¹ A hasty attempt in 1628 to revive Ship Money failed; Swales, Robin, “The Ship Money Levy of 1628,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 50 (1977): 164–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² 17 Car. I, chap. 14, Act Declaring the Illegality of Ship-Money.

³ Gardiner, Samuel, History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603–1642, 10 vols. (London, 1884), 8:67, 80–85Google Scholar; Trevelyan, George, England under the Stuarts, 14th ed. (London, 1928), 156–94Google Scholar; Macaulay, Thomas, The History of England from the Accession of James the Second, 4 vols., ed. Firth, Charles (London, 1913), 1:71–83Google Scholar.

⁴ Morrill, John, The Revolt of the Provinces: Conservatives and Radicals in the English Civil War, 1630–1650 (London, 1976), 24–28Google Scholar. For county studies referring to Ship Money, see Andriette, Eugene, Devon and Exeter in the Civil War (Newton Abbot, 1971), 33–36Google Scholar; Barnes, Thomas, Somerset, 1625–1640: A County's Government during the “Personal Rule” (Cambridge, MA, 1961), 203–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clark, Peter, English Political Society from the Reformation to the Revolution: Religion, Politics and Society in Kent, 1500–1640 (Hemel Hempstead, 1977), 358–61Google Scholar; Cliffe, John, The Yorkshire Gentry: From the Reformation to the Civil War (London, 1965), 141–42, 248–55, 289–328Google Scholar; Dias, Jill, “Politics and Administration in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, 1590–1640” (D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1973), 381–90, 433–40Google Scholar; Evans, John, Seventeenth-Century Norwich: Politics, Religion, and Government, 1620–1690 (Oxford, 1979), 81–84Google Scholar; Fletcher, Anthony, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex, 1600–1660 (London, 1975), 202–8Google Scholar; Higgins, G. P., “County Government and Society in Cheshire, c. 1590–1640” (M.A. thesis, Liverpool University, 1973), 166–95Google Scholar; Holmes, Clive, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1980), 130–38Google Scholar; Hughes, Ann, Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire, 1620–1660 (Cambridge, 1987), 104–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hunt, William, The Puritan Moment: The Coming of Revolution in an English County (Cambridge, MA, 1983), 3–21, 204–5, 268–78Google Scholar; Ketton-Cremer, Robert, Norfolk in the Civil War: A Portrait of a Society in Conflict (London, 1969), 89–102Google Scholar; Lee, Ross, “Law and Local Society in the Time of Charles I: Bedfordshire and the Civil War,” Bedfordshire Historical Record Society 65 (1986): 30–33Google Scholar; Morrill, John, Cheshire, 1630–1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), 28–30Google Scholar; Quintrell, Brian, “The Government of the County of Essex, 1603–1642” (PhD thesis, London University, 1965), 307–47Google Scholar; Thomson, A., “Hertfordshire Communities and Central-Local Relations, c. 1625–1665” (PhD thesis, London University, 1988), 137–55Google Scholar; Willcox, William, Gloucestershire: A Study in Local Government, 1590–1640 (New Haven, CT, 1940), 120–32Google Scholar. For county studies on Ship Money, see Clifford, C., “Ship Money in Hampshire: Collection and Collapse,” Southern History 4 (1982): 91–106Google Scholar; Faraday, M., “Ship Money in Herefordshire,” Transactions of the Woolhope Naturalists’ Field Club, Herefordshire 41, pt. 2 (1974): 210–29Google Scholar; Haskell, Patricia, “Ship Money in Hampshire,” in Hampshire Studies: Presented to Dorothy Dymond, C.B.E., M.A., D.Litt., on the Occasion of Her Ninetieth Birthday, ed. Webb, John, Yates, Nigel, and Peacock, Sarah (Portsmough, Portsmouth City Record Office, 1981), 73–106Google Scholar; Lake, Peter, “The Collection of Ship Money in Cheshire during the Sixteen-Thirties: A Case Study of Relations between Central and Local Government,” Northern History 17 (1981): 44–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marcotte, Elaine, “Shrieval Administration of Ship Money in Cheshire, 1637: Limitations of Early Stuart Governance,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 58 (1975): 137–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ Morrill, Cheshire, 1630–1660, 28, and Revolt in the Provinces, 2nd ed. (London, 1999), 238–48Google Scholar; Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War, 205; Lake, “The Collection of Ship Money in Cheshire,” 66; Faraday, “Ship Money in Herefordshire,” 225; Dias, “Politics and Administration in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire,” 440; Haskell, “Ship Money in Hampshire,” 92, 100; Clifford, “Ship Money in Hampshire,” 92.

⁶ Andriette, Devon and Exeter in the Civil War, 34–35; Cope, Esther, Politics without Parliament, 1629–1640 (London, 1987), 115, 118Google Scholar; Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire, 131–34; Quintrell, “Government of the County of Essex,” 340; Hirst, Derek, Authority and Conflict: England, 1603–1658 (London, 1986), 178–79Google Scholar. On the considerable reservations about the success of Ship Money, see Lake, “The Collection of Ship Money in Cheshire,” 68, 71; Thomson, “Hertfordshire Communities and Central-Local Relations,” 148, 154.

⁷ Gill, Alison, “Ship Money during the Personal Rule of Charles I: Politics, Ideology and the Law 1634 to 1640” (PhD thesis, Sheffield University, 1990)Google Scholar.

⁸ Sharpe, Kevin, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven, CT, 1992), 545–95, 717–23, quote on 585Google Scholar. See also Sharpe, Kevin's earlier work, “The Personal Rule of Charles I,” in Before the English Civil War: Essays on Early Stuart Politics and Government, ed. Tomlinson, Howard (London, 1983), 69–74Google Scholar (here Sharpe calls Ship Money a “great success story”). Mark Kishlansky (Monarchy Transformed: Britain, 1603–1714 [London, 1997], 122), who states that Ship Money was paid “punctually,” has provided support for Sharpe's argument.

⁹ Sharpe has based his conclusions on the pioneering study by Gordon, M. D., “The Collection of Ship-Money in the Reign of Charles I,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 3rd ser., 4 (1910): 141–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ See Murphy, Derrick, Carrier, Irene, and Sparey, Elizabeth, Britain, 1558–1689 (London, 2002), 221Google Scholar; Anderson, Angela, An Introduction to Stuart Britain, 1603–1714 (London, 2002), 65Google Scholar; Williamson, Richard, ed., Years of Turmoil: Britain 1603–1714 (London, 2002), 73Google Scholar; Stroud, Angus, Stuart England (London, 1999), 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, David, A History of the Modern British Isles, 1603–1707 (Oxford, 1998), 90Google Scholar. The only study in this genre with a more critical approach to Ship Money is Carlin, Norah, The Causes of the English Civil War (Oxford, 1999), 101–2Google Scholar.

¹¹ Gill, “Ship Money during the Personal Rule of Charles I,” 290.

¹² The National Archives (TNA): Public Record Office (PRO), State Papers Domestic 16, vol. 329, doc. 37 (given hereafter in the form SPD 16/329-37), Charles I, Great Britain, series II, 1625–1702. The State Papers Domestic quoted in all subsequent footnotes refer to letters sent by the sheriffs or mayors of corporate towns to the Privy Council. They also include the accounts made by the Treasurer of the Navy. References to the Acts of the Privy Council comprise letters sent by the Council to the sheriffs and mayors. They either responded to the letters sent by the sheriffs and mayors or asked them for further clarification or made decisions on petitions the Council had received from individual rate payers or local officers. Many of the Acts include summonses of local officers to the Council.

¹³ In 1636 the assessment period was extended from thirty to forty days.

¹⁴ For references to the involvement of parish officers with Ship Money, see Barnes, Somerset, 1625–1640, 228–31, 237–42; Faraday, “Ship Money in Herefordshire,” 222, 225, 228; Gill, “Ship Money during the Personal Rule of Charles I,” 116, 144, 155, 214, 250, 280–87; Haskell, “Ship Money in Hampshire,” 81; Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire, 131, 134; Lake, “The Collection of Ship Money in Cheshire,” 62, 64; Lee, “Law and Local Society in the Time of Charles I,” 31–32; Marcotte, “Shrieval Administration of Ship Money in Cheshire,” 155–56; Thomson, “Hertfordshire Communities and Central-Local Relations,” 152–54; Willcox, Gloucestershire, 131–32.

¹⁵ TNA: PRO, SPD 16, vols. 175–429 for the Caroline period, and TNA: PRO, Acts of the Privy Council (APC), new series 2, 1890–1964, vols. 40–52. See also my earlier research in Langelüddecke, Henrik, “Secular Policy Enforcement during the Personal Rule of Charles I: The Administrative Work of Parish Officers in the 1630s” (D.Phil. thesis, Oxford, 1995)Google Scholar.

¹⁶ For the following discussion, see the appendix, tables A1–A6. References to the writs can be found in TNA: PRO, APC 2/45, 71–80, 85, dated 12 August 1635 (table A1); APC 2/46, 378–83, 394–402, dated 9 October 1636 (table A2); APC 2/48, 236–42, 255–64, dated 2 October 1637 (table A3); APC 2/49, 449–54, 466–73, dated 9 November 1638 (table A4); APC 2/51, 121–25, 135–44, dated 1 December 1639 (table A5). All my references to dates are new style, the year beginning on 1 January. The Privy Council justified this tight deadline with the annual sailing date of the embryonic English fleet, which allegedly was 1 April. This sailing date and the notion that the money was actually used for building naval vessels have often been dismissed. However, the deliberations prior to the introduction of the first Ship Money in 1634 made it clear that the Privy Council intended to build ships, and each writ allocated at least one notional vessel to each county. This intention may also explain why Ship Money was payable to the treasurer of the navy and not the Exchequer. See TNA: PRO, SPD 16/270-55 and 276-7. See also the warrant to Russell (APC 2/49, 60), issued on 31 March 1638, stating that the fleet was ready to be put to sea. While earlier instructions regarding the fleet refer to a six-month period of service (see, e.g., APC 2/45, 309), the letter to the lord high admiral dated 16 January 1639 mentions an eight-month period and expects the fleet to be ready by 10 April (APC 2/50, 26).

¹⁷ Payments were usually incomplete by the end of a sheriff’s term of office, which meant that sheriffs (and their often equally discharged subordinate officers) were forced to ask their successors for warrants to continue the collection in their retirement, or incoming sheriffs were settled with the burden of collecting their predecessors’ arrears in addition to their own levy. See Langelüddecke, “Secular Policy Enforcement during the Personal Rule of Charles I,” 189.

¹⁸ See table A6.

¹⁹ I disregard Wales in this calculation, as a precise track record for each Welsh county is difficult to establish. Under the 1635 and 1636 writs, Russell accounted for each Welsh county, but afterward the sums were amalgamated under the headings “North Wales” and “South Wales.”

²⁰ See also early reports of slow payment in 1636 and 1637 by the Venetian ambassador: Hinds, Allen, ed., Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English Affairs Existing in the Archives and Collections of Venice and in other Libraries of Northern Italy, vol. 24 (London, 1921), 107, 299Google Scholar.

²¹ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/395-92. For Derbyshire specifically, see also SPD 16/386-52, 397-47, 399-10.

²² For Hertfordshire, see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/408-149 (dated [1638?]); for Huntingdonshire, see 389-133; for Leicestershire, see 346-109, 351-91. For references to Lincolnshire, see also 356-76, 357-96, apps. I–VIII, 357-124.

²³ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/346-108.

²⁴ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/349-2, 349-117, 351-37.

²⁵ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/319-89. On the early difficulties in Bedfordshire, see APC 2/45, 447–48; SPD 16/536-30; APC 2/46, 311–12. For Devon, see SPD 16/301-76, 302-57, 303-127; for Gloucestershire, see SPD 16/302-54, 304-73; APC 2/45, 387–88; SPD 16/311-78, 311-79, 331-39; and for Herefordshire, see SPD 16/341-45.

²⁶ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/313-93.

²⁷ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/326-6.

²⁸ For Lincolnshire, see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/315-121, 331-26, 336-78, 318-51, 352-67, 357-160; for Huntingdonshire, see 381-87; for St. Albans, see 376-106; for Sarum, see 448-63; for Shropshire, see 303-71; for Somerset, see 327-66; and for Warwickshire, see 336-6. The Hereford sheriffs Vaughan and Lingen, in 1637 and 1638, accused JPs of deliberately “[hindering] the service” by granting high and petty constables discharges from their offices before they had completed the collection of Ship Money, although they had asked them not to do so (see 392-56, 354-71); this was also an issue in Derbyshire (415-60, 417-23).

²⁹ TNA: PRO, APC 2/46, 433 and 448–49; see also orders to report wealthy refusers in APC 2/50, 256; 2/46, 447 (and reply in SPD 16/336-51, app. I). Some JPs were removed from the Commission of the Peace; see SPD 16/345-66; and APC 2/48, 297; 2/47, 178, 181.

³⁰ This was a standard expression used here by Sheriff Rolle of Devon in March 1637; see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/351-20. For references to refusers in parish officers’ accounts, see Leicester, Leicestershire RO, Leicester and Rutland: DE 625/60; Ipswich, Suffolk RO: FC 25 1/1; Warwickshire County RO: DRB 27/9 and DR 404/85.

³¹ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/302-29.

³² TNA: PRO, SPD 16/455-9. For other cases of vocal opposition, see SPD 16/298-47, 288-63; APC 2/44, 464; SPD 16/355-8, 356-58, 357-135, 361-64; APC 2/49, 171; SPD 16/351-20, 372-104, 387-64.

³³ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/313-111.

³⁴ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/387-64.

³⁵ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/294-68. See also the case of William Walker, a Northamptonshire high constable in TNA: PRO, SPD 16/395-40, 399-46. In March 1638, the opinion of the Shropshire gentry was exhibited through their actions rather than their words. Only ten men (none of them a gentleman) accompanied the sheriff to receive the king on his progress. Wherever Charles I turned, no member of the nobility was at home, but they had left their wives behind with an abundance of victuals to feed the royal visitor so as not to incur accusations of being inhospitable to the king; see The Winthrop Papers, 6 vols., ed. Forbes, Allyn B. (Boston, Massachusetts Historical Society, 1943), 3:355–56Google Scholar.

³⁶ Braddick, Mark, Parliamentary Taxation in Seventeenth-Century England (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1994), 39–54, 117–25Google Scholar. Esther Cope makes the important point that significant amounts of paid Ship Money did not reflect its popularity (Politics without Parliament, 115).

³⁷ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/457-55; 463-43, app. I. For Worcestershire, see also SPD 16/467-58.

³⁸ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/466-58.

³⁹ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/458-80.

⁴⁰ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/337-27, 337-32, 337-41; APC 2/47, 37; SPD 16/337-66, 337-67; APC 2/47, 76–77. For a selection of incidents involving preventing distraining or “rescuing” distrained cattle in Bedford, see TNA: PRO, APC 2/45, 447–48; for Bedfordshire, see 2/46, 359–60; for Derbyshire, see 2/45, 279; for Dorset, see SPD 16/433-2; for Herefordshire, see 447-8; for Lincolnshire, see 399-13; for Merionethshire, see APC 2/46, 24; for Monmouthshire, see SPD 16/467-57; for Northamptonshire, see 333-2, 349-17, 352-19, app. I, 367-33; 401-13; for Nottinghamshire, see 420-133; for Oxfordshire, see 438-100, 467-80, 468-31; for Shropshire, see APC 2/52, 592; for Somerset, see SPD 16/379-29, 389-124, 464-23; for Staffordshire, see: 452-10; for Warwickshire, see 468-49; for Worcestershire, see 457-58, and APC 2/46, 462–63.

⁴¹ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/389-124; on a similar incident in Nottinghamshire, see 357-107.

⁴² TNA: PRO, SPD 16/398-19.

⁴³ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/352-18, 362-83, 367-46.

⁴⁴ Northamptonshire RO: Cockayne MSS, C 2857. As early as October 1636, Sheriff Cockayne of Northamptonshire had complained of widespread violence against his subordinates.

⁴⁵ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/379-132.

⁴⁶ For more incidents, see Langelüddecke, “Secular Policy Enforcement during the Personal Rule of Charles I,” 209–19.

⁴⁷ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/331-12.

⁴⁸ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/350-39 and 349-88. After the 1637 writ distraining became commonplace. Here are only a few selected early references from other counties. For Bedfordshire, see APC 2/46, 311–12; for Berkshire, see SPD 16/306-49; for Buckinghamshire, see APC 2/46, 349; for Cambridgeshire, see 2/45, 387; for Cardiganshire, see SPD 16/376-141; for Cheshire, see 348-35; for Devon, see 351-20; for Gloucestershire, see 318-60; for Hampshire, see APC 2/44, 428–29; for Herefordshire, see SPD 16/366-43; for Hertfordshire, see APC 2/45, 370–71; for Huntingdonshire, see SPD 16/389-133; for Lancashire, see 304-34; for Grantham (Lincolnshire), see 313-14; for Merionethshire, see 313-76; for Middlesex, see 333-22; for Norfolk, see 385-1; for Northamptonshire, see APC 2/46, 355; for Nottinghamshire, see SPD 16/367-46; for Oxfordshire, see 327-126; for Rutlandshire, see 349-117; for Surrey, see 389-132; and for Warwickshire, see 326-6, 333-29. Parish officers’ accounts also make reference to sheriffs’ officers distraining; see North Devon RO: 815A/PW; Leicester, Leicestershire RO, Leicester and Rutland: DE 1605/56; Northamptonshire RO: 55p/504; Warwickshire County RO: DR 404/85.

⁴⁹ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/389-124, 361-25. There is further discussion of these practical difficulties in Langelüddecke, “Secular Policy Enforcement during the Personal Rule of Charles I,” 203–9.

⁵⁰ For example, for Cardiganshire, see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/376-141; for Cornwall, see 457-62.

⁵¹ For example, for Oxfordshire, see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/327-126; for Bristol, see 460-34. For other reports of failure to sell cattle, for Hampshire, see SPD 16/427-47; for Hertfordshire, see 455-85; for Middlesex, see 333-22; for Monmouthshire, see 467-57; for Norfolk, see 450-1, 455-36; for Suffolk, see 464-12; for Surrey, see 379-131; and for the city of Worcester, see 467-133. The Privy Council advised sheriffs to facilitate the sale of distrained goods by offering them at cheap rates and, above all, not to declare them to be distrained goods; see, e.g., APC 2/52, 447–48, 643. Others were told to distrain commodities that could be used by the victuallers of the navy at London, Portsmouth, or Plymouth. For examples of this, see APC 2/47, 155–56; 2/45, 336–37; 2/46, 154–55; 2/45, 338; 2/45, 370–71; 2/47, 14–15; 2/46, 135–36.

⁵² TNA: PRO, SPD 16/400-27; for the aftermath, see 412-132, 412-132, app. I.

⁵³ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/407-41. For other cases of officers arrested for collecting Ship Money or threatened with lawsuits, for Derbyshire, see 341-56; for Devon, see 376-138, 432-78; for Durham, see 398-18; for Essex, see 361-18; for Gloucestershire, see APC 2/50, 633; for Lincolnshire, see SPD 16/399-83, 457-92; for Monmouthshire, see 459-39; for Northamptonshire, see 333-2, app. II; 398-116; for Oxfordshire, see 467-80; APC 2/46, 419; for Somerset, see SPD 16/363-11, app. II, 464-23; for Surrey, see 389-132; and for Suffolk, see 451-18, app. I; APC 2/46, 177.

⁵⁴ For example, for Cheshire, see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/460-35; for Barnstaple, see 376-138; for Lincolnshire, see 352-67; for Banbury, see 537-47; for Shrewsbury, see 400-22; and for Worcester, see 467-133.

⁵⁵ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/450-13, app. I.

⁵⁶ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/463-43, app. I.

⁵⁷ Good descriptions of local assessment disputes appear in Barnes, Somerset, 1625–1640, 213–21; Marcotte, “Shrieval Administration of Ship Money in Cheshire,” 150–57; and Lake, “The Collection of Ship Money in Cheshire,” 45–53. A more detailed analysis of Ship Money assessment disputes can also be found in Langelüddecke, “Secular Policy Enforcement during the Personal Rule of Charles I,” 143–80.

⁵⁸ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/347-23. Regarding the effects of assessment disputes, see Langelüddecke, “Secular Policy Enforcement during the Personal Rule of Charles I,” 178–80. Examples of reports highlighting the sheriff's difficulties can be found in SPD 16/327-89 (Warwickshire) and 350-21, 366-5 (Shropshire).

⁵⁹ Some examples of taxpayers complaints can be found in TNA: PRO, SPD 16/325-65; APC 2/47, 188; 2/49, 101; SPD 16/368-27; APC 2/48, 428; 2/46, 223; 2/45, 119–20.

⁶⁰ This has been noted for Essex by Hunt (The Puritan Moment, 3–21). The basis for Hunt's research was the assessment list of all Essex contributors to Ship Money found in TNA: PRO, SPD 16/358. See also Ship Money Returns for the County of Suffolk, 1639–1640, ed. Redstone, Vincent (Ipswich, 1904)Google Scholar. For a range of countrywide examples, see Langelüddecke, “Secular Policy Enforcement during the Personal Rule of Charles I,” 165–66, 193–94.

⁶¹ Quote from the sheriff of Devon in November 1635, TNA: PRO, SPD 16/301-76.

⁶² For examples of this practice in Bedfordshire, see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/376-98; APC 2/47, 476–77; 2/48, 149; and in Lancashire, see SPD 16/341-32, dated [1636?]. Numerous cases also exist in Essex, SPD 16/321-24; APC 2/46, 182; 2/46, 241–42; SPD 16/380-69; APC 2/48, 584; 2/48, 552; 2/49, 222–23; 2/49, 227; 2/49, 266; 2/49, 67–68. More examples in Langelüddecke, “Secular Policy Enforcement during the Personal Rule of Charles I,” 169–74.

⁶³ See, e.g., Hirst, Authority and Conflict, 178–79, and England in Conflict, 1603–1660: Kingdom, Community, Commonwealth (London, 1999), 148Google Scholar; see also Holmes, Seventeenth-Century Lincolnshire, 132–33.

⁶⁴ On the Briggs case, see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/368-67; APC 2/48, 525–26; SPD 16/381-1, 386-86; for the Phelips case, see SPD 16/327-66; APC 2/46, 291; SPD 16/327-106, apps. I–II, 333-1; APC 2/47, 256; 2/47, 279; SPD 16/354-69, app. I, 356-8; APC 2/47, 430–31; SPD 16/361-19, 367-103, 367-103, apps. I–II; APC 2/48, 338; 2/49, 271; 2/49, 283; for the Strode case, see SPD 16/336-29, 345-33; APC 2/47, 104–5, 110. See also Barnes, Somerset, 1625–1640, 222–24.

⁶⁵ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/389-95, 382-47.

⁶⁶ For the case of Lord Saye and Sele, see Maidstone, Centre for Kentish Studies: Twysden MSS, U 47/47 O1, 191; TNA: PRO, SPD 16/362-76, fol. 2; 357-96-VII; see also Knowler, William, ed., The Earl of Strafforde's Letters and Dispatches, 2 vols. (Dublin, 1740), 2:86Google Scholar; and Bard, Nelson, “The Ship Money Case and William Fiennes, Viscount Saye and Sele,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 50, no. 122 (1977): 230–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For further information on Strode, see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/336-29, 345-33; APC 2/47, 104–5, 110.

⁶⁷ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/389-124. For Banbury, see 361-25; for Cornwall, see 346-88; for Derbyshire, see 535-124; for Devon, see 351-20; for Herefordshire, see 464-98; for Hertfordshire, see Historical Manuscript Commission, 4th Report, Commissioners’ Reports to the Crown, Report and Calendars (London, 1874), 292; for Lincolnshire, see SPD 16/333-23, app. II, 345-18, app. I; for Oxfordshire, see 327-126, 366-19; for Somerset, see 341-44, 363-11, app. I, 389-71, 392-1; for Suffolk, see APC 2/46, 177; and for Yorkshire, see SPD 16/438-105. Petitions by grand juries against Ship Money in 1640 can be found for Northamptonshire in SPD 16/441-63, 447-46, 447-47, 450-25; and for Berkshire, in Diary of John Rous, incumbent of Santon Downham, Suffolk, from 1625 to 1642, Camden Old Series, vol. 66, ed. Green, Mary Anne Everett (London: Royal Historical Society, 1856), 91Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Some examples of this can be found in TNA: PRO, APC 2/46, 419; 2/46, 177. Concerning Hampden's Case, general letters to all sheriffs and magistrates, see 2/49, 308–10; specific guidance is offered in 2/50, 597–98; 2/48, 221; 2/50, 680; 2/50, 576.

⁶⁹ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/389-124.

⁷⁰ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/390-116.

⁷¹ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/395-59.

⁷² See Fincham, Kenneth, “The Judges’ Decision on Ship Money in February 1637: The Reaction of Kent,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 57, no. 136 (1984): 230–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Russell, Conrad, “The Ship Money Judgments of Bramston and Davenport,” English Historical Review 77, no. 303 (1962): 312–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Keir, D. L., “The Case of Ship-Money,” Law Quarterly Review 52, no. 208 (1936): 546–74Google Scholar. For the transcripts of Ship Money trials, see Historical Collections, 8 vols., ed. John Rushworth (London, 1659–80), 2:354–55, 480–600; and A Complete Collection of State Trials, 34 vols., ed. Howell, T. (London, 1816), 3:826–1315Google Scholar.

⁷³ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/386-52.

⁷⁴ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/418-51; a similar case was recorded by Twysden and can be found in Maidstone, Centre for Kentish Studies, Twysden MSS, U 47/47 O1, fol. 51/83. Other examples of appeasing approaches can be found in TNA: PRO, SPD 16/390-116, 352-67.

⁷⁵ See, e.g., TNA: PRO, APC 2/51, 408; 2/46, 115–16; 2/50, 624–25; 2/51, 111–12; 2/45, 271.

⁷⁶ See, e.g., TNA: PRO, APC 2/46, 349; 2/45, 387; 2/45, 317–18; 2/46, 115–16.

⁷⁷ A few examples involving the most dreaded punishment of having a messenger of the Privy Council sent to summon the offender can be found for Bedfordshire in TNA: PRO, APC 2/50, 365; for Bristol in 2/44, 439–40; for Devon in 2/49, 612; 2/50, 596; for Essex in 2/48, 599; 2/49, 601; for Hertfordshire in 2/49, 415; 2/49, 521–22; for Lancashire in 2/50, 496–97; for Norfolk in 2/45, 157; for Nottinghamshire in 2/45, 224–25; for Shropshire in 2/49, 510; for Surrey in 2/50, 533–34; for Worcestershire in 2/48, 373; 2/50, 70.

⁷⁸ In June 1637, e.g., the constable of North Muskham (Nottinghamshire) was attacked by John Conde, an attorney, at Newark market, who “amongst other vile words said Sirrah, you have preferred a peticon against mee, to the Councell table But I will make you be glad to wayte my leisure there”; see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/362-83.

⁷⁹ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/327-126. A more serious case from Norfolk can be found in 400-75, 400-110, 402-51.

⁸⁰ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/376-124 dated [1637?]. References to parish officers distraining can also be found for Cheshire in John Rylands University Library, English MSS 1091, fol. 12v; for Lincolnshire in TNA: PRO, SPD 16/354-49, 357-96, app. I; APC 2/47, 471–72; for Northamptonshire in SPD 16/372-104, 379-132; APC 2/47, 114; Maidstone, Centre for Kentish Studies, Sackville of Knole MSS, U 269/O 267, fol. 14; Northamptonshire RO, Isham of Lamport MSS, IL 1616.

⁸¹ TNA; PRO, SPD 16/357-96, app. VI, and 357-124.

⁸² TNA: PRO, SPD 16/357-96, app. I-1.

⁸³ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/349-74 and 351-65. Other examples can be found for Banbury in 366-19, 537-47, 468-123; for Dorset in 464-23; for Lincolnshire in 333-23, app. I, 345-18, app. I, 357-96, app. III-1, 399-13, 404-120; for Middlesex in 398-122; for Norfolk in 385-1, 397-46, app. I; for Oxfordshire in 468-80; for Somerset in 336-29, 363-11, app. II; for Worcestershire in 467-58, app. I. In Berkshire, Essex, and Northamptonshire, hundredal bailiffs ignored the sheriffs’ orders as their appointment had been granted out to local magnates. The fact that none of the patentees made the slightest effort to support the sheriffs is yet another indication of the deep-rooted unpopularity of Ship Money. Complaints by sheriffs and escheators can be found in SPD 16/464-24, 433-22, 465-13, 463-66, 395-59, 367-9; Privy Council advice on this issue can be found in APC 2/46, 269; 2/50, 596–98; 2/51, 109–10. See also Quintrell, “The Government of the County of Essex,” 307–47.

⁸⁴ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/454-10, 455-32, 464-98; cf. 467-130.

⁸⁵ Bodleian Library (Bodl.), Bankes MSS 42/47; also TNA: PRO, SPD 16/455-115.

⁸⁶ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/452-10. Other examples include Berkshire, 449-8; Cambridgeshire, 463-43; Oxfordshire, 450-43; Shropshire, 455-115.

⁸⁷ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/459-39. Other examples include Cheshire, 460-35; Hertfordshire, 414-162; Lancashire, 455-35; Norfolk, 456-21; Suffolk, 451-18, app. I.

⁸⁸ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/291-57; see also 290-75 and 290-77.

⁸⁹ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/302-80. The Privy Council insisted on banning allowances on 31 May 1636 (APC 2/46, 223). It made an exception for London on 24 June 1638 (2/49, 290) and, when Ship Money completely collapsed, lifted the ban for corporate towns in February 1640 (2/51, 306) and on 31 May 1640 for the rest of the country (2/52, 523).

⁹⁰ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/311-78, 329-37. Examples of other, pre-1640 incidents can be found for Bedfordshire in 390-62; for Devon in APC 2/48, 206; for Essex in 2/47, 18–19; for Gloucestershire in 2/49, 395; for Hampshire in SPD 16/319-76, 380-71, 388-40; for Hertfordshire in 381-71; for Huntingdonshire in 389-133; for Lancashire in 304-34; for Leicestershire in 385-2; for Lincolnshire in 345-18, app. I, 376-121, 427-106; for Merionethshire in 313-76; for Middlesex in 398-29; 433-9; for Norfolk in 389-9; for Northamptonshire in 349-74; for Nottinghamshire in 352-18; for Somerset in 388-69, 389-71, 433-10; for Staffordshire in 346-108, 349-88, 371-78; for Surrey in 346-106; for Worcestershire in APC 2/46, 462–63; 2/50, 365.

⁹¹ For Hertfordshire, see, e.g., TNA: PRO, SPD 16/381-71 and 387-46; for Leicestershire, see 385-2, 415-39; for Northamptonshire, see 346-86; and for Warwickshire, see 321-76.

⁹² TNA: PRO, SPD 16/445-52, 448-21, 457-92. A month later, Sheriff Warcopp of Oxfordshire named thirty-one negligent assessors from eleven parishes in seven hundreds; see 450-57, and also 458-81.

⁹³ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/445-49. Reports from other counties in 1640 include Bedfordshire, 463-86, app. II; Berkshire, 449-8; Dorset, 445-18, 448-20; Hertfordshire, 455-85; Huntingdonshire, 449-43; Lancashire, 455-35; Oxfordshire, Bodl., Bankes MSS 42/47, fols. 102-3; Somerset, APC 2/51, 205–7; 2/51, 369–70; Warwickshire, SPD 16/465-30.

⁹⁴ For example, for Essex, see TNA: PRO, APC 2/45, 305; for Gloucestershire, see 2/46, 154–55; SPD 16/335-57; for Oxfordshire, see 2/45, 353; SPD 16/313-93, 315-123; for Warwickshire, see 322-8; and for Wiltshire, see 302-18.

⁹⁵ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/302-90, app. I; see also 302-90 and the continuation of this case in 311-5; APC 2/45, 353; SPD 16/315-123; 346-107, apps. I–III; APC 2/47, 191–92; SPD 16/383-19.

⁹⁶ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/348-35. Other references to difficulties under the 1636 writ for Essex, see 335-67; for Gloucestershire, see 347-51; for Hertfordshire, see British Library (BL), Add. MSS 61681, fol. 14; for Leicestershire, see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/346-109, 351-91; for Northamptonshire, see 348-64, 348-64, apps. I–VII; APC 2/47, 222; SPD 16/350-47, 354-72; for Oxfordshire, see 349-92; for Somerset, see 347-23; for Staffordshire, see 346-108, 349-88.

⁹⁷ Redstone, Ship Money Returns for the County of Suffolk, 117, and, e.g., 24–27, 157, 165–66. A serjeant-at-arms, sent by the Privy Council to Northamptonshire in September 1639, was dismayed to realize that “neither the High Cunstables nor the petty Counstables have donne thire dutyes in making thire warrants or Assessments. Nor that Mr Sh[e]reffe hath punished thire defallts. And now thinketh ytt to late for him to doe. … Nor desyeres to doe soe. I may staye wth him ad infinitum. Nor does hee take care for my ffees & charge. But sayth plainly iit is his Ma[jes]t[y]s service & his Ma[jes]t[y] will pay mee”; TNA: PRO, SPD 16/428-68.

⁹⁸ Sheriff Cholmondeley in Cheshire provides an example of this; see John Rylands Library, English MSS 1091, e.g., fols. 9–9v, 11v, 12, 23–23v. The impressive list of officers, Cholmondeley had to deal with deserves particular attention an can be found in fols. 13–13v. Other references to meetings can be found in TNA: PRO, SPD 16/458-3, 464-24, 314-65, 352-5, 302-3, 304-5, 464-64, 466-80, 463-85, 385-75, 397-19, 472-15, 366-43, 467-130, 409-92; and Maidstone, Centre for Kentish Studies, Sackville of Knole MSS, fol. 14. The intensive travelling of parish officers under Ship Money is evident from many of their surviving account books. For example, see North Devon RO, 815 A/PW 1; Exeter, Devon RO, EDRO Dartington PW 2; Leicester, Leicestershire RO, Leicester and Rutland, DE 1605/56, fol. 49; Lincolnshire Archives, Addlethorpe 12; Northamptonshire RO: 89p/100; 206p/102; Shrewsbury, Shropshire Archives, 3067/3/1; Taunton, Somerset Archive and Record Service, D/P/rode 12/2/1; Ipswich, Suffolk RO, FB 130/I2/9; FC 25 E1/1; Warwickshire County RO: DR 404/85; DRB 27/9.

⁹⁹ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/301-90, 95.

¹⁰⁰ BL, Add. MSS 61681, fol. 14.

¹⁰¹ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/390-62. For other counties, see Banbury, 366-19; Huntingdonshire, 389-133, 395-58, 398-121; Nottinghamshire, 390-51; Somerset, 370-75; Surrey, 421-143; Wiltshire, APC 2/50, 659; Worcestershire, SPD 16/455-127.

¹⁰² TNA: PRO, SPD 16/352-17, 327-126, 458-80. On officers collectively ignoring meetings with the sheriffs in 1640 in Northamptonshire, see 463-86, app. II; in Oxfordshire, see 458-80; in Staffordshire, see 452-10.

¹⁰³ TNA: PRO, APC 2/46, 154–55; 2/46, 338; 2/52, 538.

¹⁰⁴ For all individual references and a more detailed discussion, see Langelüddecke, “Secular Policy Enforcement during the Personal Rule of Charles I,” 241–45. Holmes (Seventeenth-Century Lincoln shire, 134) referred to the numbers of summoned officers from Lincolnshire in 1640 to demonstrate the collapse of Ship Money.

¹⁰⁵ Note that, again, much of the burden of recruiting men and collecting Coat and Conduct Money fell on parish officers.

¹⁰⁶ TNA: PRO, SPD 16/464-23.

¹⁰⁷ On sheriffs appointing undersheriffs in Devon, see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/409-54; for Dorset, see 333-4; for Gloucestershire, see 302-3, 311-42; for Oxfordshire, see 389-6; for Norfolk, see Cambridge University Library, Buxton MSS, Box 96, C.60. See also the important study on the significance of undersheriffs in Somerset in Barnes, Somerset, 1625–1640, 135–42.

¹⁰⁸ Complaints about bailiffs can be found in TNA: PRO, SPD 16/464-12, 395-59.

¹⁰⁹ The employment of own men has been noticed by Lake (“The Collection of Ship Money in Cheshire,” 64) and Faraday (“Ship Money in Herefordshire,” 222).

¹¹⁰ TNA: PRO, APC 2/45, 387–88 and 2/50, 66. Similar recommendations for Berkshire can be found in 2/49, 344–45; for Essex in 2/47, 134; and for Staffordshire in 2/50, 624–25.

¹¹¹ John Rylands Library, English MSS 1091, e.g., fols. 25v and 26.

¹¹² For Cheshire, see, e.g., TNA: PRO, SPD 16/460-35 (July 1640); for Cornwall, see 463-53 (August 1640), but already 424-43 (June 1639); for Devon, see 303-127 (December 1635), 372-3 (November 1637); for Gloucestershire, see 331-39 (October 1637), 464-64 (August 1640); for Lincolnshire, see 357-96 (May 1637), 464-5 (August 1640); for Northamptonshire, see 333-2 (September 1636), 465-13 (August 1640); for Oxfordshire, see 367-53 (September 1637); for Somerset, see 369-86 (October 1637). Examples of sheriffs complaining about the poor quality of hired substitutes can be found for Bedfordshire in SPD 16/445-49; for Cambridgeshire in 463-43; for Gloucestershire in 466-80, 469-41; for Leicestershire in 455-126; for Lincolnshire in APC 2/47, 470; for Northamptonshire in SPD 16/376-132; and for Staffordshire in 465-73. For an anonymous complaint, see 351-70.

¹¹³ On Gloucestershire, see TNA: PRO, SPD 16/337-27, 335/67; on Essex, see 337-27; on Dorset, see 337-36. Other examples include Cheshire, 466-46, 466-58; Devon, 432-78; Hampshire, 373-21; Herefordshire, 366-42, 429-29, 464-98; Huntingdonshire, 395-58, 458-3; Leicestershire, 421-175; Oxfordshire, 458-80; Monmouthshire, 467-57; Warwickshire, 465-30.

¹¹⁴ See Langelüddecke, Henrik, “Law and Order in Seventeenth-Century England: The Organization of Local Administration during the Personal Rule of Charles I,” Law and History Review, 15, no. 1 (Spring 1997): 49–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar, “‘The chiefest strength and glory of this kingdom’: Arming and Training the ‘Perfect Militia’ in the 1630s,” English Historical Review 118, no. 479 (November 2003): 1264–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and also “Enforcing Charles I's Book of Orders: Poor Relief and the Prosecution of Vagrancy in the 1630s,” Social History (forthcoming). Hindle, Steven (The State and Social Change in Early Modern England, 1550–1640 [Basingstoke, 2002], 175)CrossRefGoogle Scholar has observed that Westminster's policies were “mediated and filtered by particular needs, perceptions and responses of local officers and communities.”

¹¹⁵ Yet, the status of local officers in their communities was not affected by this dilemma and their job was by no means becoming more unpopular in the Personal Rule; Langelüddecke, Henrik, “‘The pooreste and sympleste sorte of people’? The Selection of Parish Officers during the Personal Rule of Charles I,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 80, no. 208 (2007): 225–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁶ In his conclusion, Hindle has stressed the problematic nature of early modern English government, but particularly its characteristic intersection of “the interests of local ruling groups … with the centralised policies of church and state.” He observed that the involved elites “learned to manipulate, to criticise, and even to change” this process of governance (State and Social Change, 237).