PERFORMANCE AND MOTIVATION AMONGST THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE IN EARLY STUART LANCASHIRE D.J. Wilkinson, B.A., M.Litt.

Knowledge of the work of the justices of the peace in early-modern England has advanced remarkably in the last thirty years or so. The publication of the first major synthesis of what can be termed 'local government studies' in this period is an important landmark in the development of the genre. 1 But it is certain that it will not mark any let-up in the pace of further research. Partly this is because of the mass of evidence which still awaits exploration in local record offices throughout the country. It is also a product of the increasing sophistication of the analyses which have been applied to the surviving evidence, particularly as attention has switched from the elite groups in society to those of less elevated social status. 2 However, there are still considerable gaps in our knowledge of what the justices of the peace actually did both in and out of quarter sessions. Clearly these gaps vary from place to place and in some instances the non-survival of relevant evidence will make them impossible to fill. In counties where private papers of justices do not survive in great quantity, the evidence of the justices at work contained in official records becomes all the more significant because it forms an important means of understanding different aspects of their attitudes, such as what motivated them and how they regarded their counties. Consequently the evidence for which justices did most work in and out of quarter sessions is not merely a question of antiquarian interest. Nor should it be the medium for attempts to construct what a typical justice did. Such a creature would, anyway, be hard to discover. Anthony 36 DJ. Wilkinson

Fletcher eschewed this approach in his chapter on the performance of the justices in the seventeenth century, but instead concentrated on 'some of the stalwarts' of the bench. 3 This is interesting, but it does not give much indication of how the burden of the office was shared by the justices in different counties. Study of the diligence of the JPs should reveal more than a few interesting case-studies of very hard-working justices. In Lancashire, the survival of private papers belonging to the justices, and indeed to the gentry as a whole, is disappointing.4 It is, therefore, necessary to rely on the records of the court for most of our information about the justices' work. Nevertheless, it is still possible to discover much about the diligence of the Lancashire magistracy in the early Stuart period. This essay will firstly examine the diligence of the JPs between 1603 and 1642. It will show which men most frequently attended quarter sessions and dealt with out of sessions work. The second part will assess the implications of these conclusions, suggesting reasons for the differing levels of diligence. This will also throw some light on the question of 'county consciousness' and 'national awareness'.

I

Generally there are three main types of evidence which can be used to analyse the diligence of JPs. These comprise the formal records of the courts of quarter sessions, entry books and memoranda of business kept by individual justices, and the surviving letters written by or to JPs or court officials. 5 The latter types of evidence, usually the product of excep­ tionally zealous justices, give us an insight into the activities of the busiest members of the bench, but they do not allow assessment of the work of the bench as a whole to be made in any readily quantifiable manner. Often the official records are defective. In Wiltshire, the two principal sources for study of the JPs' diligence, the rolls in the Exchequer which indicate the justices' presence at quarter sessions by the wages they were paid and the lists made by the clerk of the peace of attenders at sessions, contain so many gaps that they cannot be utilised.6 Similar problems in the evidence make analysis of the diligence of the justices of the East Riding of Yorkshire difficult. 7 Elsewhere, historians have tried to use what evidence remains and have produced Lancashire J. Ps. 37 varied conclusions. A general study of the justices of the peace found that approximately one-quarter of the working commission attended sessions, with the bulk of the work being undertaken by a smaller group of conscientious men.8 In Elizabethan Norfolk, attendance records give the impres­ sion that justices 'were not merely conscientious, but even enthusiastic'. Even so, most of the work in and out of sessions was dominated by a group of eight to ten men, who formed a kind of county committee. 9 In Wales the magis­ tracy was much less conscientious, with quarter sessions rarely being attended by more than three or four men. 10 The rise in numbers of justices on Kent's commission of the peace, together with the increasing formalisation of petty sessions and quarter sessions, was probably accompanied by an increase in the number of JPs attending quarter sessions. 11 In Essex, attendance at quarter sessions was good throughout the early Stuart period, and the shrinkage in the size of the Caroline commission was never reflected in the size of the bench, although in the North Riding of Yorkshire attendance at quarter sessions declined in the reign of James I. 12 In counties where quarter sessions meetings were held in different towns, there were variations in the size of the bench between towns. In early seventeenth-century Cheshire, Chester and Nantwich usually had the highest attendances, although it was rare for there to be more than fifteen justices at a session. Nantwich attracted between nine and fourteen JPs on a regular basis. Knutsford hardly ever attracted more than ten, while the bench at Northwich seldom numbered more than six. 13 Sussex, too, could rely on its core of stalwart magistrates to provide at least 'an adequate showing' on its two benches. 14 The best evidence for establishing the JPs' attendance patterns at the Lancashire courts is to be found in the Quarter Sessions Rolls which contain lists of the JPs present at each meeting of the court. There is a gap between 1609 and 1615, but otherwise the series is complete for the period between 1603 and 1642. 15 There are limits to the use to which this evidence can be put. It does not, for instance, indicate whether a justice was present on both days of a session if it lasted longer than a day. But there is no reason to doubt that the attendance lists are accurate, and corro­ borative evidence is to be found for some sessions in Oswald Mosley's record of his work as a justice. 16 The fullness of the Quarter Sessions Rolls also compensates for the absence of records of payment to the justices. 17 In some counties, JPs 38 D.J. H'ilkinson

Lancashire: Hundreds and Sessions Towns Lancashire J. Ps. 39

were still paid four shillings a day for each day's attendance at quarter sessions even after the Restoration, but it was usual for the payment to be received by the sheriff and used by him to provide a dinner for them. 18 In Lancashire, if the situation of 1636 was typical, there was not even enough money available for the justices to be provided with a dinner, for the collector of estreats informed the clerk of the peace that the money gathered in would pay neither the justices nor 'meaner men'. 19 The court of quarter sessions in Lancashire was adjourned from Lancaster to three other sites at each quarterly meeting. Each site dealt with its own business from one or two hundreds only. The court began at Lancas­ ter where it considered business relating to Lonsdale hun­ dred. It then moved on to Preston where it dealt with Amounderness and Blackburn hundreds. West Derby and Leyland hundreds had their business heard next, at Ormskirk in the Easter and Summer sessions and at Wigan in the Michaelmas and Epiphany meetings. The quarter sessions was concluded at Manchester where matters relat­ ing to Salford hundred were heard. Attendance at each site varied a good deal. These variations are set out in Table 1. Lancaster was the most poorly attended court and Man­ chester the best: this corresponds with the amount of business handled by the courts, and the number of justices available within the respective hundreds. In Lonsdale, for instance, there was a mean of 2.7 JPs resident in the hundred between 1626 and 1641, while Salford hundred had a mean of 14.2 resident JPs in the same period. 20 It is interesting to note that there was a decline in average attendances in Charles I's reign, compared with those in James I's. This decline reflects the decrease in the size of the commission of the peace around this time. It should not be interpreted as political disaffection with the Personal Rule. There were also variations in attendance levels at different times of the year, although they were idiosyncratic and insignificant, with no sessions meeting being consistently better attended than others. Unusually high attendances were perhaps provoked by unusual events. The aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot and the recent tightening of the laws against recusants might explain the presence of sixteen JPs at Lancaster at Easter 1606. Similarly, the arrangements for the new house of correction at Preston could have encou­ raged sixteen magistrates to attend the sessions meeting at Preston in October 1620.21 At the other extreme, it was 40 D.J. Wilkinson common by 1640 for the quarter sessions at Lancaster to be attended by two justices only. Other sessions had three justices sitting on occasions, although there were never fewer than five justices at Manchester.

TABLE 1 Attendances at Quarter Sessions, 1601-1642 (means per annum)

1601-24 1625-42 1601-42

Lancaster 4.1 3.1 3.6 Preston 8.7 5.85 7.25 Manchester 8.7 7.8 8.3 Wigan 7.2 6.25 6.7 Ormskirk 8.2 6.8 7.7

The attendance figures in terms of the numbers of individual justices attending sessions in the county as a whole also neatly display the contraction in the size of the commission in the 1630s. Between 1616 and 1629 a mean of over forty JPs in each year attended quarter sessions in Lancashire. A mean of about thirty-two justices in each year attended sessions in Lancashire in the period between 1635 and 1639, as had been the case between 1601 and 1605.23 When attendance patterns of individual JPs are examined the local basis on which they carried out their duties emerges clearly. Only one justice of the peace in early Stuart Lancashire attended quarter sessions at four different venues in a single year. Edmund Fleetwood of Rossall achieved the feat in 1616. 24 Richard Fleetwood of Penwortham and Edward Rigby of Burgh at some time attended all four courts at their different venues. Richard Fleetwood's attendance record, however, is rather mislead­ ing because he only attended the courts in West Derby, Londsdale and Salford on one occasion.25 Edward Rigby's exceptional attendance record is probably explained by his position as clerk of the Crown, and perhaps by his close connection with the earl of Derby. The majority of his appearances were at Preston and the West Derby courts.26 There is no certain explanation for Edmund Fleetwood's burst of enthusiasm in 1616. He had an exceptionally good record for attendance throughout his time on the commis­ sion, especially at Preston and rather less so at Manchester Lancashire J.Ps. 41 and the West Derby courts at Wigan and Ormskirk. It is possible that he was deputy custos rotulorum but there is no concrete evidence to support this speculation. Possibly he was connected with the more assertive Calvinist tone of a part of the magistracy at this time which provoked Judge Bromley to sanction 'puritan' regulations at the Assizes of August 1616. 27 Besides Rigby and Fleetwood, only three other magistrates attended more than one court of quarter sessions on anything like a regular basis. They were John Calvert of Cockerham, at Preston and Lancaster; Edward Rawstorne of Newhall, at Manchester and Preston; and Alexander Rigby of Burgh, Edward Rigby's son, at Lancas­ ter and Preston. 28 Altogether only forty-six justices attended quarter sessions in more than one area between 1601 and 1642. The great majority of justices, therefore, saw their task, as defined by attendance at Quarter Sessions, in markedly local terms. Between 1601 and 1642, at least two-thirds of the JPs who attended quarter sessions in any one year, attended in one area only. This proportion was often nine-tenths, and there were no significant differences in these patterns between the reigns of James I and his son. In each year, a varying number of justices attended quarter sessions for two or more hundreds; generally, if only by a little, this number was lower in the 1630s than it had been earlier. 29 When the attendance patterns of different groups of justices are examined, notable variations emerge. The members of the dignitary group, those men who were named in the commission because they were local peers or held important office nationally or in the Duchy of Lancas­ ter, hardly ever attended. John Bridgeman, bishop of Chester, came nearest to establishing some sort of regular attendance pattern, when he attended at least one meeting of quarter sessions in every year between 1626 and 1631. Most often he sat on the bench at Wigan, where he was rector, and where he usually resided until he acquired the Assheton estates around Lever in the late 1620s. Only two other members of the dignitary groups are recorded as having attended meetings of quarter sessions in Lancashire in the early seventeenth century. 31 It has been observed that in sixteenth-century Lan­ cashire, the more powerful magistrates attended quarter sessions less frequently than other justices, and that the acquisition of a knighthood made them less eager to attend the court.32 This is to some extent true in the early 42 D.J. Wilkinson seventeenth century too. No baronet attended three-fifths or more of the meetings of quarter sessions in his area. Sir Gilbert Hoghton, however, had an improved attendance record as a baronet. In the 1620s he went to only 30% of the meetings of quarter sessions at Preston, but in the 1630s he was present at over half of them. This improvement was certainly occasioned by his less frequent attendance at Court in the latter decade. As a client of the Duke of Buckingham, he was left without a patron after 1628 and he was probably encouraged to remain in Lancashire by Charles I's desire to reduce the numbers of gentlemen who resided in London. 33 Only five knights attended three-fifths or more of the quarter sessions in their areas,34 while many were exceptionally infrequent attenders. There is some evidence that attendance decreased after a Lancashire JP had acquired a knighthood, but this decrease was most marked amongst the practising lawyers, whose careers might have interfered with their magisterial responsibili­ ties.35 Otherwise, the acquisition of a knighthood made little or no difference to a justice's attendance record at quarter sessions. The clerical justices were amongst the most consistent attenders. Of the four clerics who were on the commission for any length of time, three went to quarter sessions on a regular basis. They all had 'puritanical' leanings, being noted for their hostility towards Catholicism and classified as preachers in a list of Lancashire parishes and their incumbents drawn up in the early seventeenth century. 36 Between 1615 and 1623, Hugh Watmoughe, rector of Bury, attended 70% of the meetings at Manchester, and William Leigh and Gregory Turner attended more than three-fifths of the sessions in West Derby hundred during their membership of the commission. 37 On the other hand, Richard Murray, the disreputable warden of Manchester College, attended only one meeting in the twenty years he was a justice of the peace. 38 Justices who resided outside the county rarely, if at all, attended court meetings in Lancashire. Sir George Booth of Dunham in Cheshire made thirteen appearances at the court at Manchester between 1615 and 1642. Interestingly he did not attend the court at all between 1629 and 1641, his final attendances being made in January and April 1642. He was an active JP in Cheshire, and one of the leading men in trying to avoid conflict in Cheshire in 1642. His renewed interest in Lancashire quarter sessions business was per- Lancashire J. Ps. 43 haps brought about by the heightening of political tension in the months before civil war began.3 However, forty-one lay justices of the peace of esquire status who ordinarily resided in Lancashire were present at three-fifths or more of the quarter sessions in their area. It is sufficient to pick out the most assiduous of these in each part of the county. John Calvert of Cockerham, Thomas Covell of Torrisholme, and Thomas Cooke of Ireby sat on over 90% of the occasions they could have done at Lancaster. Covell's record is particularly noteworthy because he remained an active justice until his death at the age of seventy-eight in 1639. He was also county gaoler. Oswald Mosley of Ancoats and William Radcliffe of Manchester had similar records at Manchester. The most regular attender at Preston was Radcliffe Asshe- ton of Cuerdale. In West Derby and Leyland hundreds, justices tended to favour Wigan or Ormskirk according to whichever was nearer their place of residence. The most notable attender in this part of the county was John Wrightington who never missed a meeting of the court at Wigan according to the surviving evidence.40 At the other end of the scale, only one justice resident in Lancashire, out of those men who were on the commission for at least five years, never attended a meeting of quarter sessions. He was Thomas Charnock of Charnock, one of the JPs most beset by financial difficulties.41 Some justices clearly felt guilty about missing a meeting of quarter sessions. Edward Bridgeman's health prevented his attendance at court in April 1631 and 'urgent occasion' kept him at home in July 1631. 4' Perhaps his absence was not unconnected with the plague then affecting Lancashire, but bad weather, ill- health and other business commitments were certainly genuine explanations for the absence from sessions of some justices from time to time.43 Outside quarter sessions, it is not as easy to determine who bore the brunt of the magistrates' work. From 1626 to 1642, recognizances made in the months before each quarter sessions have survived. The recognizance files also contain other documents, such as petitions to the justices, examinations and informations collected by them, and, more occasionally, letters about their business as JPs. Using those documents which indicate that a justice had done some work out of sessions, it has been possible to compile a rough and ready index of the work-load between sessions of the justices, in this case, connected with the court at Preston. The crude total of work in each year has been 44 D.J. Wilkinson calculated from the signatures of justices on each docu­ ment. Where more than one justice has signed a document, each of the signatories has been given credit for undertaking work. The results of the survey are set out in the appendix. The conclusions from this short study reinforce the findings of the examination of attendance at quarter ses­ sions. First justices worked on a very local basis confining their work usually to an area in easy reach of their homes. Almost invariably, JPs served the hundreds in which they resided, but Sir Gilbert Hoghton whose residence was in Leyland hundred did not attend the court at Wigan or Ormskirk, but that at Preston which was much nearer his home. They also nearly always took recognizances for their local court of quarter sessions, as would be expected from the local nature of their work. More importantly, a group of men from amongst the middle-ranked and low-ranked justices on the commission shared the major part of the work-load. The group comprised twelve men, although within this group, Richard Burgh (possibly the least wealthy active justice in Lancashire), John Starkey, Edward Veale, Radcliffe Assheton, Alexander Rigby and Richard Shutt- leworth took on a heavier burden than the rest.44 All the inner group, except John Starkey, were good attenders at quarter sessions. 4 Similar patterns are observable in the other quarter sessions areas, even in Lonsdale which had so few justices. At the court for Salford hundred at Manches­ ter, the main signers of out of sessions documents in the 1630s were middle and lower ranking esquires such as Edmund Assheton, Robert Holt, Edmund Hopwood, John Bradshaw, Leonard Asshaw, John Greenhalgh and William Radcliffe. Some knights were occasionally quite heavily involved. Sir Alexander Radcliffe and Sir Cecil Trafford were notably active in 1631, but thereafter much less so. Radcliffe's burst of enthusiasm might be explained by the initial novelty of his position. He was first named on the commission in 1629 at the age of twenty-two. TrafFord remained more active than Radcliffe, although he never again emulated his performance of 1631. Perhaps he felt it necessary to justify his position because of his recusancy.46 In West Derby, Sir Charles Gerard was active on a fairly consistent basis, as was Sir Robert Bindloss in Lonsdale. But, overall, the knights' level of activity out of sessions compared as unfavourably with the esquires' as in their attendance at quarter sessions. Of course, most knights had interests outside the county so that they were more likely to Lancashire J.Ps. 45 be away from Lancashire more frequently. This undoubtedly would have affected their ability to attend quarter sessions regularly and to participate in out of sessions business. While there is some truth, then, in the idea that magisterial work was largely confined to an inner circle of justices, we have to beware believing that this circle in Lancashire was very narrow. It probably numbered between fifteen and twenty men in the county as a whole who worked very hard, with a similar number who gave valuable support without emulating the diligence of their most active colleagues. The responsibilities brought by the commission of the peace were more equitably shared amongst Lancashire's justices than they were in, for example, Wiltshire, Norfolk and Gloucestershire.4 ' The only dignitary justice to have an impressive out of sessions record of work was John Bridgeman, bishop of Chester. However, his period of greatest activity was con­ fined to the time he was resident in Wigan, where he was rector, and where, as has already been mentioned he lived until the end of the 1620s.48 In 1628 he was the most active justice in the West Derby and Leyland hundreds. According to a recognizance count, he was responsible for about 30% of the recognizances returned to the courts at Wigan and Ormskirk in that year, although he was notably more active for the Wigan court.49 When he moved from Wigan to Lever his performance was not quite so impressive, but he was still a busy JP, now dealing with the court at Manchester. This in itself is interesting, because it provides an illustration of the way in which a JP usually attended the court for the hundred in which he resided: Lever was in Salford hundred. In 1631 he signed about 9% of the out of sessions documents extant for the Salford court. 00 However, 1631 also saw his last recorded appearance at quarter sessions. In 1632 he signed very few documents connected with magisterial business. Criticism of his performance as bishop by Arch­ bishop Neile and Charles I probably forced him to attend more to diocesan matters and to spend more time in Chester. The following year proved even harder for Bridgeman when he was summoned before the court of High Commission to answer charges of misappropriating revenues from commuted penances. Unsurprisingly, he played no part in quarter sessions business in 1633.jl Thereafter, he was a little more active but he never again displayed the diligence that he had before 1631. He attended monthly meetings for the Bolton division in 1634, 46 D.J. Wilkinson

but he had ceased to do this by 1637.°2 It is remarkable that a man like Bridgeman, an able administrator who enjoyed the assertion of his own authority, should retire so completely from quarter sessions business. The humili­ ations to which he was subjected in 1632 and 1633, largely on the insistence of the king, certainly contributed to his inactivity. It is a nice irony that Charles I, determined, according to Kevin Sharpe, to follow 'a programme for the reformation of society and the reinvigoration of local government', should have contributed to the disaffection, or at least the disinclination to action, of one of the busiest JPs in Lancashire. 03 It emphasises the importance of form rather than substance in Charles' aims. The study of the justices' out of sessions work also casts light upon other aspects of magisterial behaviour. While William Farington was sheriff of Lancashire, he continued to do some out of sessions work, although sheriffs were not included in the commission in their year of shrieval office. He even attended a meeting of quarter sessions. This dual role was probably encouraged by the existence of the meetings of the justices at the Sheriffs Table during Assize Week. When the sheriff chaired and voted at these meetings it is unsurprising that some men found the distinctions between their roles blurred. 54 Furthermore, it has been suggested that the withdrawal of John Braddill and Sir Ralph Assheton from quarter sessions in the 1630s may have been the result of disaffection with the policies of the Personal Rule.50 However, their withdrawal was only par­ tial, for they both continued to execute out of sessions work, and both attended monthly meetings in the 1630s. j6 Per­ haps Assheton felt dishonoured by his quarrel with Arch­ bishop Laud and Bishop Bridgeman which led to him facing a charge of immorality before the High Commission in 1636 and, therefore, less inclined to attend quarter sessions. J/ The fact that so few justices withdrew from quarter sessions and the fact that the circle of men who participated in out of sessions work was so wide indicate that there was no disgruntlement with administrative work at magisterial level in the 1630s, or at least no disgruntlement which manifested itself as a withdrawal from the system.08 Indeed, throughout the 1630s never less than three-fifths of the non-dignitary justices resident in Lancashire attended quarter sessions each year, and some of the absentees were missing because they were professional lawyers with duties in other parts of the country. Lancashire J.Ps. 47

The material for a full analysis of the monthly meetings of the 1630s does not exist. In response to the famous Book of Orders of 1631, the Lancashire justices eventually began to send reports of their actions to the Council in 1634. Reports were sent from then until 1638, but many of them are vague so that the efficacy of the Book of Orders in Lancashire is difficult to estimate.'9 However, at least thirty-seven justices in Lancashire attended a monthly meeting between 1634 and 1638. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of them were of esquire status.6 Other indications of the Lancashire justices' actions out of sessions exist. In 1637 the Council professed astonishment at the number of alehouses, licen­ sed and unlicensed, and the number of corn-badgers in the county, and ordered the JPs to take steps to reduce them. And so in February 1638 the Privy Council was sent a list of licensed alehouse-keepers together with the names of the twenty justices who had licensed them in ten different areas.61 Again, seventeen of these were esquires, the excep­ tions being Sir Gilbert Hoghton, Sir Cecil Trafford and Bishop Bridgeman. Records exist which indicate that the JPs had been licensing alehouses in divisional meetings for this purpose since at least 1619. At Eccleston in that year Edward Rigby, William Leigh and Edward Chisnall granted licences for some eighty alehouse-keepers.62 However, the pre-Civil War evidence for alehouse licensing is too frag­ mentary for firm conclusions about which JPs were most involved to be drawn from it, but what survives generally reinforces the conclusions already reached that the hardest working magistrates were esquires. There were some excep­ tions. Sir Thomas Barton was usually present, along with John Bradshaw, at the Bolton licensing meetings.63 Sir Cecil Trafford frequently licensed alehouses in Manchester, as did Sir Charles Gerard for part of West Derby.64 Other high-ranking JPs were much less frequently involved: Sir Alexander Radcliffe in Manchester, Sir Gilbert Hoghton and Sir Ralph Assheton in Amounderness and Blackburn hundreds, and even Richard Molyneux, Viscount Marybo­ rough on a couple of occasions in West Derby.*3 ' Only one Lancashire JP has left unofficial material which enables some sort of analysis of his diligence to be made in detail. Oswald Mosley was a frequent attender at quarter sessions and very active in the taking of recognizances and the gathering of informations. His notebook allows us to see the extent of his conscientiousness. In 1618 he was engaged in some sort of magisterial work on at least sixty-nine days. 48 D.J. Wilkinson

This work-load was probably not unusual because between April and September 1616 he did some sort of work as a justice on twenty-one days.6*' There are few sources of comparison, but William Lambarde's Ephemeris contained only one year when he was involved in magisterial work on more than thirty days. Mosley's record also compares favourably with the other 'stalwarts of the bench' singled out for examination by Anthony Fletcher.*'7

II

Many of the JPs in Lancashire, therefore, were clearly conscientious in fulfilling their duties and spent much time on them. There is no sign that they were refusing to undertake their duties in the 1630s. Indeed, they probably worked even harder as monthly meetings gradually became more firmly established throughout the county. Political disaffection in the recorded workings of the court of quarter sessions was quite absent. There is no indication in Lan­ cashire that the quickening tempo of local government in the 1630s provoked the strain and antagonism amongst justices that T.G. Barnes observed in Somerset. 68 It seems likely, in fact, that Lancashire was undergoing a gradual quickening of tempo in local government for much of the early seventeenth century, and that the imposition of the Book of Orders did not really mark the change that Barnes thought it had. In this, the experience of Lancashire was similar to much of the rest of the country, and, as in Sussex, there was no 'magisterial strike' in the 1630s. It is also clear that the lower- and middle-ranking magis­ trates worked harder than their social superiors, although some of the knights and baronets, such as the Traffords, Sir Robert Bindloss, Sir Ralph Assheton and Sir Gilbert Hoghton were by no means inactive. As we have seen, this difference is significant in quantifiable terms - in recognizance-taking, in alehouse licensing, and in atten­ dance at quarter sessions where only 29% of knights and baronets had a good attendance record compared with 66% of esquires. 70 Does it have a wider significance? Is it possible to use this evidence to elucidate the motives of some JPs. It is widely accepted that reputation in county society was 'best advanced by activity and involvement'. 71 If this is so, it is not surprising then that the most active justices in Lancashire were those of lesser social status within the Lancashire J.Ps. 49 commission of the peace. They needed the reputation brought by active participation in county government to bolster their status in their own eyes and in the opinion of others. Equally attitudes towards status might also explain why the knights and baronets were less active, for 'activity and involvement' were perhaps not always necessary for reputation. The resident aristocratic families of Lancashire played a minimal role in the affairs of the courts of quarter sessions. Possibly the knights and the baronets felt that the everyday concerns of JPs, the need for active JPs 'to be willing to be often in the saddle and to be constantly- receiving constables and petitioners at their door',' 2 were not so necessary for them as for lesser justices. We have no real way of knowing but it is possible that the knights and the baronets were torn between seeking reputation through active participation in quarter sessions business and seek­ ing reputation through distancing themselves from quarter sessions as the Earl of Derby, Lord Strange, Lord Moun- teagle and Viscount Molyneux seemed to do. E.G. Blackwood has also suggested that justices from long- established gentry families felt less need to participate in the ordinary processes of local government. There does seem to be some truth in this, for most of the Lancashire JPs who became knights or baronets were from gentry families which had been resident in the county from before 1485. The Earl of Derby attended only one meeting of quarter sessions in this period, at Wigan on 1 October 1603. This was a special sessions which fell outside the ordinary sequence of the meetings of the court: it was perhaps arranged for some of the local gentry to take the oath of allegiance to James I. 74 There is no evidence that Lord Strange, like Lord Moun- teagle, ever attended a meeting. Indeed, the importance of the Stanleys in the work of quarter sessions is debatable. William the sixth earl of Derby was a virtual recluse by Charles I's reign and before then had been mainly concerned with family affairs. 75 It has been suggested that Lord Strange, William's son, was a significant figure, consulted on many issues which faced the justices. 7 However, Lord Strange did not find the JPs all that readily disposed to accept his intervention. When he wrote to the bench at Preston about the unsuitability of Ewen Blackoe for his position as governor of the house of correction, the court resolved only that the matter should be referred to the meeting of the justices at the Sheriffs Table during the next Assize week. Meanwhile, a group of justices were to examine 50 D.J. Wilkinson the governor so that their opinion could be taken into account. 77 Similarly, in 1628, the justices at Manchester were not to be forced into agreeing to ordering the repair of Pilkington Bridge until they had examined the situation for themselves, even though Lord Strange had informed them that the costs were usually met by the hundred. 78 Although the circumstances were very different, Lord Strange's diffi­ culties in rallying support in some parts of the county in 1642 should also warn against any assumption that he dominated all aspects of local government in Lancashire. 79 Sir Richard Molyneux did not attend the court after he acquired his Irish peerage. He had occasionally attended quarter sessions in West Derby before, and, as has already been noted, he licensed alehouses in 1629 and 1630. 80 This lends credence to the idea that participation in county government was motivated by a desire for status, for his licensing activity might have been an attempt to assert his authority and status against the background of the prece­ dence dispute which was then going on between baronets and Irish peers. He was omitted from the commission of 30 July 1629, a fate in common with all Irish peers.81 He was, therefore, no longer a JP when he went to the licensing meeting at Halsall on 28 April 1630. His action might have been to show anyone in county society, or even less elevated figures, that he was not to be disregarded despite his problems at Court. Molyneux was also named in the commission of the peace as custos rotulorum, at least until his exclusion from the commission. However, this position was probably entirely honorific even at this time, for no replacement custos was named in the commission until 1642 when the young Viscount Molyneux was put in the commis­ sion for the first time.82 If the desire for reputation or status motivated some justices to attend to their duties assiduously, it is not the whole story behind what motivated JPs. Admittedly, such features as whether they had attended one of the Inns of Court or Oxford and Cambridge had little significance. Of the 28 Lancashire justices who were ordinarily resident in the county and who were on the commission for at least five years and who went to either Oxford or Cambridge only ten (35.7%) were good attenders at quarter sessions. Of the justices fulfilling the same criteria, but who attended one of the Inns of Court without then becoming a professional lawyer, about 61% were good attenders at quarter sessions. But this percentage only involved eight men out of a total of Lancashire J.Ps. 51 thirteen, so its significance as a determinant of diligence amongst the JPs is limited. 83 Barristers were urged to attend quarter sessions by the Council and in the manuals for justices writeen by men like William Lambarde and Michael Dalton. In some areas, such as Somerset, Kent and Hampshire, they were notably sedulous.84 However, in Lancashire, of the seventeen JPs who were barristers, only two were good attenders at sessions. Many of the others, such as Roger Downes, the Vice-Chamberlain of Chester, and the London-based Orlando Bridgeman, Bishop Bridgeman's son, probably spent too long out of the county in pursuing their careers to be frequent or effective parti­ cipants in county government. Of course, the level of diligence displayed by individual justices was ultimately a matter of personal preference, but the hard work of the lower- and middle-ranking justices might most satisfactorily be explained by the fact that they were closely involved in the communities in which they lived, or more closely involved than their higher ranking colleagues.85 Little work has been done on the realities of social structure and social attitudes in early modern Lan­ cashire. In fact, the need for more information stretches beyond Lancashire. In his survey of crime in early modern England, J.A. Sharpe has remarked upon the need for more to be discovered about 'the ideological viewpoints' of the justices. 86 Equally we know little about what most justices felt was the most vital part of their work. The few who have left detailed information about their activities are not typical, simply because of that fact. Obviously much more research must be done on the communities of early seventeenth-century Lancashire before we can explain with any confidence these problems, but it does seem likely in the light of our knowledge so far that the hard work of the lower- and middle-ranking Lancashire JPs, and the nature of that work, has something to do with their perceptions of their position in local society and in their relationships with their neighbours and the local communities of which they were a part. It is, therefore, highly significant in determining the motivation of the most active justices in Lancashire that the courts of quarter sessions in Lancashire before the Civil War displayed very little concern with what can be seen as 'regulatory' justice or order. The JPs appear to have had little interest in reforming the manners of the people of Lancashire, in the way that some justices desired to in, for 52 D.J. \Vilkinson

example, Essex.87 There is little sign too that the village notables of Lancashire had any desire to impose any new concept of order on their less reputable, and poorer, neigh­ bours.88 Order in Lancashire seems to have meant for the JPs and the grand jurors of the county a negative concept, encapsulated by Keith Wrightson's definition as an 'absence of disruptive conflict locally'.89 The JPs were only resorted to when other more local methods of control had broken down. The discretionary, negotiative element in local government predominated over the desire to impose regulation. Lancashire justices seem to have been sensitive to the practices of their poorer neighbours and to have followed policies of law enforcement which minimised their active interference in village and parish life. 90 It is quite possible that some gentlemen and JPs looked with sympa­ thy or, at least, tolerance on the customs and practices of their social inferiors, even when these were often indecorous or disorderly. Such was the case with charivaris.91 Alehouses, too, could be viewed with a tolerance that recognised their essential position in the realities of the lives of very many of the people over whom JPs exercised jurisdiction. This was despite the fact that many socially and economically superior men, especially those of 'puritan' disposition, regarded alehouses as 'nurseries of naughti- nesse', dens of iniquity which ought to be closely regulated and restricted in numbers. 92 In some cases this lenity might have stretched to actual patronage of alehouses. For instance, there is evidence that one Lancashire esquire frequented them, perhaps on a regular basis. Nicholas Assheton of Downham was not a justice, but he was a scion of the Assheton family of Whalley who regularly provided members of the commission of the peace. He had a wide circle of friends and acquaintances in Lancashire, ranging from JPs and 'Puritan' preachers to men of much humbler status in his locality. 93 He was a convivial man. There are in his diary, which partially covers the years 1617-18, eighteen references to various degrees of intoxication he experienced, from 'merrie' to 'sicke with drinke'.94 It would not be over-stating matters to say that Assheton was addicted to the chase. Hunting, of different types, is mentioned over thirty times in his diary. And yet he also heard more than forty sermons according to the diary, and twice visited London to pursue a case in which he had an interest in the Court of Wards.93 It would obviously be rash to construct a broad generalisation on the behaviour Lancashire J.Ps. 53 of one man who was not even a JP, but could it be that Assheton was not alone and that, if evidence had survived, there would be more cases of men of high status who were able to combine attendance at sermons and diligence in the business of local government with, arguably, less decorous pleasures amongst a wide range of social contacts both in and beyond their own status groups? It has been widely accepted that in early modern England 'the main division in lay society was between gentlemen and plebeians'. 96 Certainly this was assumed by contemporary commentators, even if disagreements on the properties of being a gentleman existed.97 However, it is becoming clear that the divisions between the degrees and status groups of society were not as clear-cut as some historians have maintained. 98 After all, social distinctions at some levels must have been very hard to gauge, particularly in early seventeenth century Lancashire where there seems to have been considerable social mobility. 99 Ascriptions of status might also at times be of dubious worth. John Morrill has pointed out the existence of 'functional' gentlemen, men who were described as gentlemen only in the records of the court of quarter sessions but as of lesser status elsewhere, amongst the grand jurors of Cheshire. 100 Lancashire's large numbers of grand jurymen contained a similar 'functional' gentry. 101 On occasions in Lancashire, alehousekeepers were described as gentlemen, and in one list of licensed alehousekeepers virtually all the males are described as yeomen. 102 The precise significance of this is not easy to determine, but it certainly warns against the rigid compartmentalisation of men into separate status groups and it probably tells us that the Lancashire justices, or some of them at any rate, did not regard alehousekeepers as completely unworthy of respect. It implies, too, that Lan­ cashire's JPs perceived their relationship with the commu­ nities they were a part of in a way which was markedly different from the way in which many of the JPs in, for example, Essex regarded their role. The reasons for the distinction between Essex and Lan­ cashire are by no means clear. Wrightson has suggested that regulatory intervention against the sexual behaviour of the poor in Essex was a function of economic change and the impact of Puritanism and improved educational opportuni­ ties for some in village society. 105 Puritanism seems to have made little impact in Lancashire, apart from in the south­ east of the county, but its importance as a cause of the 54 D.J. Wilkinson increased regulatory intervention of 'the authorities' in local society in Essex has recently been questioned by Margaret Spufford. 104 Increased regulation of the lives of the poor, she argues, was a product of economic difficulties, whether in the period between c.1590 c. 1630 or in the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Puritanism was not an essential part of the equation. Lancashire was undergoing its share of economic change in the early seventeenth century, and it was, of course, not immune to the economic dislocation brought about by a rising population, inflation, harvest failures, and, in some areas, the dislocation of the cloth trade. 105 And yet the Lancashire courts of quarter sessions are barely concerned at all with regulatory order in the period before the Civil War. Certainly this could be partly explained by the absence of a strong group of 'puritan-minded' JPs in Lancashire. There were 'puritan' justices in the county. They seem to have persuaded the single assize judge sitting at Lancaster in August 1616 to issue a set of orders designed to enforce stricter observance of the Sabbath in the county. 106 These orders were overruled by James I's Declaration of Sports of 1617, which was granted in response to a petition to the king by a number of Lancashire gentlemen. The orders of 1616 made no observable impact on the government of the county, and it is very hard to discern any clear religious motivation in the activities of the justices before the Civil War. The suppression of alehouses was quite rare, and was as likely to be undertaken by magis­ trates with Catholic sympathies as by their clearly Protes­ tant colleagues. 108 There is no sign, for instance, that Oswald Mosley, a 'puritan' magistrate, acted differently from many of his colleagues. He might have noted down resolutions in his note-book about the Sabbath, but that note-book contains no substantial evidence that he tried to enforce those resolutions. 109 Moreover, public posturing about problems, such as the lack of respect for the Sabbath, might not have necessarily led to the desire to undertake actions to eradicate them. The enforcement of the recu­ sancy laws was obviously much moderated by the wide­ spread desire of the law enforcers in the localities to live 'in reasonable harmony' with their Catholic neighbours, despite much comment in Parliament about their neglect. 110 In Elizabethan Lancashire, magistrates and preachers could be both neglectful of their duties and hypocritical in their fulminations about the weakness Lancashire J.Ps. 55

of others to effect reform in the behaviour of their neigh- hours. 111 All this suggests that the nature of the motivation of the justices of Lancashire was different from that of their counterparts in some other counties. The Lancashire justices of the early Stuart period seem to have conformed to William Lambarde's ideal, expressed in the first chapter of the Eirenarcha on 'Why Justices of Peace be, and why they are called Justices': 'For Justices of the Peace were not ordained (as some have thought) to the end to reduce the people to an universall unanimitie (or agreement of mindes) . . . but to supresse iniurious force and violence, mooved against the person, his goods, or possessions'. They were to provide 'a restraining of hands', not a strait-jacketing of the people into a single mode of behaviour. The busiest JPs in Lancashire were those who conformed to this model." 2 This should not be especially surprising when it is remem­ bered that most justices acted when they were sought out by other people who wanted them to act. There were probably few JPs anywhere who had the time, inclination or energy to actually impose new standards of behaviour on their communities. Even in Essex, JPs frequently acted in response to pressure brought to bear on them by the village notables who were seeking to preserve, and strengthen, their own position in their villages. This implies that most JPs were prepared to tolerate much of what went on in their localities, unless others were prepared to try to enforce new standards of behaviour which could not be compelled by more local sanctions, such as neighbourly disapproval or through the courts leet." 3 The way in which the justices appear to have been consulted in Lancashire suggests that there existed a strong sense of community between them and those neighbours who would have been likely to call on their services. This interpretation of magisterial motivation might also have a bearing on our earlier discussion of the relationship between a justice's social status and his diligence. Longer established JPs who became knights or baronets might have been happy to allow the extent of their social differentiation from their neighbouring communities to increase because this was what they desired. They might simply have become less approachable, or, on the other hand, they might have been less sought out by their neighbours because these men saw knights and baronets as being less approachable and more remote from their communities, unless the JPs in 56 D.J. Wilkinson question acted positively to reverse that impression. 114 Thus busy JPs were likely to be those men who either had or who fostered a close relationship with their neighbours. This, of course, means that diligence was not purely a product of a desire for reputation.

Ill

The local nature of most JPs' work might be taken as convincing evidence that most justices in Lancashire had little national awareness, or even county-wide awareness. This would be a mistake. JPs might have been closely involved in their own communities in Lancashire but their horizons were not limited to the local alehouse or the local court of quarter sessions. It is significant that JPs who attended more than their own local court went to Manches­ ter or Preston. Manchester was a developing commercial centre and Preston was the centre of the Palatinate and Duchy administrations in the county and a market of widening importance." 5 Both of these features would have given visiting justices an opportunity to broaden their social horizons. Socially, the upper gentry of Lancashire had wide connections within the county, and even nationally. 116 County consciousness was enhanced by Lancashire's pecu­ liar institution for co-ordinating the work of the JPs on county-wide matters, the Sheriffs Table. It was usual for all the four courts of quarter sessions within Lancashire to have at least one representative at the twice-yearly meetings during Assize week at Lancaster. 117 Besides, the clerk of the peace must have provided valuable points of contact between benches as he travelled between the various quarter sessions' sites. Certainly JPs in Lancashire would have had many different loyalties to different communities, but, as elsewhere, there is no reason to regard these loyalties as mutually exclusive. The subtle inter-changing of the meaning of the word 'country' was probably as appro­ priate and as well understood in Lancashire, as it was by Sir Richard Grosvenor and his listeners in Cheshire in the 1620s." 8 The Privy Council might have found Lancashire slow to respond to some of its initiatives. The Book of Orders of 1631 was not put into immediate effect, but this tardiness should not be interpreted as an incontrovertible sign of isolation. 119 Lancashire men had plenty of other opportuni­ ties for contact with England as a whole and with London's Lancashire J.Ps. 57 affairs. The collection of Ship Money in the 1630s would have enhanced awareness of the national political scene, as it did almost everywhere else. 120 Parliamentary elections and attendance at Assizes would have promoted national awareness. 121 By 1640 Parliamentary elections in Lan­ cashire were, as the Kenyon correspondence clearly demon­ strates, the cause of considerable interest and excitement; interest and excitement which were far more nationally orientated than the heated election at Wigan in 1628 had been. 122 Recent work on the way in which news of political events was spread through England shows that, certainly by 1640, few places could have been ignorant of the nation in which they lived. 123 There is every reason to believe that the justices of Lancashire would have been well informed of what was going on in their country. This would have had some effect on their performance as JPs because they were aware that they were part of a national system of government, and the government in Westminster and through its agents, the Assize judges, increasingly in the early seventeenth century sought to influence what the JPs did in their localities. But, while the national government helped to set up the framework in which the JPs worked, motivation for participation in magisterial business did not originate in London. It was essentially local in origin. The performance of the justices of the peace was another illustration of the increasing integration of national and local concerns in early Stuart Lancashire. 124

NOTES

1 A. Fletcher, Reform in the Provinces: The Government of Stuart England (1986). 2 E.g. Cynthia B. Herrup, 'Law and Morality in Seventeenth Century England', Past and Present, CVI (1985), pp. 102-23; idem, The Common Peace: Participation and the Criminal Law in Seventeenth Century England (Cambridge, 1987). 3 Fletcher, Reform in the Provs., p. 143. 4 E.G. Blackwood, 'The Economic State of the Lancashire Gentry on the Eve of the Civil War', Northern History, XII (1976), p. 54. 5 Fletcher, Reform in the Provs., pp. 147-50. 6 J. Hurstfield, 'County Government, C.1530-C.1660', The Victoria History of the County of Wiltshire, ed. R.B. Pugh, V (London, 1957), p. 90. 7 G.C.F. Forster, The East Riding Justices of the Peace in the Seventeenth Century (East Riding Local History Society, XXX, Guisborough, 1973), p. 30. 58 D.J. Wilkinson

8 J.H. Gleason, The Justices of the Peace in England, 1558-1640 (Oxord. 1969), p. 30. 9 A.H. Smith, 'Justices at Work in Elizabethan Norfolk', Norfolk Archaeology, XXXIV (1969), pp. 95, 108. 10 I. Bovven, 'Grand Juries, Justices of the Peace, and Quarter Sessions in Wales', Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, 1942, p. 110; Calendar of the Caernarvonshire Quarter Sessions Records, 1541- 1558, ed. W.O. Williams (1956), p. xxxviii. 11 P. Clark, English Provincial Society from the Reformation to the Revolution: Religion, Politics and Society in Kent, 1500-1640 (1977), pp. 144-6. 12 B.W. Quintrell, 'The Government of the County of Essex, 1603- 1642' (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of London, 1965), p. 67; G.C.F. Forster, 'The North Riding Justices of the Peace and their Sessions, 1603-1625', Northern History, X (1975), p. 112. 13 B.E. Harris, 'Palatine Institutions and County Government', in The Victoria History of the County of Chester, ed. B.E. Harris, II (1979), p. 80; G.P. Higgins, 'County Government and Society in Cheshire, c.1590-1640' (unpubl. M.A. thesis, Univ. of Liverpool, 1973), pp. 85-6. 14 A. Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex, 1600-1660 (1976), pp. 219-20. ' 15 Lancashire Record Office [hereafter LRO], QSR 4-39, passim. The attendance lists can also be compared with the draft order books, LRO, QSO 2/1-17: order books, 1626-41. 16 For example, LRO, QSR 13/Manchester, 18 Apr., 18 July 1616; Manchester Sessions, 1616-22/3, ed. E. Axon (Lancashire and Cheshire Record Society, XLII, 1901), pp. 9, 12. 17 These records are also incomplete in the sixteenth century. J.B. Watson, 'The Lancashire Gentry and Public Service, 1529-1558', Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society [T.L.C.A.S.], LXXIII-LXXIV (1963-4), p. 27. 18 Minutes of Proceedings in Quarter Sessions for Kesteven, 1674-1695, ed. S.A. Peyton (Lincoln Record Society, XXVI-XXVII, Lincoln, 1931), pp. xxi-xxxii; L.K.J. Glassey, Politics and the. Appointment of Justices of the Peace, 1675-1720 (Oxford; 1979), pp. 22-3. 19 Historical Manuscripts Commission [hereafter HMC], Kenyan Mss, p. 54; George Heywood to George Rigby, 24 Aug. 1636. 20 D.J. Wilkinson, 'The Commission of the Peace in Lancashire, 1603-1642', Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire [T.H.S.L.C.], CXXXII (1983), pp. 54-5. For the business of the court, see id., 'The Justices of the Peace and their Work in Lancashire, 1603-1642' (unpubl. M.Litt. thesis, Univ. of Oxford, 1982), pp. 128-45. 21 LRO, QSR 9/Lancaster, 28 Apr. 1606; QSR 17/Preston, 4 Oct. 1620. 22 For Lancaster's record from 1640, see LRO, QSR 37-9. For sessions with three JPs only, see, for example, LRO, QSR 22/Preston, 6 July 1625; 29/Preston, 6 Oct. 1632; 20/Wigan, 13 Oct. 1623; 7/ Ormskirk, 23 Apr. 1604. For Manchester with five JPs, see LRO, QSR 18/Manchester, 11 Oct. 1621; 3I/Manchester, 22 Jan. 1635. 23 Wilkinson, T.H.S.L.C., CXXXII, p. 43. 24 LRO, QSR 13/Lancaster, 8 July; Preston, 10 Apr., 10 July, 2 Oct.; Ormskirk, 15 July; Wigan 7 Oct.; Manchester, 18 July, 10 Oct. 1616. 25 LRO, QSR 7/Manchester, 16 Apr. 1605; QSR 8/Ormskirk, 15 Apr. Lancashire J. Ps. 59

1605; QSR 9/Lancaster, 28 Apr. 1606. All his other attendances were at Preston. 26 R. Somerville, Office-Holders in the Duchy and County Palatine of Lancaster from 1603 (1972), p. 104; B. Coward", The Stanleys, Lords Stanley and Earls of Derby, 1385-1672 (Chetham Society, 3rd series, XXX, 1~983), p. 91. Rigby's attendance record, as a percentage of the total number of sessions he could have attended in his time on the commission, was: Preston, 78.3%; West Derby, 86.3%. 27 It has also been suggested that the attendance record of Alexander Rigby, the son of Edward Rigby, could have indicated that he was deputy cuslos rotulorum. Alexander's record was not as good as his father's. D.P. Carter, 'The Lancashire Lieutenancy: An Aspect of County Administration in the period 1625-1640' (unpubl. M.A. thesis, Univ. of Manchester, 1973), p. 283. Alexander Rigby's attendance record was: Lancaster, 59.7%; Preston, 43%; West Derby, 20%. Edmund Fleetwood's attendance record was: Preston, 79.4%; West Derby, 36.2%; Manchester, 44%. For the 1616 Assize order, see Proceedings of the Lancashire Justices of the Peace at the Sheriffs Table During Assizes Week, 1578-1694, ed. B.W. Quintrell (Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, CXXI, 1981), pp. 72-3. 28 Their attendance records were: Calvert: Lancaster, 93.3%; Preston, 40.8%. Rawstorne: Manchester, 66.2%; Preston, 45.5%. Rigby, see n. 27. 29 The mean of JPs attending at two sessions or more between 1618 and 1629 was 4.3. Between 1630 and 1641, it was 3.5. 30 LRO, QSR 23/Wigan 9 Oct. 1626; 24/Wigan, 8 Oct. 1627, 14 Jan. 1628; 25/Ormskirk, 14 Jul. 1628; 25/Wigan 13 Oct. 1628; 26/ Wigan, 12 Oct. 1629, 18 Jan. 1630; 28/Manchester, 28 Apr. 1631. 31 They were Sir Thomas Walmesley, an Assize judge and Henry Parker, a son of Lord Morley. LRO,' QSR 6/Preston, 5 Oct. 1603, 11 Jan. 1604; QSR 26/Lancaster, 5 Apr., 4 Oct. 1630. 32 Watson, T.L.C.A.S., LXXIII-LXXIV, pp. 28-32. 33 LRO, QSR 17-39/sessions at Preston. 34 They were Sir Richard Assheton, Sir Robert Bindloss, Sir Nicholas Mosley, Sir Edmund Trafford and Sir Cecil TrafFord. 35 For example, Sir Thomas Tyldesley: between 1601 and April 1616, he attended 61.5% of the meetings at Preston. Between July 1616 and October 1634, he attended only 5.4% of them. 36 Wilkinson, T.H.S.L.C., CXXXII, p. 53; HMC, Kenyan Mss, pp. 11-13. 37 LRO, QSR 12-20/sessions at Manchester. Leigh attended 61.2% of the meetings between 1615 and October 1639, and Turner 64.4% of the meetings between 1615 and July 1633. 38 LRO, QSR 19/Manchester, 10 Oct. 1622; Wilkinson, T.H.S.L.C., CXXXII, p. 49. Gerard Massey, rector of Wigan, also attended one meeting in 1615. He died in January 1616. LRO, QSR 12/Ormskirk, 17 July 1615. 39 Booth's attendance record can be traced in LRO, QSR 12-39/ sessions at Manchester. For Booth in Cheshire, see J.S. Morrill, Cheshire, 1630-1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), pp. 9, 57, 65-9; A. Fletcher, The Outbreak of the English Civil War (1981), pp. 360, 379. 40 For fuller details, see Wilkinson, 'The Justices of the Peace and their Work in Lancashire', pp. 122-3, 199-200. For Covell as county- gaoler, see Quintrell, The Sheriff's Table, pp. 45, 183. 60 D.J. Wilkinson

41 Wilkinson, T.H.S.L.C., CXXXII, p. 53. 42 LRO, Kenyon of Peel Mss., DDKe 9/11/23, Edward Bridgeman to George Rigby, 24 Apr. 1631; 12/5, Edward Bridgeman to George Rigby, 12 Jul. 1631. Other JPs were also discomfited by the plague of 1630-1: see HMC, Kenyon Mss, pp. 44-5, 47, 48. 43 For another example of ill-health preventing attendance, see LRO, QSB 1/121/19; for absence in London, see Public Record Office [hereafter PRO], SP 16/395/105. 44 The others were Sir Ralph Assheton, John Braddill, William Johnson, Sir Gilbert Hoghton, John Osbaldeston, and Edward Rawstorne. 45 Starkey's attendance record at Preston, between 1624 and 1642 was 36.2%. 46 The statements about out of sessions activity are based on analysis of the recognizance files for the 1620s and 1630s, LRO, QSB 1/4 223. For Trafford's recusancy, see Wilkinson, T.H.S.L.C., CXXXII, p. 53. For other possible explanations of the diligence of men like Trafford, see pp. 48-49 below. 47 Hurstfield, V.C.H. Wilts V, pp. 91-2; Smith, Norfolk Archaeology, XXXIV, p. 108; W.B. Willcox, Gloucestershire: A Study in Local Government, 1590-1640 (New Haven, 1940), p. 71 n. 91. 48 See p. 41 above. 49 LRO, QSB 1/34, 38, 42, 46. 50 LRO, QSB 1/83, 87, 91, 95. 51 B.W. Quintrell, 'Lancashire ills, the King's will and the troubling of Bishop Bridgeman', T.H.S.L.C., CXXXII (1983), pp. 67-102 deals brilliantly with Bridgeman's discomfiture at this time, 1633. 52 PRO, SP 16/273/23; 351/31; 364/122; 382/81. 53 K. Sharpe, 'The Personal Rule of Charles I' in H. Tomlinson (ed.), Before the English Civil War (London, 1983), pp. 60-1. 54 LRO, QSB V161/36; 1 Mary, stat.2 c.8; LRO, QSR 32/Wigan, 18 Jan. 1636; Quintrell, The Sheriffs Table, pp. 13-16. 55 B.C. Blackwood, 'The Lancashire Gentry, 1625-1660: A Social and Economic Study' (unpubl. D.Phil, thesis, Univ. of Oxford, 1973), p. 91. 56 E.g., LRO, QSB 1/141/1, 14, 21-3, 40, 44, 52; PRO, SP 16/273/55; 330/19; 385/13; 365/19. 57 Wilkinson, 'The Justices of the Peace and their work in Lancashire', pp. 67-8. 58 See p. 48 below. 59 The only records are contained in the State Paper Collections in the PRO. Forty-seven reports relate to Lancashire. There is a passing reference to a 'meeting for the poor' at Manchester in July 1631. This was probably a monthly meeting, or a meeting; in accordance with the statute, 7 James I c.4. LRO, QSR 28/Manchester, 14 Jul. 1631. Monthly meetings were still being held in 1640; LRO, QSR 37/Lancaster, 14 Apr. 1640. 60 Those other than esquires who attended monthly meetings were: Bishop Bridgeman, Sir Ralph Assheton, William Leigh and Sir Cecil Trafford. 61 PRO, PC 2/48, ff.329-30; Privy Council to JPs of Lancashire, 31 Oct. 1638; SP 16/379/12: 'A liste of the names of all the lycensed Alehousekeepers within the County of Lancaster', Feb. 1638. 62 LRO, QSB 3/2/1: Eccleston, 9 Dec. 1619. 63 E.g., LRO, QSB 3/6/3: Bolton, 13 Oct. 1628; 3/7/4: Bolton, 17 Nov. 1629: 3/8/3: Bolton, 1630. Lancashire J.Ps. 61

64 E.g. for Trafford, LRO, QSB 3/7/6: Manchester, 1 May 1629; 3/15/6: Manchester, 25 Apr. 1637. For Gerard, LRO. QSB 3/6/7: for part of West Derby, 1628: QSB 3/10/4: for part of West Derby, 1632. 65 Radcliffe; LRO, QSB 3/51: Manchester. 12 May 1631: QSB 3/10/2: Manchester, 11 March 1632. Hoghton; LRO, QSB 3/13/3: at Hoghton, 1635. Assheton; LRO, QSB 3/13/4'; Blackburn hundred, 1635. Molyneux; LRO, QSB 3/7/9: for part of West Derby, 17 Apr. 1629: QSB 3/8/9: Halsall. 28 Apr. 1630. 66 Axon, Manchester Sessions, pp. 34 78, 1 9. 67 C. Read, 'William Lambarde's Emphemeris, 1580-1588', Huntington Library Quarter!}', XV (1951-2), pp. 130-1: Fletcher, Reform in the Provs., ch. 5. 68 T.G. Barnes, Somerset, 1625-1660: A County's Government During the 'Personal Rule' (1961), pp. 299IT. For a similar interpretation for Cheshire, see Morrill, Cheshire, 1630-1660, p. 16. 69 Fletcher, Sussex, 1600-1660, pp. 218-26. 70 If an attendance rate of 50% is used instead of 60%, 35% of the knights and baronets would be 'good attenders' compared with 78% of the esquires. These figures are confined to justices who were on the commission for at least five years and who were ordinarily- resident in the county. 71 A. Fletcher, 'Honour, Reputation and Officeholding in Elizabethan and Stuart England" in A. Fletcher and J. Stevenson (eds.), Order and Disorder in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1985), p. 93. 72 Fletcher in Fletcher and Stevenson. Order and Disorder, p. 92. 73 Blackwood, 'The Lancashire Gentry', p. 90. 74 Lancashire Quarter Sessions Records, 1590-1606, ed. J. Tait (C.S., n.s., LXXVII, 1917), pp. 183-4. /5 Coward, The Stanleys, pp. 41 58. 76 Carter, 'The Lancashire Lieutenancy', p. 6. 77 LRO, QSR 26/Preston, 13 Jan. 1630. 78 LRO, QSB 1/35/58, 57. 79 Coward, The Stanleys, pp. 168-72. 80 LRO, QSR 18/Wigan, 8 Oct. 1621; QSR 21/Ormskirk, 12 Jul. 1624; QSR 23/Ormskirk, 17 Jul. 1626. See n.65 above. 81 C.R. Mayes, 'The Early Stuarts and the Irish Peerage', English Historical Review [E.H.R.], LXXIII (1958), pp. 148-50. 82 Wilkinson, 'The Justices of the Peace and their Work in Lan­ cashire', pp. 91 2. 83 These figures are based on analysis of the educational records of the Lancashire JPs. 84 Gleason, The Justices of the Peace, pp. 105 112. 85 By my use of the word 'community' I do not mean that there is a relatively simple model of 'a county community' in which the JPs worked. For the complexities of county society elsewhere, see Ann L. Hughes, 'Warwickshire on the Eve of the Civil War: A County Community?', Midland History VII (1982), pp. 42-72. More gen­ erally, see K. Wrightson, English Society, 1580-1680 (London, 1982); A. Fletcher and J. Stevenson, 'Introduction' in Fletcher and Steven­ son, Order and Disorder, pp. 1 15. 86 J.A. Sharpe, Crime in Early Modern England, 1550-1750 (London, 1984), p. 16. 87 K. Wrightson, 'Two concepts of order: justices, constables and jurymen in seventeenth century England' in J. Brewer and J. Styles 62 D.J. Wilkinson

(eds.), An L 'ngovernable People: The English and their Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (London, 1980), pp. 21-46. 88 WJ. King, 'Prosecution of Illegal Behaviour in Seventeenth Century England with Emphasis on Lancashire' (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Michigan, 1977). 89 VV'rightson in Brewer and Styles, An Ungovernable People, p. 24. 90 I hope to demonstrate this more fully elsewhere. For instances of negotiative justice, see Herrup, Past and Present, CVI, pp. 102-23. 91 M. Ingram, 'Ridings, Rough Music and the "Reform of Popular Culture" in Early Modern England', Past and Present, CV (1984), pp. 79-113. 92 S.K. Roberts, 'Alehouses, brewing and government under the early Stuarts', Southern History, II (1980), pp. 48-9; Fletcher, Reform in the Provs., pp. 229-52; K. Wrightson, 'Alehouses, order and reformation in rural England. 1590-1660' in E. and S. Yeo (eds.), Popular Culture and Class Conflict, 1590-1914 (Hassocks, 1981), pp. 1-27; P. Clark, The English Alehouse: A Social History, 1200-1830 (London, 1983), ch. 6; K. Wrightson, 'The Puritan Reformation of Manners, with special reference to the counties of Lancashire and Essex, 1640 1660' (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Cambridge, 1973), chs. 4-5. 93 The Journal oj Nicholas Assheton ofDownham, ed. F.R. Raines (C.S. XIV, 1848). There are references to at least fifteen Lancashire JPs in the diary. 94 Raines, Journal of Nicholas Assheton, pp. 21, 23, 26, 31, 35-6, 49, 50, 61, 68, 69, 73, 74, 83, 84, 87, 88, 100, 107, 129. 95 Raines, Journal of Nicholas Assheton, pp. 110-119; 123-30 for the visits to London. Hunting and sermons occur too frequently to list. 96 B.G. Blackwood, The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion 1640-1660 (C.S. 3rd ser., XXV, 1978), p. 10. 97 J.P. Cooper, 'Ideas of Gentility in Early-Modern England' in id.. Land, Men and Beliefs ed. G.E. Aylmer and J.S. Morrill (1983), pp. 43-77. 98 K. Wrightson, 'Estates, Degrees and Sorts in Tudor and Stuart England', History Today, XXXVII (Jan. 1987), pp. 17-22. These ideas are developed at greater length and sophistication in idem, 'The Social Order of Early Modern England: Three Approaches' in L. Bonfield, R.M. Smith and K. Wrightson (eds.), The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure (Oxford, 1986), pp. 177-202. 99 Blackwood, The Lancashire Gentry, pp. 18-21. 100 J.S. Morrill, The Cheshire Grand Jury, 1625-1659: A Social and Administra­ tive Study (Dept. of English Local History, Leicester University, Occasional Papers, 3rd ser. I, Leicester, 1976), p. 19. 101 Wilkinson, 'The Justices of the Peace and their Work in Lan­ cashire', pp. 87-90. 102 Tait, Lancashire Quarter Sessions Records, p. xv; LRO, QSB 3/14/2: Ulverston, 17 May 1636. 103 K. Wrightson and D. Levine, Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling," 1525-1700 (London, 1979), esp. chs. 5^6. 104 R.C. Richardson, Puritanism in north-west England: a regional study of the diocese of Chester to 1642 (Manchester, 1972), esp. pp. 7-17; M. Spufford, 'Puritanism and Social Control?' in Fletcher and Steven­ son, Order and Disorder, pp. 41-57. 105 For a part of Lancashire facing severe economic problems at this time, see J.T. Swain, Industry before the Industrial Revolution: North-East Lancashire J. Ps. 63

Lancashire, c.150(1-1640 (C.S.. 3rd ser., XXXII. 1986). 106 Quintrell, The Sheriffs Table, pp. 72-3. 107 J. Tail. 'The Declaration of Sports for Lancashire, 1617'. E.H.R. 'XXXII (1917), pp. 561-8. 108 E.g. by Thomas Covell, LRO, QSB 3/6/1, 2, 4: Lancaster, July 1628. 109 Axon. Manchester Sessions, pp. 15 17. 110 C. Russell. Parliaments and English Politics. 1621-1629 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 154 5; B.\V. Quintrell, "The Practice and Problems of Recusant Disarming. 1585-1641', Recusant History XVII (1984-5), pp. 208-22. 111 C. Haigh, 'Puritan Evangelism in trie reign of Elizabeth', E.H.R. XCII (1977), esp. pp. 34^46. 112 William Lambarde, Eirenarcha, or Of The Office of the Justices oj Peace (London, 2nd ed., 1592), pp. 7, 9. 113 Wrightson, English Society, pp. 155-9. 114 There is perhaps a parallel here with the model for JPs behaviour in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, suggested by Norma Landau's work. She differentiated between the 'patriarchal' justice the head of local society dispensing law in his community and the 'patrician' justice - a middle- or lower-ranking gentleman, less rooted in the community, administering the affairs of a community of which he was not the natural head. See Norma Landau, The Justices of the Peace, 1679-1760 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1984), pp. 1-6, 359-62. I am grateful to Dr. Lionel Glassey for pointing this out to me. 115 T.S. Willan, Elizabethan Manchester (C.S.. 3rd ser. XXVII, 1980), pp. 124 9; H.B. Rodgers, 'The Market Area of Preston in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries', Geographical Studies, III (1956), pp. 52-5. 116 B.W. Quintrell, 'Government in Perspective: Lancashire and the Privy Council, 1570-1640', T.H.S.L.C. CXXXI (1982), pp. 38-9; Wilkinson. 'The Justices of the Peace and their Work in Lan­ cashire', pp. 70 3. Blackwood, The Lancashire Gentry, ch. 1, tends to stress the insularity of the gentry. 117 Wilkinson, 'The Justices of the Peace and their Work in Lan­ cashire', p. 159. 118 R. Cust and P.G. Lake, 'Sir Richard Grosvenor and the Rhetoric of Magistracy', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research LIV (1981), pp. 48-50.' 119 Quintrell, T.H.S.L.C., CXXXI, pp. 53-5. 120 The history of Lancashire's experiences with ship money remains unwritten, but there are numerous references to the county in the State Paper collections: e.g. Calendar of the State Papers Domestic, 1636-7, pp. 207-8, 233, 286, 439, 457; R. Ashton, The English Civil War: Conservatism and Revolution, 1603-1649 (London, 1978), pp. 63-6. 121 C. Holmes, 'The "County Community" in Stuart Historiography', Journal of British Studies (j. Brit. Studs], XIX (1980), pp. 62-5; A. Fletcher, 'National and Local Awareness in the County Commu­ nities' in Tomlinson, Before the Civil War, pp. 173 4. 122 LRO, DDKe 9/23/5, 29, 52, 53, 56, 57; D. Hirst, The Representative of the People? Voters and Voting in England under the Earlv Stuarts (Cam­ bridge, 1975), pp. 114-15; N.N. Foster, 'The Peasantry and the Aristocracy: A Study of Peasant-Gentry relations in Peace and War, 1600-1715, with special reference to Lancashire (unpubl. M.A. thesis, Univ. of Manchester, 1977), pp. 111-30. 123 FJ. Levy, 'How Information Spread Among the Gentry, 1550- 64 D.J. Wilkinson

1640', J. Brit. Studs, XXI (1982), pp. 11-34; R. Cust, 'News and Politics in Early Seventeenth Century England', Past and Present, CXII (Aug. 1986), pp. 60-90. 124 I am very grateful to Dr. L.K.J. Glassey and Dr. B.VV. Quintrell for their encouragement and comments on an earlier draft of this article.

APPENDIX DILIGENCE OUT OF SESSIONS: AMOUNDERNESS AND BLACKBURN HUNDREDS, 1626-1641 a) This part of the appendix indicates the JPs who signed most documents each year. The justices who were second and third are listed in (b) below. After the most diligent justice, the percentage of documents which he signed is listed. The total of signatures in that year is then given, followed by the number of men who signed at least one document in the year, and the mean number of documents each individual signed.

Year Most diligent JP % of docls. Total No. of No. of Mean no. of signed signatures individuals docts per JP

1626 Richard Burgh 31.5 127 17 7.5 1627 Richard Burgh 17.9 173 16 10.8 1628 Richard Burgh 21.5 107 15 7.1 1629 John Starkey 17.1 146 14 10.4 1630 John Starkev 14.5 186 19 9.8 1631 Edward Veale 20.8 120 17 7.1 1632 John Osbaldeston 25.2 258 15 17.2 1633 John Starkey 16.7 108 13 8.3 1634 Edward Rawstorne 14.0 186 17 10.9 1635 William Johnson 11.9 151 19 7.9 1636 Ric. Shuttleworth 17.4 178 22 8.1 1637 Savil Radcliffe 16.6 169 15 11.3 1638 Alexander Rigbv 14.7 183 16 11.4 1639 Alexander Rigby 19.1 115 20 5.7 1640 Edward Veale 15.4 123 19 6.5 1641 Sir Gilbert Hoghton 20.2 168 15 11.2 b) Justices who were second and third in the totals of signatories

Second Third

1626 Sir Ralph Assheton Richard Shuttleworth 1627 William Sudell3 Sir Gilbert Hoghton 1628 Richard Shuttleworth Edward Veale6^ 1629 Richard Burgh' John Braddill 1630 Richard Shuttleworth Richard Burghd 1631 Richard Burgh William Johnson1' Lancashire J.Ps. 65

1632 Sir Ralph Assheton John Starkey 1633 John Osbaldeston Richard Shuttleworth 1634 John Osbaldeston1 Richard Shuttleworth 1635 Alexander Rigby J°'ln Starkeyg 1636 Sir Ralph Assheton Richard Burgh 1637 John Starkeyh Alexander Rigby 1638 Edward Veale Savil Raddifte 1639 Edward Veale Richard Shuttleworth 1640 Alexander Rigby Richard Shuttleworth 1641 Alexander Rigby John Braddill a Sudell was a mayor of Preston. Occasionally, mayors took examin­ ations and recognizances, although they were not on the commission for the county. Sudeil was unusually active in this. b Radcliffe Assheton shared the same total. c Richard Shuttleworth shared the same total. d Edward Veale shared the same total. e John Osbaldeston shared the same total. f John Starkey shared the same total. g Richard Shuttleworth shared the same total. h Radcliffe Assheton shared the same total.