God's Fury, England's Fire_ A New History of the English Civil Wars - Michael J. Braddick [384]
43. Calculated from Fortescue, Catalogue.
44. Jane Ohlmeyer, ‘The Civil Wars in Ireland’, in John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland, and Ireland 1638–1660 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 73–102, at p. 74.
45. Derek Hirst, England in Conflict, 1603–1660: Kingdom, Community, Commonwealth (London, 1999), p. 183.
46. R. M. Smuts, ‘Public Ceremony and Royal Charisma: The English Royal Entry in London, 1485–1642’, in A. L. Beier, David Cannadine and James M. Rosenheim (eds.),The First Modern Society: Essays in English History in Honour of Lawrence Stone (Cambridge, 1989), pp. 65–93, at pp. 89–93; Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 95–6; Richard Cust, Charles I: A Political Life (Harlow, 2005), pp. 313–14.
47. Howell quoted in Raymond, Invention, pp. 121–2.
48. For the text see Gardiner, CD, pp. 233–6. The answer was published in several editions: much as he deplored it, the King had to engage with the world of print.
49. Russell, Fall, p. 437; Gardiner, CD, pp. 232–3.
50. Austin Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate (Oxford, 1982), p. 224.
51. Clifton, ‘Popular Fear of Catholics’, p. 33.
52. Raymond, Invention, p. 114; See also Elizabeth Skerpan, The Rhetoric of Politics in the English Revolution, 1642–1660 (London, 1992), pp. 60–80.
53. Quoted in Manning, English People, p. 42.
54. Lindley, Popular Politics, ch. 4; Valerie Pearl, London and the Outbreak of the Puritan Revolution: City Government and National Politics 1625–1643 (Oxford, 1961), pp. 131–9; Manning, English People, pp. 86–7. Robert Brenner identifies a group with distinct social and economic interests at the heart of this City revolution: Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550–1653 (Cambridge, 1993), esp. pp. 396–400.
55. Clarendon also dates the emergence of these terms to this period: Raymond, Invention, p. 114. These tumultuous weeks are fully described and evoked by Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 98–117; and Manning, English People, ch. 4. For their relationship to parliamentary politics see Russell, Fall, pp. 439–46.
56. Russell, Fall, pp. 445–53.
57. Gardiner, CD, pp. 236–7.
58. BL, Add MS 21,935, fos. 159v–160r. These running heads do not appear at the relevant pages in R. Webb (ed.), Historical Notices of Events Occurring Chiefly in the Reign of Charles I by Nehemiah Wallington, 2 vols. (London, 1869), I, pp. 278–9. I am grateful to Peter Lake, who first pointed this juxtaposition out to me.
59. See Russell, Fall, p. 448. For the ways in which Parliament men could ‘mould and guide’ opinion in the City see Pearl, London and the Outbreak, pp. 228–35. Russell’s verdict is measured: Russell, Fall, pp. 432–3. The authoritative account is Lindley, Popular Politics, which supplies little evidence of manipulation or orchestration from within Parliament. Crowds were helpful to Pym and others though, and that made the accusations plausible: they were made from within Parliament too: Lindley, Popular Politics, p. 97.
60. Gardiner, CD, pp. 237–41, at p. 239. D’Ewes put the figure at 400 in his journal, correcting an initial estimate of 200, and made no mention of papists. The evocative passage is reprinted in Lindley, Civil War and Revolution, pp. 76–7. The whole episode is narrated from complementary perspectives by Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 117–20; and Russell, Fall, pp. 445–53; See also Manning, English People, pp. 109–13.
61. Lindley, Popular Politics, pp. 120–21, 123–5.
62. Ibid., pp. 122, 125–6; Russell, Fall, p. 452; Fletcher, Outbreak, pp. 184–5.
63. Lindley, Popular Politics, p. 127.
6. Paper Combats
1. Many localities produced petitions for accommodation between King and Parliament, and the return of the King to Parliament was