God's Fury, England's Fire_ A New History of the English Civil Wars - Michael J. Braddick [372]
20. For doubts on the Covenanter side see Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, esp. pp. 145–6, 151, 154–5. For an evaluation of the relative strengths see Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 31–2.
21. Fissel, Bishops” Wars, pp. 24–9; for Leslie’s trick see pp. 28–9.
22. Russell, Fall, pp. 71–90.
23. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 155–6; Russell, Fall, pp. 63–8.
24. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 156–61.
25. Hamilton declined the offer, saying to the King that he would not be trusted in Scotland and would be required to give concessions that would make him unpopular with Charles: Stevenson, ibid., p. 160. Russell suggests that this was because Hamilton thought Charles was willing to see the abolition of episcopacy, and that in the light of Hamilton’s posture on this question the previous year, this would leave him no personal credibility with the Covenanters: Russell, Fall, p. 67.
26. Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 162–76.
27. For the letter see ibid., pp. 180–81.
28. Russell, Fall, pp. 92–3; for the financial position see Fissel, Bishops” Wars, ch. 3.
29. HEH, EL 7830, Castle to Bridgewater, 9 April 1640; HEH EL 7831, Castle to Bridgewater, 11 April 1640. A window that would accommodate five or six people would cost no less than £5, another that would accommodate only three or four would cost £3 10s. Only a fiscal historian or a curmudgeon would point out that this was a large sum by comparison, for example, with a ship money assessment. For other examples of anticipation see David Underdown, Somerset in the Civil War and Interregnum (Newton Abbot, 1973), p. 24; Eales, Puritans and Roundheads, pp. 94–5; Cressy, England on Edge, p. 111 (where the promise of an election was a reason to postpone emigration); Hughes, Warwickshire, pp. 116–17; A. R. Warmington, Civil War, Interregnum and Restoration in Gloucestershire 1640–1672 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 24–6, 27–8.
30. Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, pp. 130–31. For the elections see Derek Hirst, The Representative of the People: Voters and Voting in England under the Early Stuarts (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 147–53 and appendix 4; Richard Cust, ‘“Patriots” and “Popular Spirits”: Narratives of Conflict in Early Stuart Politics’, in Nicholas Tyacke (ed.), The English Revolution c. 1590–1720 (forthcoming, Manchester). Conrad Russell suggested that these elections represented a significant departure as organized godly lobbying overcame the more general reluctance to see elections contested: Russell, Fall, pp. 94–8. See also Anthony Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex 1600–1660 (London, 1975), pp. 243–8.
31. Esther S. Cope and Willson H. Coates (eds.), Proceedings of the Short Parliament of 1640, Camden 4th ser., 19 (London, 1977), pp. 115–18, 122–3. For the text of the letter and its translation see LJ, iv, p. 48.
32. Russell finds this reading unconvincing (Russell, Fall, p. 103) and Woolrych’s verdict is that it was ‘absurd, and probably struck his hearers so’: Woolrych, Britain in Revolution, p. 133.
33. Cope and Coates (eds.), Proceedings, p. 134; Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, pp. 183–4.
34. Cope and Coates (eds.), Proceedings, pp. 135–8. The image of a biblical plague was often deployed by those critical of revenue officers: Michael J. Braddick, The Nerves of State: Taxation and the Financing of the English State, 1558–1714 (Manchester, 1996), pp. 170, 206–9, 220–22.
35. Cope and Coates (eds.), Proceedings, pp. 138–43.
36. The precise extent of the co-operation is not clear: Russell, Fall, pp. 122–3. For Charles’s suspicions See also Stevenson, Scottish Revolution, p. 188. For a general account of the balance of opinion in the