments, re-interpreted traditional notions of monarchical legitimacy. The right heir was determined not by birth but through identification with a particular religious and political position, the preservation of the established Protestant religion. Claims about Monmouth’s legitimate birth were made which, if true, would have put him ahead of York in the succession but these were unconvincing and finally irrelevant. Monmouth was regarded as legitimate because of his Protestantism just as York was illegitimate because of his Catholicism. Although willing to resort to rebellion Monmouth’s popular supporters were in some paradoxical way traditionalists. Past English popular rebellions, stretching back to the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 and Cade’s Rebellion of 1450, often aimed not to overturn the established order but to purge the body politic of sources of corruption thereby restoring it to health and harmony and, in the process, compelling those in authority to live up to their social and political obligations. The support of Monmouth as rightful King had as its principal aim the re- inforcement of a traditional political order that was threatened by a Catholic King who could not, by definition, be trusted to carry out the central monarchical duty of maintaining established English Protestantism.

Once Monmouth actually landed in England on June 11, 1685 and rebellion broke out, the fighting words of his supporters became more frequent. Typical statements indicted at assizes include, ‘I love the Duke of Monmouth and will

Popular Political Opinion 1660-168.5 2.5

fight for him’ and ‘I would venture my life for him and lose my life for him, for Monmouth shall be Monmouth sti11.‘73 There was talk of drawing swords for Monmouth and marching to London when the soldiers left for the west.74 Attempts were also made to recruit support for the rebels. On July 6, 1685, the day on which Monmouth’s forces were routed at Sedgemoor and the rebellion crushed, John Webb, yeoman of Stansfield, Suffolk, was trying to get twenty men to aid Monmouth whom he expected to land in Suffolk any day. He told one potential recruit, ‘Meet me at Buyton Hill and there you shall receive a horse, money and armes.‘75 Another Suffolk yeoman threatened a neighbor that within a month he would raise four hundred men for Monmouth and hang her at her front door when he secured her house in the Duke’s name. At about the same time yet another Suffolk yeoman, discussing with an acquaintance what they ought to do if pressed for military service against Monmouth, said that they should kill their officers and join with the Duke; he was sure that several thousand others were of like mind.76

While the rebellion was still on, Monmouth’s supporters were sustained by the circulation of false news and rumors such as the Duke had taken Bristol, was marching on London with a hundred thousand men and would soon enter the City to be crowned. 77 Four days after Monmouth’s military defeat, news was being circulated that James II was dead and Monmouth was to be proclaimed King.78 Even after Monmouth had been executed on July 15, false news continued to circulate. On July 30 Thomas Bryting, a Norfolk yeoman, reported that James II was dead and Monmouth had been proclaimed King.79 The desperate desire of Monmouth’s supporters to believe that all was not lost despite the evidence to the contrary comes through in the words spoken by a Staffordshire cordwainer on 27 July 1685: ‘I heare the Duke of Monmouth is now liveinge and hath taken Bristol1 and Windsor. I heare the Kinge is dead and the Duke of Monmouth liveinge and I believe it to be true.‘80 At this point we enter into the realm of Monmouth’s posthumous reputation.

Rumors and tales circulated in the months after the defeat of the rebels that Monmouth had not been executed but was safe and in hiding. Some of the tales show up in assize indictments for seditious words or spreading false news . On 9 August 1685, John Merrison, a laborer of Colchester, reported that ‘The Duke of Monmouth is in Holland and on Thursday last I dranke with him there at the Brill . . . Monmouth was never in any tight or rebellion in England.‘81 A month later George Travis, a Yorkshire mason, declared: ‘The Duke of Monmouth is alive and hath taken Dunkirk and is right heire to the Crowne and now the King is dead.‘82 Throughout the rest of 1685 and into subsequent years rumors continued to circulate in the North of England that Monmouth was still alive. In October 1686 a story was being spread in Yorkshire that one Colonel White had been executed in Monmouth’s place and that the Duke would wear the Crown in two years. The following year Peter Hutchinson, a Yorkshire blacksmith, drinking in an alehouse in Kirkby Ravensworth pledged a health to Monmouth who, he claimed, was still alive and for whose horse he was growing oats.“’

Elsewhere in the country similar rumors circulated, particularly in the west. In the months after the rebellion, claims were made in Dorset that Monmouth had not been captured and would come again. A story circulated at Lyme Regis, where Monmouth had originally landed, that an old man with a beard had taken

26 Buchanan Sharp

the Duke’s place at the block. At the Wiltshire winter assizes of 1686 a man was indicted for pretending to be Monmouth. Most remarkable of all, as Robin Clifton has noted, was the tale that five men sworn to secrecy had been chosen to impersonate Monmouth and one of them had been executed in the Duke’s place. Monmouth was not head ‘but only withdrawn until the harvest is over, and then his friends shall see him again in a much better condition that ever they did yet.‘84 In fact, rumors that Monmouth still lived lasted until the second half of the eighteenth century. Thus Monmouth became one of the figures in the archaic, regularly recurring myth of the sleeping hero-prince that can be found in most European countries during the middle ages and early modern period. The sleeping hero prince waiting to return and save his people was a figure against whom the real prince could be measured and found wanting.85 The miraculous survival of the prince provided reassurance that the cause was not lost but its time would come again. Monmouth was in a real sense the people’s King, a hero- prince who, in life, was the yardstick against which the failings of York were measured. His long sleep with its promise of resurrection and return sustained the hopes of his followers that their cause would yet triumph. The intense belief in Monmouth’s triumph over death helps confirm the sense that his appeal was to highly traditionalist sentiments in the populace. In that light, there is no better way to conclude than with one last example of seditious words, from an Essex laborer, spoke on 5 July1685. ‘James Duke of Monmouth is the man ofEngland and the Crowne of England is his and hee shall have itt.‘86

University of California, Santa Cruz Buchanan Sharp

NOTES

1. The circuits and countries surveyed, with the Public Record Office [hereafter PRO] class letters and numbers of the indictment files, are as follows: ASS1 5 (Oxford circuit) counties of Berks, Oxford, Worcs, Gloucester, Hereford, Stafford and Salop; ASS1 16 (Norfolk circuit) counties of Cambridge, Suffolk and Norfolk; ASS1 35 (South-eastern circuit, old Home circuit) counties of Essex, Kent and Surrey; ASS1 44 (Northeastern circuit, old Northern circuit) counties of Cumberland, Westmorland, Northumberland and York. Because of time constraints the indictment tiles of a few counties in the above circuits could not be surveyed. In counting indictments I have included only true bills but I have not been concerned for this essay to distinguish between guilty and not guilty verdicts.

2. The quarter sessions records of Essex, Somerset and Wiltshire were searched. In addition, the King’s Bench indictments in the PRO were examined (K.B.9-K.B. 11).

3. The most striking illustration of this problem concerns the Oxford circuit for which the indictment files are quite incomplete. The tiles (PRO ASS1 5) for seven of the eight counties on the circuit yielded twenty-five seditious words indictments for 1660-85. The gaol books for the circuit (PRO, ASS1 2) contain notations of 129 indictments of seditious words for the seven counties in the same period. Unfortunately, the gaol books do not record the contents of the words. Luckily no other documented circuit suffers to anything like the same extent from gaps in the indictment tiles.

4. The period of the Henrician Reformation, for example, produced a large crop of

Popular Political Opinion 1660-l 685 27

indictments for seditious and treasonable words. This was a result of both aroused public concern and governmental watchfulness. See Geoffrey Elton, Policy and Police: the Enforcement of the Reformation in the Age of Thomas Cromwett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).

5. Richard L. Greaves, Deliver us from Evil: The Radical Underground in Britain, 1660-1663 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).

6. These points are based on my reading of the state papers and the privy council register. I intend on another occasion to pursue such questions as the role of Charles II’s government in fostering the search for speakers of seditious words, the development of the law on seditious words, and the legal distinctions between seditious and treasonable words.

7. There is a difference in totals between the number of indictments and the number of people indicted. In calculating persons indicted the few instances of multiple indictments of the same person have been counted as one person. Conversely, in the few cases where two or more people have been included in the same indictment, each individual has been counted.

8. In this first wave there were two other topics of considerable wncern that cannot be dealt with here. One was the Second Anglo-Dutch War which aroused strong pro- Dutch sentiment that continued to be expressed until 1667. The other was the Hearth Tax which produced intense opposition that recurred until 1685 at least. I hope to examine the matter of popular opposition to taxation in another essay.

9. This paragraph is based upon the following: Carol Z. Weiner, ‘The Beleaguered Isle: A Study of Elizabethan and Early Jacobean Anti-Catholicism’, Past and Present 51 (1971) 27-62; Robin Clifton, ‘The Popular Fear of Catholics during the English Revolution’, Past and Present 52 (1971) 23-55; Michael G. Finlayson, Historians, firitanism, and the English Revolution (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1983); John Miller, Popery and Politics in England 1660-1688 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973).

10. PRO, ASS1 44/9, indictment of James Fisher, winter 1662. 11. PRO, ASS1 44/10, two indictments of John Seaton, winter 1662. 12. PRO, ASS1 44/8, indictment of Gilbert Rowell, summer 1660. See also Depositions

from the Castle of York, Surtees Society 40 (Durham: Frances Andrews, 1861) 85-6. 13. PRO, ASS1 44/8, indictment of John Botts, summer 1660. See also YorkDepositions,

83. 14. PRO, ASS1 44/10, indictment of Thomas Smalewood, summer 1661. 15. PRO, ASS1 44/9, indictment of Alexander Roe, winter 1662; 44/14, indictment of

Frances Ryder, summer 1666. Other examples include ASS1 44/9, indictment of George Taylor, Westmorland summer 1662; 44/10, indictments of Richard Abbot and John Gibbs, Yorkshire summer 1660.

16. PRO, ASS1 44/11, indictment of James Parker, winter 1664. See also York Depositions, 115-16.

17. PRO, ASS1 44/13, indictment of Henry Ashton, winter 1665. See also York Depositions, 130.

18. PRO, ASS1 5/2, indictment of William Smith, winter 1665. 19. PRO, ASS1 44/10, indictment of Thomas Lunn, summer 1660; 44/11, indictment of

John Lassells, winter 1664. Another example is 44/13, indictment of Henry Elder, Northumberland winter 1664.

20. PRO, ASS1 35/102/8/3, indictment of Simon Oldfeild, summer 1661. 21. PRO, ASS1 5/l/6, indictment of Samuel Fox, winter 1662. 22. PRO, ASS1 35/104/8/17, indictment of Peter Nalyne, summer 1663. 23. PRO, ASS1 44/9, indictment of Robert Morrell, winter 1662. 24. PRO, ASS1 16/33/4, indictment of Richard Wortts, winter 1677.

28 Buchanan Sharp

25. PRO, ASS1 44/27/23, indictment of Anthony Croft, summer 1679. 26. PRO, ASS1 44/28/11 and 12, two indictments of George Wilson, summer 1680. 27. PRO, ASS1 44/31/7, indictment of William Beever, winter 1684. 28. PRO, ASS1 35/122/8/11, indictment of Nicholas Cullen, summer 1681;

35/123/8/27, indictment of William Fagg, winter 1682. 29. There are five other indictments for similar words in the tiles for the same period. 30. In addition to the three examples quoted below in note 31, there are at least ten other

indictments for substantially the same words in the assize tiles for these years. 31. PRO, ASS1 44/8, indictment of John Browne, summer 1660; ASS1 5/l/3, indictment

of Thomas Oaker, summer 1660: ASS1 44/14, indictment of Anthony Beele, summer 1666.

32. PRO, ASS1 44/12, two indictments of Arthur Garforth, winter 1664. For the same period there are eight other indictments for similar words.

33. Buchanan Sharp, ‘Popular Protest in Seventeenth Century England’, Popular Culture in Seventeenth Century England, ed. Barry Reay (London: Croom Helm, 1985) 271-308.

34. PRO, ASS1 44/9, indictment of John Caruth, winter 1663. 35. PRO, ASS1 44/11, indictment of William Multhorp, winter 1664. See also York

Depositions, 100-10 1. 36. PRO, ASS1 35/103/5/26, indictment of Edward King, summer 1662. KeithThomas,

Religion and the Decline of Magic (London: Weidenfeld andNicolson, 197 1) 389-432. 37. PRO, ASS1 44/25/2, indictment of Richard Easterly, winter 1678: ASS1 35/120/5/8,

indictment of Thomas Southin, winter 1679. Other examples include ASS1 35/117/6/l, indictment of Cuthbert Ferguson, Kent summer 1676; 35/118/5/13, indictment of Robert Godfrey, Kent winter 1677; and ASS1 44/31/8, indictment of John Whitten, Yorkshire winter 1684.

38. PRO, ASS1 44/25/8, indictment of John Ellis, winter 1678. 39. PRO, ASS1 16/43/4, indictment of James Johnson, summer 1681. 40. PRO, ASS1 44/31/13, indictment of John Ridge, winter 1684. 41. PRO, ASS1 44/31/7, two indictments of William Beever, winter 1684. 42. The following paragraphs are based upon such standard works as J.R. Jones, The

First Whigs: The Politics of The Exclusion Crisis 1678-83 (London: OxfordUniversity Press, 1961), K.H.D. Haley, The First Earl of Shaftesbwy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968) and John Kenyon, The Popish Plot (London: Heinemann, 1972).

43. Robin Clifton, The Last Popular Rebellion: The Western Rising of 1685 (London: Maurice Temple Smith, 1984) 108-43.

44, Mervyn James, Society Politics and Culture: Studies in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) 308-415.

45. Clifton, 115. 46. Clifton, 126-31 and 135-37. 47. In addition to the sixteen counties listed in note 1 above, the Sussex indictments on the

Home circuit (ASS1 35) were surveyed for the years 1679-85 and yielded seven indictments (one gentleman, one pharmacist, two cordwainers and three laborers).

48. This paragraph is based upon the western circuit gaol books 1670-1685 (PRO, ASS1

23/l-3). 49. PRO, ASS1 35/125/7/6, indictment of William Upsold, winter 1684. 50. PRO, ASS1 35/125/7/4, indictment of William Launder, winter 1684. 51. PRO, ASS1 35/125/8/4, indictment of Thomas Burt, summer 1684. 52. PRO, ASS1 44/30/19, indictment of David Roades, Yorkshire winter 1682: ASS1

16/46/4, indictment of Robert Perkins, Norfolk summer 1683: ASS1 16/46/6, indictment of Mathew Daniell, Suffolk summer 1683; ASS1 44/32/11, indictment of Richard Brook, Yorkshire winter 1685. There are at least six other indictments for

Popular Political Opinion 1660-1685 29

similar words in the same period. 53. PRO, ASS1 16/43/4, indictment of Robert Smith, summer 1681. 54. PRO, ASS1 35/127/7/3, indictment of William Burman, winter 1684. 55. PRO, ASS1 35/124/7/6-I& indictments of John Woodnutt, Robert Whitcher, and

Lambert Barnard, summer 1683. 56. PRO, ASS1 16/47/4, indictment of Robert Buttall, winter 1684. 57. PRO, ASS1 35/126/11/21, indictment of Aron Farnberry, winter 1685. 58. See above note 52, indictment of Robert Perkins. 59. PRO, ASS1 16/47/4, indictment of Simon Ollyett, winter 1684. There are at least five

other indictments for such toasts. 60. PRO, ASS1 16/47/4, indictment of Thomas Ward, winter 1684. 61. PRO, ASS1 35/126/2/50, indictment of Arthur Aylward, winter 1685. 62. PRO, ASS1 35/126/11/20, indictment of Edward Antill, winter 1685. 63. PRO, ASS1 16/49/3, indictment of Christopher Collins, winter 1685. 64. PRO, ASS1 16/50/6, two indictments of John Pannell, winter 1685. 65. PRO, ASS1 35/126/3/16, indictment of James Murford, summer 1685. 66. PRO, ASS1 16/50/4, indictment of Richard Church, summer 1685. 67. PRO, ASS1 16/50/4, indictment of Daniel Spencer, summer 1685. There are nine

other indictments which include references to Monmouth’s rights as heir to Charles II.

68. PRO, ASS1 16/50/6, indictment of Samuel Page, Suffolk summer 1685. 69. PRO, ASS1 16/50/2, indictment of John Morgan, Cambridge summer 1685. 70. PRO, ASS1 35/126/6/34, indictment of John Bentleye, winter 1685. See also ASS1

16/49/2, indictment of Peter Bromley, Cambridge winter 1685; ASS1 16/50/2, indictment of Elizabeth Howlett, Cambridge winter 1685.

71. PRO, ASS1 5/6, indictment of Thomas Stephen, summer 1685. 72. PRO, ASS1 5/6, indictment of Thomas Janus, summer 1685. 73. PRO, ASS1 35/126/10/16, indictment of Valentine Griffith, Surrey summer 1685;

ASS1 16/50/4, indictment of George Warmes, Norfolk summer 1685. 74. PRO, ASS1 16/50/4, indictment of Abraham Kerryman, summer 1685. 75. PRO, ASS1 16/50/6, indictment of John Webb, summer 1685. 76. PRO, ASS1 16/50/6, indictments of Peter Parmeter and James Wright, summer 1685. 77. PRO, ASS1 16/50/6, indictment of Robert Harvey, Suffolk summer 1685. 78. PRO, ASS1 5/6, indictment of Hannah Gale, Gloucestershire summer 1685. 79. PRO, ASS1 16/50/4, indictment of Thomas Bryting, summer 1685. 80. PRO, ASS1 5/6, indictment of Jeremia Cope, summer 1685. 81. PRO, ASS1 35/126/10/29, indictment of John Merrison, summer 1685. 82. PRO, ASS1 44/33/2, indictment of George Travis, winter 1686. 83. York Dispositions, 283-84. 84. Clifton, 228-29. 85. Thomas, 419; Peter Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe (New York:

Harper and Row, 1978) 150-53. 86. PRO, ASS1 35/126/10/21, indictment of George Ellis, summer 1685.