Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2010
Scholarly works dealing with the Long Parliament's military finances have often necessarily relied on sampled data and exemplary evidence. This communication demonstrates that full, systematic analyses of the relevant materials in the Commonwealth Exchequer Papers have the potential to alter our understanding of these finances when certain questions are asked. Lacking a detailed calendar, this vast collection of documents is extraordinarily complex and opaque, and because of this it is very hard to deal with holistically. Nevertheless, this communication demonstrates that achieving a broad yet precise view of this vital quantitative material is sometimes possible. It will be suggested here that the army of the earl of Essex enjoyed full payment from the moment of its creation in August 1642 until the end of that October. This will be demonstrated by comparing the total payments received by the foot soldiers to a newly calculated model of their monetary needs during the period in question. Ultimately, there are many possible reasons for the army's failure to secure a decisive victory at Edgehill, but a financial crisis at the political centre was not one of them.
I would like to thank Professors Ian Gentles, Jeanette Neeson, Nicholas Rogers, and Dr Sarah Glassford for commenting on previous versions of this piece.
1 Robinson, Gavin, ‘Horse supply and the development of the New Model Army, 1642–1646’, War in History, 15, (2008), pp. 121–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Graham, Aaron, ‘Finance, localism, and military representation in the army of the earl of Essex (June – Dec. 1642)’, Historical Journal, 52, (2009), pp. 879–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Lords Journal, v, pp. 281–2.
4 Ibid., pp. 121–2.
5 Clive Holmes, The Eastern Association in the English civil war (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 142–3 and Appendix 6; Mark Kishlansky, The rise of the New Model Army (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 67–8. Firth dismissed the utility of the pay records entirely: ‘In the first years of the war all was confusion, and it is impossible to compute the cost of the army which fought under Essex.’ C. H. Firth, Cromwell's army (London, 1962), p. 182.
6 Dr Robinson's use of Francis Vernon's account book inspired much of the methodology underpinning the following analysis. Gavin Robinson, ‘Horse supply in the English civil war, 1642–1646’ (Ph.D. thesis, Reading, 2001), Appendix B.
7 Graham, ‘Military representation’, p. 885.
8 The National Archives (TNA), State Papers (SP) 28/143.
9 Graham, ‘Military representation’, pp. 882–5.
10 Ben Coates, The impact of the English civil war on the economy of London, 1642–1650 (Aldershot, 2004), pp. 54ff and 93; TNA, SP28/170, Proposition treasurers' payments, unfol.
11 Graham, ‘Military representation’, pp. 885–6.
12 See Appendixes A and B for a breakdown of these documents.
13 Although most of these warrants were issued to pay only the private soldiers, Appendixes A and B demonstrate that around 40 per cent of the infantry's total wages were authorized by warrants issued on behalf of both officers and men. Sometimes these warrants were for specific pay periods, and sometimes they were simply issued ‘upon account’.
14 Colonel William Bamfield was issued no money aside from the standard allotment of levy money, money for regimental transportation, and one lost warrant for the pay of the officers. TNA, SP28/1A fo. 69, and TNA, SP28/143, Vernon's account, fos. 18r and 19v. The latter has been excluded from the list of 263 salary warrants used here.
15 The exception was Sir John Merrick's regiment – which received its centrally derived pay from local administrators at Portsmouth from September to late October. TNA, SP28/261 fos. 6, 71, and 327; TNA, SP28/2A fo. 63; TNA, SP28/298 fos. 186 and 219; and TNA, SP28/129/8. Four central treasury warrants for the pay of this regiment survive, but have also been excluded from the list of 263 salary warrants used here. See TNA, SP28/1A fo. 100; TNA, SP28/2A fos. 100 and 292; and TNA, SP28/261 fo. 316.
16 TNA, SP28/1A fos. 240 and 282–5; TNA, SP28/2A fos. 39–42, 92, and 137; TNA, SP28/261 fos. 155 and 187; and TNA, SP28/143, Vernon's account, fo. 20r.
17 TNA, SP28/2A fo. 167; TNA, SP28/261 fos. 37, 185, 231, and 434.
18 TNA, SP28/1A fo. 1.
19 Appendix C.
20 Graham, ‘Military Representation’, p. 895.
21 Calendar of state papers, domestic series, of the reign of Charles I, 1641–1643 (CSPD), pp. 385–6; Graham, ‘Military representation’, p. 891.
22 Graham, ‘Military representation’, p. 895.
23 TNA, SP28/170, Treasurers' account, unfol.; TNA, SP28/2A fos. 163, 230 and 280; TNA, SP28/2B fos. 393 and 466.
24 Again, TNA, SP28/2A fo. 163.
25 Merrick's and Cholmley's regiments received pay for the second half of August from Vernon. TNA, SP28/1A fos. 87 and 100. And although their colonel received £4,920.30 from the army's treasury during the Edgehill campaign, John Hampden's regiment is unique in that most of this money was not tied to specific numbers of men or periods of service. TNA, SP28/261 fo. 19; TNA, SP28/1A fo. 172; TNA, SP28/2A fos. 213, 217; and TNA, SP28/2B fo. 381. Again, there is no indication that any of these units received levy money, per se.
26 Again, see the CSPD, 1641–1643, pp. 385–6.
27 Graham, ‘Military representation’, pp. 895–6; A letter sent from his excellency, Robert Earle of Essex, &tc: to the lord major [sic] of the City of London, British Library (BL) Thomason, E.118[12]; BL Thomason, 669.f.5[77]. I think it is significant to note here that Essex did not claim that the money had already run out.
28 TNA, SP28/143, Vernon's account, fo. 4v. It is not clear when certain payments were made after 10 September. This is the minimum amount for this period, yet it is still more than enough to cover four and a half weeks at £30,000 per week. Graham, ‘Military representation’, p. 895, Anne Steele Young and Vernon F. Snow, eds., The private journals of the Long Parliament (3 vols., London, 1982), iii, p. 341.
29 This total was £216,920. TNA, SP28/143, Vernon's account, fos. 3–4.
30 Ibid., fo. 24r.
31 Figure 1 is derived from information found in TNA, SP28/143, Vernon's account; and the warrants found in TNA SP28/1A, 2A, 2B, and 261. It should be noted that £600 of spending has been removed from Vernon's accounts for September. This is because the money was given to Jessop who presumably spent it on the warrants he paid. See SP28/143, Vernon's account, fo. 24v.
32 I have not ignored evidence about the average start-date for the payment of infantry officers or those men paid on ‘blended’ warrants. The relevant documents make it clear that, on average, the army's treasury began paying officers salary money at the end of August/beginning of September as well. Furthermore, the majority of money that traded hands on the thirty-seven ‘blended’ warrants did so after 1 October. In the end, only eleven of these warrants – totalling £8,872.17 – predate 1 October.
33 There are in fact numerous administratively peripheral warrants paid by Jessop which are not included in Figure 1. See, for example, TNA SP28/2B fos.580ff; and Robinson, ‘Horse supply in the English civil war’, Appendix D.
34 Francis Vernon's account clearly indicates that he received just £5,000 in total from the Proposition treasurers by 4 August. Obviously the officials managing the money at Guildhall were under intense pressure to get money into the hands of these colonels as soon as possible. See BL Thomason, E.109[35], where it was claimed that 10,000 men were being regimented by the earl of Essex on 1 August. See also Anthony Fletcher, The outbreak of the English civil war (London, 1981), p. 339.
35 TNA, SP28/2A fos. 265 and 280; TNA, SP28/2B fos. 319 and 393.
36 I have excluded salary warrants to the officers of foot when the pay involved is not directly related to their service in the infantry regiments, for example pay to the earl of Essex in his capacity as lord general (TNA, SP28/2A fo.283), and to Sir John Merrick in his capacity as Sgt. Maj. General or President of the Council of War (TNA, SP28/2A fo.289).
