THE COMMISSION OF THE PEACE IN LANCASHIRE, 1603-1642

D.J. Wilkinson, B.A., M.Litt.

HE justices of the peace and their work in early Stuart T Lancashire have been little studied by historians, despite the ample records of their activities which survive in the Lancashire Record Office. Some recent work, notably by Keith Wrightson, 1 has begun to remedy this situation, but much remains to be done. This essay is a study of the structure of the commission of the peace in early seventeenth century Lancashire. It analyses the changing size of the commission and its social composition. Patterns of recruit­ ment to and omission from the magistracy are discussed. Stability and continuity emerge as the main features of the early Stuart commission of the peace in Lancashire.

I In 1603, Lancashire was the only county in England and Wales whose justices of the peace were not appointed by letters patent under the great seal of England.2 Instead, the commission of the peace for Lancashire was issued by the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under the seal of the County Palatine, according to a statute enacted in the reign of Henry VIII.' Lancashire's commission, therefore, was drawn up separately from the commissions for the rest of the country. However, the chancellor of the Duchy was a politician who was expected to manipulate his office in the interests of the Crown,4 and there is no reason to believe that the criteria adopted for the appointment of justices of the peace in Lancashire differed from those in use elsewhere. The statutory requirements which justices of the peace had to fulfil were laid down before the middle of the fifteenth century. Justices were to be 'of the most sufficient knights, esquires and gentlemen of the law'. They were to be resident 42 D.J. Wilkinson in the county on whose commission they were named, and they had to possess land of a minimum value of twenty pounds per annum. They were also supposed to be limited to eight in each county,' although this regulation had fallen into de­ suetude by the early sixteenth century. Wealth alone was not enough to gain appointment as a justice, as Sir Thomas Smith had recognised in the later sixteenth century: The Justices of peace be men elected out of the nobilitie, higher and lower, that is the Dukes, Marquises, Barons, Knightes, Esquiers, and Gentlemen, and of such as be learned in the lawes, such and in such number as the Prince shall thinke meete, and in whome for wisedome and discretion he putteth his trust, inhabitantes within the countie: saving that some of the nobilitie and chiefe magistrates for honors sake are put in all, or in the most of the commissions of all the shires of England.6 The composition of the commission of the peace in early seventeenth century Lancashire can be established from the commissions which have been preserved in the Lancashire Record Office. These are very few until 1628, but from then until 1642 two or three commissions for each year have survived. 7 The extant commissions can also be supplemented by copies of other commissions in the Quarter Sessions Rolls,8 and by other surviving lists of the justices of the peace in Lancashire.8 These sources provide sufficient information to make it unlikely that any justices escape notice altogether, even though none of the additional sources for identifying justices of the peace which exist for other counties are available for Lancashire in this period. Quite often commis­ sions were enrolled on the dorse of the patent rolls, but there are no examples of this being done for Lancashire commis­ sions in the early seventeenth century amongst the surviving patent rolls of the Duchy of Lancaster. Nor are there any nomina ministrorum in the rather scanty assize records for Lancashire at this time. 10 Occasionally, libri pads, entry books of commissions of the peace, drawn up by the Crown Office, were made, but there are none which include Lancashire's commission in early Stuart England." The size of the commission of the peace in Lancashire followed a pattern similar to that of many other English counties. 12 In the fifteenth century, the Lancashire commis­ sion had contained about twelve names only. 13 By 1561, according to a list compiled for William Cecil, there were thirty-six justices in Lancashire. 14 In 1583, there were at least forty justices active in Lancashire, 15 and in 1592 fifty-six men were included in a liber pads.'6 A list of Lancashire justices made in 1595 contained only thirty-eight names, but it Commission of the Peace 43 included only magistrates resident in the county, and its size might have been reduced because its composition followed one of the periodic purges of the commission made in Eli­ zabeth's reign. 17 By 1598 however, the commission contained fifty-three names.'" Although not all the figures cited in this paragraph are strictly comparable, because some contain dignitary justices of the peace and others do not, they do indicate a fairly steady growth in the size of the commission in Elizabeth's reign, an expeience shared by other counties, such as Wiltshire and Kent. 19 In December 1603, there were forty-nine justices of the peace on the Lancashire commission;2" from then until 1608, each of ten commissions contained, on average, fifty-six names. In August 1620 the commission contained seventy- eight names, the largest size it attained in the early seven­ teenth century. In Charles I's reign there was a gradual reduction in the number of justices, illustrated in Table I, so that by 1641 the commission numbered fifty-one. 2 ' There was a more dramatic decrease in size in 1642 when the number of Justices fell to thirty-eight and then thirty-five, as Charles I tried to manipulate the commission to his political advantage."

TABLE 1 Average membership of the commission of the peace over jive-year periods, 1626-1640

Years Average membership No. of commissions extant in each five-year period

1626-30 62.25 8 1631-35 57.6 13 1636-40 53.5 10

The most rapid period of growth in the Lancashire commis­ sion, therefore, occurred in the years between 1608 and 1620. This conflicts with Gleason's analysis of the commissions of the peace. He thought that the period of quickest growth came before 1608, and that thereafter commissions of the peace rarely became much larger.23 The increase in the size of the commission is attributable to the 'inflation of honours' de- scirbed by Lawrence Stone.24 In the remainder of the seven­ teenth century, the changing size of the Lancashire commis­ sion followed the path of commissions in other parts of the 44 D.J. Wilkinson country. In the 1640s and 1650s there was a marked reduction in the numbers on the commission: the largest Lancashire commission of the Interregnum contained forty-seven names, and the smallest only twenty-six." In common with other counties, the commission after the Restoration increased rapidly. In 1675, it contained seventy-one justices; by 1714, there were one hundred and seventeen justices, although this number fell to ninety-five in 1720.*

II

The most obvious and least artificial distinction that can be made between the different members of the commission of the peace lies between those who were appointed 'for honors sake', because of their official status as government officers or their social pre-eminence in the county," and those who were placed on the commission in the hope that they would be active Justices. The first group, or the 'dignitary group' as it is usually labelled by historians, comprised, in most counties, the Lord Keeper, other Privy Councillors and the two assize judges for the circuit in which the county lay. This was the practice in Somerset and Wiltshire, and a similar pattern obtained in Essex where leading members of the resident nobility were also included.28 Lancashire's dignitary group was broadly similar to those of other counties. Barnes and Smith remarked that 'the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Treasurer were in every county's commission save Lancashire's'. 29 This statement is true for the commissions of the reign of Charles I but not before then, for both Lord Ellesmere and Lord Verulam appeared in Lancashire com­ missions as Lord Chancellor. 30 Robert Cecil was included in commissions as Lord Treasurer, as was Thomas Howard, earl of Suffolk.31 There is no obvious explanation for these occurr­ ences, unless they were part of a Tudor tradition which lapsed in the 1620s. Lord Ellesmere and Robert Cecil might have had other reasons for having themselves included in the commission. They were involved in a complex inheritance dispute over the lands of the earl of Derby, in which they both had interests through their children,32 and their membership of the commis­ sion might have been an aspect of that dispute. Ellesmere was always named above Cecil and the earl of Derby, who were allies in the proceedings, and because the order of precedence in the commission was regarded as important,3 ' he might have been seeking to strengthen his case in this way. Ellesmere was Commission of the Peace 45 also interested in extending his influence in the north-west of England," so his membership of Lancashire's commission was probably a reflection of that interest. The other members of the dignitary group in the Lan­ cashire commission were either peers, assize judges, eminent officials of the Duchy of Lancaster, or the bishops of Chester. In 1603, Lancashire had two resident noble families, the Stanleys and the Parkers, although the Parkers probably favoured their Essex and London homes.' The earl of Derby was a constant member of the dignitary group from 1603 until his death, and was always the first named on the Caroline commissions. After 1626 he was joined in the commission by his son James, lord Strange, who from that date shared some of his father's responsibilities, such as the lord lieutenancy of Lancashire and Cheshire. iB The member of the Parker family who held the title of Lord Mounteagle was usually included in the dignitary group. Thus Edward Parker, lord Morley, was replaced by his son, William Parker, lord Mounteagle, in the commission of December 1603, shortly before William Par- ker's first summons to the House of Lords.37 William Parker probably replaced his father because the title of Lord Moun­ teagle was acquired through marriage into a branch of the Stanley family,'8 so that he was properly the Lancashire peer after he attained his majority. The Gerards of Gerard's Bromley in Staffordshire also figured in the dignitary group. They were descended from an old Lancashire family, the Gerards of Ince, although their principal seat had been established in Staffordshire in the life-time of Sir Gilbert Gerard, the Elizabethan Master of the Rolls. 19 The only other peers to be included in the dignitary group were from the Molyneux of Sefton family. Sir Richard, the second baronet, purchased an Irish peerage in 1628 and took the title of Viscount Maryborough.'" His membership of the group was short-lived, because, in 1629, he, in common with other members of the Irish peerage, was excluded from the commis­ sion of the peace as part of the compromise settlement made by Charles I to settle the question of precedence disputed by Irish peers and baronets." His son, Richard, viscount Molyneux, was included in the commission in 1642, in the Royalist re-modelling of that summer." The bishops of Chester, the chancellors of the Duchy of Lancaster and the assize judges on the Northern circuit were named in the dignitary group of the commission throughout the early seventeenth century.4 ' In the first years of James I's reign, Sir Thomas Walmesley was also named in the commis- 46 D.J. Wilkinson sion with the dignitaries when he was not on the Northern assize circuit. 14 He was a Lancashire man. however, and he had built up an extensive estate in Blackburn hundred, centred upon Dunkenhalgh. 15 By the reign of Charles I, judges other than the assize judges were not named in the commis­ sion. Sir Humphrey Davenport of Bramhall, a Cheshire man, might have expected to have been included after his period of service on the Northern circuit between 1630 and 1633, as Sir Thomas Walmesley had been, especially because he had been included in the Lancashire commission in the 1620s while a sergeant-at-law.46 He was not, however, and this is evidence of how the Caroline commission contracted, with the halting of the more or less indiscriminate bestowal of honours which had occurred in the reign of James I. Besides the chancellor of the Duchy, one other Duchy official, the attorney general of the Duchy of Lancaster, was established as a member of the dignitary group in the early seventeenth century commission. This occurred during Sir John Brograve's tenure of the office in 1605, after he had earlier occupied a much lower place in the commission. 17 Thereafter, the attornies general of the Duchy were always a part of the dignitary group, although they always occupied last place in it.'" The size of the dignitary group in Lancashire varied between seven and eleven men: in proportional terms, one- tenth and one-fifth of the commission. In Essex, the group comprised about one-tenth of the commission,49 and, as in Lancashire, was fairly stable in the early seventeenth century, not displaying the marked increase in size which was to be found in Cheshire in the 1630s. r'° The constancy of the group in Lancashire is a reflection of the stability of county adminis­ tration in early Stuart Lancashire, and, with the possible exception of the Stanley-Egerton-Cecil dispute at the turn of the sixteenth century, the dignitary group provides no evi­ dence of competition in the upper echelons of the commission of the peace.

Ill

Most of the justices of the peace were members of the 'county gentry'. The question of status was a source of concern to contemporaries,"' 1 as it is still to historians.52 The most satisfactory definition of the differences between county and parochial gentry is to be found in G.E. Aylmer's The State's Servants. The county gentry were usually the richer gentry who were placed upon royal commissions, while the Commission of the Peace 47 parochial gentry enjoyed lesser offices such as escheator, receiver of Crown rents and high constable. It is a distinction 'based on a de facto notion of standing and influence', and usually corresponded to a distinction between esquires and above and gentlemen below. 3 ' But not all esquires were justices of the peace. Some were disqualified because of their recusancy or financial difficulties, and others lacked the intangible aura of 'county status'. This was provided by a mixture of qualities and advantages, such as family conne­ xions, friendships, wealth and education. However, not all justices had 'county status', so a willingness to take on the responsibilities involved was also necessary, something im­ plied by the way in which justices low in order of precedence on the commission often fulfilled their duties very conscientiously."4 Although a place on the commission was prestigious, being a justice would not necessarily have given a man true county status merely through the exercise of his office. Most justices worked in an area a good deal less wide than the whole county," and this was especially obvious in Lancashire where the hundreds were the main units of county administration.'" In Lancashire, baronets, knights and esquires predomin­ ated amongst the magistracy, as they did in Essex, Yorkshire and most other English counties." However, there were also in the Lancashire commission a handful of clerics, and, from time to time, the mayor of Wigan. At least one of these mayors, John Bullock, was described in the commission as a mere gentleman. The other mayors were not ascribed any social status, but other sources indicate that some of them were also gentlemen."'" At some time between 1611 and 1642 all the Lancashire families who were members of the baronetcy were represented in the commission of the peace, although Sir Edward Stanley of Bickerstaffe was not named as a justice after he became a baronet in 1627. Altogether, ten baronets were justices in Lancashire before the Civil War: they came from seven families.'''1 There were never more than five baronets on the commission at one time. Only one baronet, Sir Thomas Gerard of Bryn, was omitted from the commission during his lifetime. He had very pressing financial problems and also became involved in a political misadventure which led to his incarceration in the Tower of London for a time."" The baronetage in Cheshire was treated in a similar way. Not all the baronets were included in the county's commission of the peace, although there was an average of five baronets in each 48 D.J. \\'ilkinson commission, and, in 1632, as many as seven."' Thirty-nine knights were justices of the peace in early Stuart Lancashire;1'2 seven of them were later baronets. The commission contained its highest total of knights in the earlier years of the reign of James I. This reflects the large number of knighthoods which James granted earlv in his reign, and it is a pattern which is repeated elsewhere. By 1608, fifty-seven out of ninety justices of the peace resident in Kent had been knighted or held some higher honour. In 1593, less than a quarter of the justices were distinguished in this way. In Elizabethan Cheshire about one-fifth of the justices were knights: by 1608, nearly one-third were." 1 At the end of the sixteenth century in Lancashire, only five out of the forty-four non-dignitary group justices were knights."1 By 1608, sixteen out of fifty similar justices were."' The decline in the number of knights in the commission is to some extent explained by the creation of baronets after 1611, but there is a real fall in the number of knights in the commission after 1620. The decline is most marked in the reign of Charles I, and at one point, from October 1639 to September 1641, there were only two knights amongst the ordinary members of the commission of the peace."" The character of the commission of the peace did not change as the number of knights in it fell, because there was no marked change in the number of knights who were justices in relation to the number of knights in the county. However, Lancashire had fewer knights and baronets on its commission than some counties. In early Stuart Lancashire between one-tenth and one-quarter of the justices were knights or baronets. In contrast, about two-fifths of the commission of the peace in Lssex consisted of knights and baronets, while in North Yorkshire, nearly two-thirds of the justices were knights in the re-modelled commission of 1626. Cheshire's experience was more like Lancashire's: a fall in the number of knights in the county was also accompanied by a decrease in knightly representation in the commission."7 Amongst the ordinary members of the commission of the peace in Lancashire, five clerics were named between 1603 and 1642. Clerics were first included in a list of justices in 1616, but some of them were active in 1615. In fact, the only way one of the clerical justices can be identified is by his attendance at a meeting of a court of quarter sessions in 1615."" The number of clerics never rose above five, and after their initial appointment between 1608 and 1615 none were added to the commission. Of the long-serving clerical justices, Commission of the Peace 49 three seem to have led unblemished religious lives and acted conscientiously as justices from their appointment until their deaths. They were Hugh Watmoughe, rector of Bury, Gregory Turner, rector of Sefton, and William Leigh, rector of Stan- dish. They were usually notable for their hostility towards Catholicism. Leigh had been a tutor to Prince Henry and was a chaplain of the earl of Derby. Turner was said for some years to have refused Popish recusants burial at Sefton. Watmoughe's distaste for Catholicism is not so easily attested, but his patron was the earl of Derby and he was classed as a preacher in a list of Lancashire parishes and their incumbents drawn up in the early seventeenth century. Turner and Leigh were also described as preachers in the same list, and some of Leigh's sermons were published."" The reputation of the fourth clerical justice was less unsul­ lied. Richard Murray, the son of a Scottish knight, was granted the wardenship of Christ's College, Manchester, in 1609. 7" This institution had been refounded in 1578 to lead the fight against Catholicism in Lancashire, but a convincing case has been argued that the fellows were more interested in their own academic and social preferment than the souls of the Lancashire people71 Murray's own appointment was at the direct instigation of the archbishop of Canterbury in prefer­ ence to a more popular local candidate. During his war­ denship he was involved in some questionable financial dealings, and he was eventually deprived of his position in 1635. However, he remained in the commission of the peace until his death in 1637." Other counties also had clerical justices. After 1621 there were always at least five clerics, as well as the bishop of Winchester, in the commission for Hampshire. In Somerset, where the government was manifestly eager to include clergy­ men in the commission of the peace, there were never more than five in the commission at one time. The Somerset clerical justices were well-qualified academically and in possession of good livings. Most of them, as in Lancashire, were appointed before Laud exercised much influence in government circles, so their promotion could not be attributed to Laudian sacer­ dotalism. The number of clerical justices in Sussex did increase under Charles I, although this was unusual. Cheshire was more typical, where most clerical justices entered the commission in the reign of James I. 71 Lancashire, like most counties, was not overrun by clerical justices, and the demands that 'cleargie men' be removed from commissions of the peace throughout the country, which 50 D.J. Wilkinson Sir Dudley Digges' petition for the reform of the commission of the peace occasioned in the House of Commons in April 1621,74 were hardly justified. The hostility to clerical members of the commission of the peace was engendered by the gentry in the House of Commons voicing anxieties about what they saw as a reduction in their rights. The traditional members of the bench felt threatened by the relative newcomers in the same way that they were alarmed by administrative patents. 75 Thus, they sought to protect their position in the manner that early Stuart gentlemen often resorted to in similar situations: by complaints which magnified a grievance of small import­ ance much beyond its true proportions. The majority of the justices of the peace were, of course, esquires. This is evident in table 2 which summarises the social status of the Lancashire justices between 1603 and 1642. TABLE 2 The social status of justices of the peace in Lancashire (excluding the dignitary justices), 1603-1642

Status Numbers Percentage of total ].P.s

Knights/Baronets 15 8.9 Esquires who became knights or baronets 27 16.1 Esquires 113 67.3 Clerics 5 3.0 Mayors of Wigan 8 4.7 Total 168 100

The proportion of esquires in the whole commission remained pretty constant throughout the period, although there was a slight increase in the later 1630s. The average number of esquires on each extant commission between 1626 and 1641 was 37.8, quite close to the average of 32.7 in the first five years of James I's reign. Therefore, the most considerable growth in the commission of the peace after 1608 is to be found amongst the esquires. The commission of 1616 con­ tained fifty-one esquires, and that of 1620 forty-five. 70 Similar­ ly, when the size of the commission was reduced under Charles I, it was the number of esquires which fell most. The proportion of esquires on the Lancashire commission, about three-fifths, was higher than was usual in other counties. In Essex, esquires comprised about half the commission, and in the North Riding of Yorkshire about one-quarter of it. 77 This Commission of the Peace 51 helped to spread the burden of work amongst the Lancashire justices, and it is indicative of the higher proportion of gentry of esquire and lesser status amongst the population than was found in many other counties. 7" Of course, it must be remembered that there were great differences amongst the social characteristics of justices who were esquires. There were large disparities in their wealth for example. The Moores of Bankhall had receipts of between £750 and £1,000 per annum. When Edward Moore died in 1632, his goods were valued at a little over £1,000. At the lower end of the scale, the position of Richard Burgh of Larbreck was quite different. His income, according to a petition in the Court of Wards for a grant from the estate of his heir, a lunatic brother, was only £42 per annum. About one-third of the justices, who were neither clerics nor in the dignitary group, had some experience of higher education, either at Oxford or Cambridge, or at an Inn of Court."" Such variations in experience meant that the men from whom the Lancashire magistracy was drawn were anything but a mono­ lithic group.

IV

Recruitment to the commission of the peace was based upon recommendation by the central government's communi­ cators with the county. The assize judges, the earl of Derby and the bishop of Chester were all influential in deciding who should become justices in Lancashire, although the final decision was in the hands of the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster."' In Elizabeth's reign, the religious attitude of the justices was a source of concern to the government, although it was sometimes powerless to do much about those magistrates who it felt caused difficulties. In 1564, Bishop Downham consi­ dered only six out of the county's twenty-five magistrates favourably disposed towards the new religious settlement. Of those who disapproved of it, four were still justices in 1583.82 The central government was capable of acting to alleviate its worries about inactive justices. From time to time, Eli­ zabeth herself took an interest in the commission. In 1595, Lord Keeper Puckering told the assize judges in his charge to them before they went off on their summer circuits that there were too many justices, and that the Queen had, 'like a good huswyfe looking unto all her household stuff gone through the list of justices and left out those whom she considered unfit for 52 D.J. ll'ilkinson the office. Concern about the justices did not abate in James I's reign. In February 1606, the Lord Chancellor thought that there were too many troublesome and contentious justices who were more interested in looking for 'precedencie' than in putting laws into execution. Two years later, the assize judges were warned that since few went into the commission of the peace except on their recommendation, they should take care about those whom they put forward because many justices wanted to attend Quarter Sessions merely to be 'lyke an Idoll to be gazed upon, and doe nothinge'."1 Under Charles I, justices of the peace were left off the commission for political reasons. A number of men were omitted from their counties' commissions because it was thought that they would oppose a projected forced loan.81 But the difficulties of excluding a man permanently, or even temporarily as a corrective, seem to have been considerable, and purges of the commission were perhaps counter­ productive. Certainly, in Elizabethan Norfolk, purges of the magistracy presented further opportunities to factious justices to manipulate the bench for their own purposes, and often justices who were left off the commission were quickly restored to it.85 The experience of Lancashire in the early seventeenth century lends support to the view that 'only infrequently were justices of the peace dismissed from their office'."" The group of justices who were omitted from the commission between 1626 and 1641 is large enough to provide a firm basis for generalisations about reasons for exclusion from the bench to be made. In these years, forty-eight justices left the commis­ sion. Five were mayors of Wigan whose appointment was 'ex officio'."7 Three were sheriffs and so were temporarily excluded."" Two of the men were not Lancashire residents."9 Thirty of the justices who were omitted from the commission died prior to their omission, or shortly after it, so that their exclusion can be ascribed to ill-health. There are no examples in early seventeenth century Lancashire of dead justices remaining in the commission, as happened elsewhere.9" Two of the justices were re-instated after their exclusion. Richard Bold of Bold, esq., was left off one commission in 1632 for no apparent reason. His omission could, therefore, have been the result of an error by the Duchy secretariat; such mistakes occurred in other counties.'" Edward Moore of Bankhall, esq., was left off the commission in 1628. This was at the time when he was involved in a case in Star Chamber with Sir William Norris of Speke, a former justice, and by then a convicted Commission of the Peace 53 recusant. Moore had questioned the churchwardens of Child- wall about Sir William's non-attendance at church. Sir Wil­ liam challenged the propriety of Moore's behaviour, and in the ensuing argument drew his sword and struck Moore.'J Although Moore was the innocent party, his exclusion might have been connected with the case. Two other omissions were concerned with recusancy. Robert Blundell of Ince Blundell, esq., and Sir Cecil TrafTord of Trafford were both Catholic converts, and their Catholicism probably accounted for their eventual exclusion from the commission, although it occurred sometime after their conversion." 1 Roger Nowell of Read, esq., was put out of the commission in 1632. He did little work as a justice while he was on the bench,'14 and his continued inactivity made his inclusion in the commission unnecessary. Thomas Charnock of Charnock. esq., was the only justice removed from the commission because of his financial prob­ lems. He sold off many of his estates in the 1620s and 1630s and was still heavily in debt.'1 ' Besides, he never attended a court of quarter sessions in his time in the commission between 1620 and 1630. Still, a large measure of indebtedness did not guarantee exclusion from the commission. Sir Richard Hoghton was in severe financial difficulties from at least the time he purchased a baronetcy in 1611. His lavish entertain­ ment of James I at Hoghton in 1617 did nothing to improve his position, and he spent periods in the Fleet prison for non-payment of his creditors. Moreover, he refused to take his problems seriously. In 1627, his application for a writ of habeas corpus was rejected, because, it was argued, he had on other occasions been relased from prison in London to return to Lancashire to sort out his financial affairs, but 'he did all these tymes attend his plesure in hawking and hunting but neither sold land nor payd any debtes'. 97 Sir Richard remained a justice of the peace until his death in 1630. Clearly, therefore, it was difficult to get oneself removed from the commission once placed in it in Lancashire. Some justices were occasionally removed because of their recusancy, financial problems or inactivity as a justice, or a combination of these faults, but death was the main reason for a justice's departure from the bench. There were no purges of Lan­ cashire's commission in the early seventeenth century. 18 Even in 1637 when Charles' government engaged in some form of systematic remodelling of most counties' commissions," Lan­ cashire was not included. The reduction in size of Lan­ cashire's commission in the 1630s was not the result of a weeding out of inactive or unsuitable justices, but of a failure 54 D.J. Wilkinson to appoint new justices after others had died. The recruits to the commission of the peace, excluding the dignitary group, have been analysed for two periods when the commissions are particularly numerous. The results are set out in Table 3 below. The samples are small, so they must be used with caution, but it is clear that being related to another, or a former member of the commission, was an important step in being named as a justice under both James I and Charles I. Ancestral connection was more important in Charles' reign than it had been earlier, as it was in Sussex.'""

TABLE 3 Recruitment to the commission of the peace in Lancashire, 1603-1608 and 1626-1641

1603-08 1626-41

Sons succeeding or joining father 8 11 Sons following other relative (including in-law) 1 8 New members 11 9

There was no attempt to choose justices to cover the county equally. This is contrary to Barnes' analysis of the situation in Somerset. There, the appointment of lesser gentlemen with respect to divisions was so invariable that it proves beyond doubt that this was the basis of appointment applied by the government. 11" The appointments made in Lancashire were more like those made in Sussex and Essex where there is no evidence of systematic appointment by area.'"2 Amounderness was always very sparsely served by justices and nearly always had the least number of justices living within its boundaries. Blackburn and Lonsdale hundreds were only marginally better placed. West Derby and Salford hundreds consistently had the highest number of justices resident within their boundaries, with Salford usually having the most. Leyland had more justices than the northern hundreds but fewer than the two populous hundreds of Salford and West Derby. The distribution of justices over the hundreds remained remarkably constant in the early seven­ teenth century."" In James' reign, Lonsdale was marginally better provided for than it was under Charles. The other hundreds showed little variation in their share of justices, although Amounderness' fell in Charles' reign. Salford's share Commission of the Peace 55 increased slightly so that from 1633 it nearly always had one-quarter of the commission living within its boundaries. It is also worth remarking that it was rare for less than one-fifth of the commission to be non-resident or in the dignitary group. Some of the dignitary group did live in the county but they were not active justices. When the population of the different hundreds is compared with the average number of justices resident in Lancashire, it is possible to see how badly served parts of the county were by their share of justices. Leyland appears to be the hundred with the most favourable proportion of justices, but some of the justices who lived in Leyland discharged most of their duties in Amounderness.

TABLE 4 Justices and Population in early seventeenth century Lancashire""

Population in Average number oj Number oj people Hundred 1642 J.P.S., 1626-41 per J.P.

Salford 48,451.5 14.2 3,412.1 Blackburn 21,330.5 5.75 3,709.6 West Derby 31,207.5 12.4 2,516.7 Levland 10.656.0 8.25 1,291.6 Amounderness 17,667.0 2.6 6,795.0 Lonsdale 21,357.0 2.7 7,910.0

V

Sir John Oglander felt that when he was appointed a justice of the peace in Hampshire at the age of twenty-two, he was 'aschamed to sitt on ye Bench, as not havinge any hayre on my face, and less wit'. 105 The age at which men were appointed to the commission of the peace varied greatly. In Sussex, between 1625 and 1640 no-one under the age of thirty became a justice and the average age of sixteen men who joined the commission in that time was forty-five.'"" Lancashire justices were younger than their Sussex counterparts. Of fifteen who were appointed to the commission between 1626 and 1642, whose ages are known, the average age at appointment was about thirty-four and a half. The ages varied, however, from John Atherton of Atherton, esq., who was just twenty-one at his appointment, to Humphrey Chetham of Manchester, esq., who was sixty-two when he was put in the commission in 56 D.J. Wilkinson 1642."l? Seven of the fifteen were in their twenties when they were appointed. The length of time that a man could serve as a justice obviously varied to some extent according to how old he was when appointed. In Essex, the average length of service of a justice was ten years, but one-third worked for less than half this time, while just over a quarter put in more than fifteen years service. 108 A substantial number of magistrates, there­ fore, had considerable experience. Lancashire compared favourably with Essex, as Table 5 indicates.

TABLE 5 Length of service of Lancashire J.P.s, ordinarily resident in the county and not in the dignitary group, 1603-1642

Length of service Number of J.P.s.

20 or more years 31 10 or more years 50 5 or more years 23 Less than 5 years 26 Non-continuous membership 7

VI

It is clear, therefore, that the commission of the peace in early seventeenth century Lancashire enjoyed considerable stability and continuity. Such conclusions suggest that some re-assessment of the view of Lancashire which many histo­ rians hold is necessary. It has long been orthodox opinion that Lancashire was an 'isolated, remote and backward' county. 1"'' But the ways in which Lancashire differed from the rest of England can be exaggerated. Lancashire certainly had many Catholic recusants, but the extent to which Lancashire's religious experience differed from other counties has been questioned."" Some historians believe that the extent of Lancashire's poverty must be qualified, and that the wealth and economic vitality of the county should not be too readily under-estimated.'" Even Palatine status did not confer virtual independence. While the Palatine court of common pleas maintained its existence into the seventeenth century and beyond, the Crown court had been brought into the northern circuit of the assize judges by the time of Elizabeth's reign, just as the court of great sessions at Chester was effectively integrated into the North Wales circuit." 2 In the course of the Commission of the Peace 57 early seventeenth century, Lancashire was beginning to adopt methods of administration already customary in other parts of the county."' The similarity of the county's commission of the peace to the commissions of other counties is indicative of Lancashire's increasing integration into England. The county- was ceasing to be seen as a major problem by the central government. Such a situation would have been inconceivable in Elizabethan England, when Lord Burghley had been so concerned with Lancashire's Catholicism. Lancashire was becoming a part of England, rather than a county apart. The structure of the commission of the peace in early seventeenth century, its stability and the continuity of its membership, is a reflection of that development."4.

NOTES

1 K. Wrightson, 'Two concepts of order: justices, constables and jurymen in seventeenth-century England', in J. Brewer and J. Styles (eds.), An Ungovernable People: The English and Their Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (London, 1980); id., 'The puritan reformation of manners with special reference to the counties of Lancashire and Essex, 1640-1660' (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Cambridge, 1974). See also Proceedings of the Lancashire Justices of the Peace at the Sheriff's Table During Assizes Week, 1578-1694. ed. B.VV. Qumtrell (L.C.R.S., CXXI, 1981). 2 T.G. Barnes and A.H. Smith, 'Justices of the Peace from 1588 to 1688 a Revised List of Sources', B.I.H.R., XXXII (1959), p. 222. 3 27 Henry VIII, c.24. 4 For the use the chancellor was expected to make of his electoral influence in Elizabeth's reign, see J.E. Neale, The Elizabethan House of Commons (1949), pp. 221 32. For the continuation of this tradition after the Restoration, see L.KJ. Glassey, Politics and the Appointment of Justices of the Peace, 1675-1720 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 270-1. The chancel­ lor of the Duchy had a similar responsibility for the high sheriff of the county, C.S.P.D. 1636-37, p. 123. 5 13 Richard II, c.7; 2 Henry VI, st. 1 c.4, st.2c.l; 18 Henry VI, c.l 1; 14 Richard II, c.l 1. 6 Sir Thomas Smith, De Republica Anglorum, ed. L. Alston (Cambridge, 1906), p. 85. 7 L.R.O., QSC 7-38. 8 Printed summaries of those of 1603 to 1605 can be found in Lancashire Quarter Sessions Records, 1590-1606, ed. J. Tail (C.S., n.s., LXXVII, 1917), pp. 163, 208-9, 215, 233, 240-1, 252-3, 276. Others are at L.R.O., QSR9/Lancaster, 28 Apr. 1606; Lancaster, 6 Oct. 1606; QSRlO/Preston, 5 Oct. 1608. 9 H.M.C., Kenyan MSS, pp. 24, 30. Manchester Sessions 1616-22/3, ed. E. Axon (L.C.R.S. XLII, 1901), pp. v-vi. 10 Barnes and Smith, B.I.H.R. XXXII, pp. 232, 241-2, 232-3, 236. 11 The liber pads listed in Barnes and Smith, B.I.H.R. XXXII, p. 239, for c. Sept. 1626 (P.R.O., C 193/12/2) has been proved not to be such a 58 D.J. Wilkinson book. See R. Cust, 'A List of Commissioners for the Forced Loan of 1626-7', B.I.H.R. LI (1978), pp. 199-206. 12 J.H. Gleason, The Justices of the Peace in England, 1558-1640 (Oxford, 1969), pp. 48-50. 13 J.B. Watson, The Lancashire Gentry and Public Service, 1529-1558', T.L.C.A.S., LXXIII-LXXIV (1963-4), p. 26. 14 B.L., Lansdowne MS. 1218, (Lord Burghley's List ofjudges of Assize etc.), f. 89d. 15 R.S. France, 'Lancashire Justices of the Peace in 1583', T.H.S.L.C., XCV (1943), pp. 131-3. 16 B.L., Royal MS. 18 D III, f. 80d: list of Lancashire J.P.s, 1592. 17 H.M.C., Kenyan A1SS., p. 583; A.H. Smith, Count)/ and Court: Government and Politics in Norfolk, 1558-1603 (Oxford, 1974), pp. 81-6. 18 L.R.O., QSC 1: 12 Sept. 1598. 19 J. Hurstield, 'County Government, c. 1530-f. 1660', The Victoria History of the County of Wiltshire, ed. R.B. Pugh, V (London, 1957), pp. 89-90; P. Clark, English Provincial Society from the Reformation to the Revolution: Religion, Politics and Society in Kent, 1500-1640 (London, 1977), pp. 142-4. 20 L.R.O., QSR 7/Lancaster, 16 Apr. 1604: commission of the peace, 8 Dec. 1603. 21 L.R.O., QSC 4: 5 Aug. 1620; QSC 36: 1 Sept. 1641. 22 L.R.O., QSC 37-38: 11 Jul., 17 Nov. 1642; A. Fletcher The Outbreak of the English Civil War (1981), pp. 298-300. 23 Gleason, Justices of the Peace, pp. 48-50. 24 L. Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558-1641 (Oxford, 1965), ch. 3. 25 D. Underdown, 'Settlement in the Counties, 1653-1658', in G.E. Aylmer (ed.), The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646-1660(1972), pp. 168. 170-1, 173, 175-81; L.R.O., QSC 51: 1 Sept. 1649; QSC 58: 29 Aug. 1656. 26 Glassey, Politics and the Appointment of Justices of the Peace, pp. 15-17, 272. 27 Smith, De Republica Anglorum, p. 85. 28 T.G. Barnes, Somerset, 1625-1640: A County's Government During the 'Personal Rule' (1961), p. 41; Hurstfield, V.C.H. Wilts, pp. 85-9; B.W. Quintrell, 'The Government of the County of Essex, 1603-1642' (unpubl. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of London, 1965), p. 38. 29 Barnes and Smith, B.I.H.R. XXXII, p. 223. 30 L.R.O., QSC 3: 10 Nov. 1604; QSC 4: 5 Aug. 1620. 31 L.R.O., QSR 10/Preston, 5 Oct. 1608: commission of the peace, 6 Aug. 1608; Axon, Manchester Sessions, pp. v-vi. 32 B. Coward, 'Disputed Inheritances: Some Difficulties of the Nobility in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries', B.I.H.R. XLIV (1971), pp. 204-14. 33 Smith, County and Court, ch. 4. 34 L. Knafla, Law and Politics in Jacobean England (1977), pp. 21-3. 35 DJ. Wilkinson, 'The Justices of the Peace and their Work in Lancashire, 1603-1642' (unpubl. M. Litt. thesis, Univ. of Oxford, 1982), pp. 38-9. 36 C.S.P.D. 1625-6, p. 438. 37 L.R.O., QSR 7/Lancaster, 16 Apr. 1604: commission of the peace, 8 Dec. 1603; G.E.C., Complete Peerage (13 vols, 1910-59), IX, p. 228. 38 A Sixteenth Century Survey and Year's Account of the Estates ofHornby Castle, Lancashire, ed. W.H. Chippindall (C.S., n.s., CII, 1939), p. 5. Commission of the Peace 59 39 D.N.B. VII, pp. 1097-9. 40 V.C.H. Lanes., Ill, p. 70. 41 C.R. Mayes, The Early Stuarts and the Irish Peerage, E.H.R., LXXIII (1958), pp. 248-50. 42 L.R.O., QSC 37-8; Fletcher, Outbreak of English Civil War, pp. 298-300. 43 For fuller details, see Wilkinson, 'The Justices of the Peace and Their Work in Lancashire', pp. 14, 186. 44 L.R.O., QSR 8/Lancaster, 8 Apr. 1605: commission of the peace, 23 Mar. 1605. At that time, the Northern circuit assize judges were Sir John Savile and Sir Edward Phelipps. J.S. Cockburn, A History of English Assizes, 1558-1714 (Cambridge, 1972), p. 268. 45 M. Brigg, 'The Walmesleys of Dunkenhalgh: A Family of Blackburn Hundred in the Elizabethan and Stuart Period', T.L.C.A.S. LXXV- LXXVI (1965-6), pp. 72-102. 46 For Davenport as an assize judge, see L.R.O., QSC 11-20; as a sergeant-at-law, see L.R.O., QSC 5-10. 47 Brograve was in the dignitary group for the first time in March 1605. L.R.O., QSR8/Lancaster, 8 Apr. 1605: commission of the peace, 23 Mar. 1605. 48 See, for example, the position of Sir Edward Mosley and Sir Thomas Bedingfield, in L.R.O., QSC 4-38. 49 Quintrell, 'The Government of Essex', p. 38. 50 Under James I, the group usually contained ten or eleven members: in the 1630s, it had thirteen or fourteen. G.P. Higgins, 'County Govern­ ment and Society in Cheshire, c. 1590-1640' (unpubl. M.A. thesis, Univ. of Liverpool, 1973), p. 72. 51 G.E. Mingay, The Gentry: The Rise and Fall of a Ruling Class (1976), pp. 2-5. 52 J.S. Morrill, 'The Northern Gentry and the Great Rebellion', N.H., XV (1979), pp. 69-74. 53 G.E. Aylmer, The State's Servants: The Civil Service of the English Republic, 1649-1660 (1973), p. 179. 54 Wilkinson, 'The Justices of the Peace and Their Work in Lancashire', ch. 4. 55 C. Holmes, 'The "County Community" in Stuart Historiography', Journal of British Studies, XIX (1980), pp. 61-3. 56 Wilkinson, 'Thejustices of the Peace and Their Work in Lancashire', p. 119 and ch. 4. I hope to publish a discussion of the J.P.s' work in Lancashire elsewhere. 57 Quintrell, 'The Government of Essex', p. 38; J.T. Cliffe, The Yorkshire Gentry from the Reformation to the Eve of the Civil War (1969), p. 244; Gleason, Justices of the Peace, p. 47. 58 Bullock: L.R.O., QSC 35: 9 Oct. 1640; see, e.g., Peter Marsh, QSR 18/Wigan, 14Jan. 1622; QSR 19/Ormskirk, 6 May and 15 Jul. 1622; Axon, Manchester Sessions, p. 47. 59 The families were: Hoghton of Hoghton, Molyneux of Sefton, Booth of Dunham Massey, Gerard of Bryn, Assheton of Whalley, Stanley of Bickerstaffe, and Middleton of Leighton. 60 P.R.O.. SP 16/124/39: petition of Sir Thomas Garard to the king, 1628; A.P.C. 1625-6, p. 206. 61 Higgins, 'County Government and Society in Cheshire', p. 75. 62 Wilkinson, 'Thejustices of the Peace and Their Work in Lancashire', pp. 188-9! 60 D.J. Wilkinson 63 Clark, English Provincial Society, p. 308; Higgins, 'County Government and Society in Cheshire', p. 74. 64 L.R.O., QSC 1: 12 Sept! 1598. 65 L.R.O., QSR 10/Preston, 5 Oct. 1608: commission of the peace, 6 Aug. 1608. 66 L.R.O., QSC 32-6. 67 Quintrell, The Government of Essex', p. 39; G.C.F. Forster. The North Riding Justices and their Sessions, 1603-1625', A7.//., X (1975), p. 124; Higgins. 'County Government and Society in Cheshire', p. 75. 68 Axon, Manchester Sessions, pp. v vi; Gerard Massey, rector of Wigan, at L.R.O., QSR 12/Ormskirk, 17 jul. 1615. 69 For these men as preachers, see H.M.C., Kenyan MSS., pp. 11-13. Watmoughe, active as a justice from 1615 until his death in 1623 (L.R.O, QSR 12/Manchester, 12 Oct. 1615; 20/Manchester, 17 Jul. 1623). Turner, active from 1615 until his death in 1633 (QSR 12/Wigan, 9 Oct. 1615; QSC 18: 3 Apr. 1633); V.C.H. Lanes., Ill, p. 63. Leigh, active from 1615 until his death in 1639 (QSR 127 Ormskirk, 17 Jul., Wigan, 9 Oct. 1615; QSC 32: 12 Oct. 1639); D.N.B. XI, pp. 879-80; W. Leigh, Great Britaines Great Deliverance from the great danger of Popish Powder (London, 1606); id., The Drumme of Devotion striking out an Allarum to Prayer (London, 1613). 70 G.E.C.. Complete Baronetage (5 vols.,'Exeter, 1900-1906), II, p. 292; C.S.P.D. 1603-1610, p. 497. 71 W.E.A. Axon (ed.), The Annals of Manchester (London, 1886), pp. 37, 42, 44; C. Haigh, 'Puritan Evangelism in the Reign of Elizabeth I', E.H.R. XCII (1977), pp. 30-58. 72 C.S.P.D. 1603-1610, p. 499: H.M.C., Kenyan MSS., p. 15; C.S.P.D. 1635, pp. 212-3; P.R.O., PC2/46 f. 32: order of Council concerning Manchester College, 16 Mar. 1636; The Rectors of Manchester and the Wardens of the Collegiate Church of That Town, ed. F.R. Raines (C.S., n.s. V-VI, 1885), pp. 112-122; C.S.P.D., 1635, p. 214; L.R.O., QSC 26-8. 73 B.J. Richmond, The Work of the Justices of the Peace in Hampshire, 1603-1640' (unpubl. M.Phil, thesis, Univ. of Southampton, 1969), pp. 86-7; Barnes, Somerset, p. 45; A. Fletcher, A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex, 1600-1660 (1976), p. 131; Higgins, 'County Government and Society in Cheshire', pp. 76-7. 74 Commons Debates, 1621, eds. W. Notestein, F.H. Relfand H. Simpson (7 vols, New Haven, 1935), V, p. 96. 75 C. Russell, Parliaments and English Politics, 1621-1629 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 69-70. 76 Axon, Manchester Sessions, pp. v vi; L.R.O., QSC 4: 5 Aug. 1620. 77 Quintrell, The Government of Essex', pp. 38-9; Forster, N.H., X, p. 24. 78 B.C. Blackwood, The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion, 1640-1660 (C.S. 3rd series, XXV, 1978), p. 5". 79 P.R. Long, The Wealth of the Magisterial Class in Lancashire, c.1590-1640' (unpubl. M.A. thesis, Univ. of Manchester, 1968), pp. 33-4. 80 Wilkinson, The Justices of the Peace and Their Work in Lancashire', pp. 55-7. 81 Quintrell, The Government of Essex', p. 39; Smith, County and Court, pp. 61-7; Fletcher, Sussex, p. 129. Influences upon the appointment of Justices in Lancashire can be seen more clearly after the Restoration. Glassey, Politics and the Appointment of Justices of the Peace, ch. 10. Commission of I he Peace 61 82 C. Haigh, Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge, 1975). p. 213. 83 Les Reportes del Cases in Camera Stellata, 1593-1609 from the Original Manuscripts of John Hawarde ed. W.P. Baildon (1894). pp. 21, 263-4. 367-8. 84 S.R. Gardiner. History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603-1642 '(10 vols, 1883-4). VI, pp. 125-6. 85 Gleason, Justices of the Peace, pp. 65-7, 72-82; Smith, County and Court, pp. 85-6. 86 Gleason, Justices oj the Peace, p. 65. 87 The mayors were Richard \Vorsley, 1631: William Forth, 1634; Robert Markland, 1635-6; William Pilkington, 1637-8; James Molyneux, 1639-40. 88 The sheriffs were Edward Rawstorne of N'ewhall, esq., 1628-9; Edmund Assheton of Chadderton. esq.. 1627-8; Richard Bold of Bold, esq., 1630-1. P.R.O., Lists and Indexes IX, p. 73. 89 Robert Needham, Viscount Kilmorey (G.E.C., Complete Peerage, VII, p. 261), and Sir Robert Bannister (V.C.H. Lanes., VI, pp. 286-7). 90 Glassey. Politics and the Appointment of Justices of the Peace, p. 12. 91 L.R.CX, QSC 15: 10 Mar. 1632; Smith, County and Court, pp. 70-3. 92 L.R.O., QSC 8: 21 Aug. 1628: V.C.H. Lanes', III, p. 136. 93 Blundell was converted at sometime in the 1630s. V.C.H. Lanes., Ill, p. 82. Trafford, according to one tradition was a former persecutor of recusants and was said to have been converted by Francis Downes of \Vardley in c.1630. R. Halley, Lancashire: Its Puritanism and Nonconformi­ ty (2nd edn; Manchester, 1872). p. 147. However, in the 1620s Trafford was obtaining grants to avoid lines for recusancy. C.S.P.D. 1623-5, p. 137. 94 Between 1628 and 1631, he attended three meetings of quarter sessions. L.R.O., QSR 25/Preston, 9 Jul., 8 Oct. 1628; QSR 26/ Preston, 15 Apr. 1629. 95 V.C.H. Lanes., Ill, p. 425; V, pp. 275, 280-1, 383. 96 The Journal of Nicholas Assheton ofDownham, ed. F.R. Raines (C.S.. o.s., XIV, 1848), pp. 36-49; C.S.P.D. 1623-5, p. 361; C.S.P.D. 1625-6, p. 298. 97 P.R.O., SP 16/111/27: Coventry to Conway, 28 Jul. 1627. 98 The commission was extensively remodelled in 1642, but this was almost as the civil war began in Lancashire. L.R.O., QSC 37: 11 Jul. 1642; R. Hutton, 'The Failure of the Lancashire Cavaliers', T.H.S.L.C., CXXIX (1980), pp. 47-62. 99 Fletcher, Sussex, p. 129. 100 Ibid., p. 134. The importance of ancestral connection is evident elsewhere. Quintrell, 'The Government of Essex', p. 41; Gleason, Justices of the Peace, pp. 57-9. Smith, County and Court, pp. 59-61, makes the point that sons did not necessarily follow fathers into the commission. 101 Barnes, Somerset, p. 45. 102 Fletcher, Sussex, p. 130; Quintrell, 'The Government of Essex', p. 44. 103 Wilkinson, 'Thejustices of the Peace and Their Work in Lancashire', p. 196. 104 The population figures are taken from Blackwood, The Lancashire Gentry, p. 7. 105 A Royalist Notebook: The Commonplace Book of Sir John Og/ander of Nunwell, 1585-1655, ed. F. Bamford (1936), pp. xiv-xv. 62 D.J. Wilkinson 106 Fletcher, Sussex, p. 130. 107 L.R.O., QSC 12: 3 Aug. 1630; QSC 37: 11 Jul. 1642. 108 Quintrell, 'The Government of Essex', p. 44. 109 E. Broxap, The Great Civil War in Lancashire, 1642-1651 (Manchester, 1910), p. 1. 110 Haigh, Reformation and Resistance, pp. 267-8. 111 F. Walker, Historical Geography of Southwest Lancashire before the Industrial Revolution (C.S., n.s., CIII,'l939), p. 33; W.K.Jordan, The Social Institutions of Lancashire: A Study of the Changing Patterns of Aspirations in Lancashire, 1480-1660 (C.S., 3rd series, XI, 1962), pp. 2, 5; T.S. Willan, Elizabethan Manchester (C.S., 3rd series, XXVII, 1980), pp. 124-5. 112 W J.Jones, 'Palatine Performance in the Seventeenth Century', in P. Clark, A.G.R. Smith and N. Tyacke (eds.), The English Commonwealth, 1547-1660: Essays in Politics and Society Presented to Joel Hurstfield (Leices­ ter, 1979), pp." 189-204; Cockburn, Assizes, pp. 44-5; j.S. Morrill, Cheshire, 1630-1660: County Government and Society during the 'English Revolution' (Oxford, 1974), pp. 1-2. 113 I hope to substantiate this argument elsewhere. 114 I would like to express my thanks to Mr. D.H. Pennington for supervising the research on which this essay is based. I am also grateful to Dr. B.W. Quintrell for several suggestions on the prepara­ tion of this essay. Commission of the Peace 63 APPENDIX

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE IN LANCASHIRE. 1603-1642

This appendix is included as a point of reference for others interested in the Lancashire commission of the peace. It comprises of 168 justices who appear to have been named in the commission between 1603 and 1642. The list does not contain dignitary justices. Justices were ranked as esquires unless otherwise indicated. Dates in brackets are of birth and death, where known. The other dates refer to the earliest and latest date for which there is evidence of membership of the commission. NR indicates that the justice was not ordinarily resident in the county. NR? indicates that the justice's residence is not known.

James Anderton of Clayton (1542-1630) 1598,1630 Leonard Asshaw of Hall on the Hill (d.1633) 1616, 1633 James Assheton of Chadderton (1535-1612) 1583,1609 Edmund Assheton of Chadderton (1601-1650) 1623,1642 Richard Assheton of Middleton, km. (d.1617) 1583,1617 Richard Assheton of Middleton (d.1618) 1618 Ralph Assheton of Middleton (1606-1651) 1627, 1641 Ralph Assheton of Whalley (c.1552-1616) 1595,1616 Ralph Assheton of Whalley, bart. (c. 1584-1644) 1616,1641 Radcliffe Assheton of Cuerdale (d.1645) 1616,1642 John Ashton of Penketh (d.1620) 1615,1618 Thomas Ashton of Penketh (d.1645) 1620,1642 William Ashurst of Ashurst (d.1618) 1616 Henry Ashurst of Ashurst (d.1645) 1626,1642 John'Atherton of Atheron (1609-1646) 1630,1642 James Bankes of Winstanley (d.1617) 1616,1617 Nicholas Bannister of Altham (1542-1612) 1584-1608 Christopher Bannister of Bank (c.1575-1649) 1634,1642 Robert Bannister of Salop, km. (1569-1649) 1626, 1627 NR Alexander Barlow of Barlow, knt. (d.1620) 1604,1608 Robert Barrowe, mayor of Wigan 1621 Ralph Barton of Smithills (d.1611) 1600,1608 Thomas Barton of Smithills, knt. (d.1659) 1616,1642 Robert Bindloss of Borwick, knt. (d.1630) 1615, 1630 Robert Blundell of Ince Blundell (d.1616) 1615, 1616 Robert Blundell of Ince Blundell (c.1574-1657) 1618,1639 Thomas Bold of Bold, knt. (P1582-1612) 1603,1610 Richard Bold of Bold (1590-1636) 1615, 1635 George Booth of Dunham Massey, knt and bart. ' (d.1652) 1606-1642 NR John Braddill of Portlield (c. 1558-1616) 1601,1616? John Braddill of Portfield (c. 1580-1655) ?1616, 1641 John Bradshaw of Bradshaw (c. 1552-1626) 1588,1624 John Bradshaw of Bradshaw (c.1585-1666) 1628,1641 William Brettarghe of Holt (1571-1609) 1608 Edward Bridgeman of Sankey (d.1645) 1627,1641 Orlando Bridgeman of Lever, knt. (1608-1674) 1637, 1642 NR John Brockholes of Claughton (d.1642) 1620,1642 John Brograve of Braughing, Herts., knt. (P1538-1613) 1598, 1608, NR Thomas Brooke of Norton (d.c.1652) 1620 NR 64 D.J. Wilkinson John Bullock, mayor of \Vigan, gent. 1640, 1641 Richard Burgh of Larbreck (1562-1639) 1605, 1639 Edward Butterworth of Belfield (d.1665) 1639. 1642 John Byron of Ryton. knt. (d.1604) 1583, 1604 NR John Byron of Ryton, knt. (d.1625) 1595, 1616, NR John Calvert of Cockerham (d.1618) 1600, 1618 Thomas Charnock of Charnock (P1587-1648) 1620, 1630 Humphrey Chetham of Manchester (1580-1653) 1642 Edward Chisnall of Chisnall (d.1635) 1615. 1631 Thomas Cooke of I re by (d.1620) 1615, 1620 Thomas Covell of Torrisholme (1561-1639) 1621, 1639 William Davenport of Bramhall, knt. (1563-^.1640) 1606, 1616 NR Humphrey Davenport of Bramhall, (1566-1645) 1603, 1629 NR knt Miles Dodding of Conishead (d.1607) 1595, 1606 Miles Dodding of Conishead (d.1629) 1608, 1629 George Dodding of Conishead (1603-T.1650) 1636. 1642 Roger Dowries of Wardley (d.1638) 1603, 1638 Thomas Fanshavv of Jenkins, Essex (d.1630) 1608 NR William Fanshaw of Jenkins, Essex (d.1635) 1616, 1634 NR William Farington of Worden (d.1610) 1575, 1604 William Farington of Worden (d.1657) 1618, 1642 Edward Fitton of Gawsworth, knt. (1550-1606) 1590, 1605 NR Edward Fitton of Gawsworth (1572-1619) 1603, 1606 NR Edmund Fleetwood of Rossall (d.1622) 1589. 1622 Paul Fleetwood of Rossall, knt. (r. 1576-1 657) 1619, 1624 Richard Fleetwood of Penwortham (d.1626) 1595, 1620 John Fleming of Coniston (d.1642) 1603, 1624 William Forth, mayor Wigan 1634, 1635 Thomas Gerard of Gerard's Bromley, knt. (1564-1618) 1598, 1616 NR Thomas Gerard of Bryn, bart. (d.1621) 1601, 1620 Thomas Gerard of Bryn, bart. (c. 1585-1 630) 1618, 1624 Charles Gerard of Halsall, knt. (d.1640) 1620, 1639 John Girlington of Thurland, knt. (d.1645) 1639, 1642 John Greenhalgh of Brandlesholme (d.1651) 1616, 1642 Cuthbert Halsall of Halsall, knt. (d.r.1632) 1595-1631 Robert Hesketh of Rufford (c. 1548-1620) 1591, 1620 Hugh Hesketh of North Meols (d.1625) 1604, 1624 Thomas Hesketh of Whitehills, knt. (d.1606) 1598, 1605 Richard Hoghton of Hoghton, bart. (1569-1630) 1592, 1630 Gilbert Hoghton of Hoghton, bart. (1591-1648) 1618, 1642 Thomas Holcrofte of Vale Royal, knt. (d.1627) 1590, 1616 NR John Holcroft of Holcroft (d.1656) 1638, 1642 Robert Holden of Holden (d.1622) 1608, 1622 Richard Holland of Denton (1546-1619) 1584, 1618 Edward Holland of Denton (d.1631) 1620, 1631 Richard Holland of Denton (1595-1661) 1631, 1642 William Holt of Ashworth (d.r.1624) 1616, 1620 Francis Holt of Gristlehurst (1586-1617) 1615, 1617 John Holt of Stubley (1577. 1622) 1603, 1622 Robert Holt of Stubley (1602-post 1624, 1642 1647) Edmund Hopwood of Hopwood (d.1612) 1583, 1610 Commission oj the Peace 65 Edmund Hopwood of Hopwood (1598-1666) 1623, 1642 Thomas Ireland of Bevvsey, knt. (d.1625) 1595, 1625 Thomas Ireland of Bewsey (d.1639) 1626, 1638 John Ireland of the Hutt (1558-1614) 1598. 1609 Gilbert Ireland of the Hutt (c. 1559- 1626) 1616 John Ireland of the Hutt (c.1601-1633) 1628. 1633 George Ireland of Bretherton (d.f.1632) 1624, 1632 William Johnson of Welch Whittle (d.1636) 1626, 1636 Roger Kirkby of Kirkby (1582-r.l627) 1616. 1627 Roger Kirkby of Kirkbv (c.1601-1643) 1628, 1642 Barnaby Kitchen of North Meols (1535-1608) 1595. 1603 Thomas Langton of Newton, knt. (d.1605) 1603, 1604 Peter Legh of Lyme. knt. (1562-1636) 1595, 1635 NR Edward Legh of Hallom (d.1609) 1604, 1606 NR Francis Legh of Lyme (1590-1643) 1642 NR Thomas Leigh of Alkrington (d.post 1627) 1616, 1620 William Leigh, rector of Standish (d.1639) 1615. 1639 Edward Manwaring of Manwaring (1577-1647) 1637, 1642 NR Robert Markland, mayor of Wigan 1635. 1636 Peter Marsh, mayor of Wigan 1622 John Massye of Carleton (d.1618) 1608, 1617 James Massye of Rixton 1620 Gerard Massye, rector of Wigan (d.1616) 1615 George Middleton of Leighton, bart. (1600-1673) 1641, 1642 James Molyneux, mayor of Wigan 1639, 1640 Richard Molyneux of Sefton, bart. (1559-1623) 1583, 1621 Richard Molyneux of Sefton, bart. (r. 1593-1 636) 1618. 1629 Edward Moore of Bankhall (d.1632) 1605, 1632 John Moore of Bankhall (d.1650) 1633, 1642 Nicholas Mosley of Houghend, knt. (d.1612) 1598, 1612 Rowland Mosley of Houghend (d.1617) 1608, 1616 Oswald Mosley of Ancoats (d.1630) 1616, 1630 Richard Murray, warden of Manchester College (d.1637) 1616, 1637 Robert Needham, esq., later Viscount Kilmorey (1558-1653) 1626, 1631, NR William Norris of Speke. knt. (d.1630) 1608, 1624 Roger Nowell of Read (d.1624) 1600, 1624 Roger Nowell of Read (1606-1695) 1628, 1631 Henry Ogle of Whiston (f.l586-c.!649) 1628. 1642 Geoffrey Osbaldeston of Osbaldeston 1601, 1620 John Osbaldeston of Osbaldeston (r. 1599-1634) 1630, 1634 Robert Parkinson 1604, 1606NR? Robert Pilkington of Rivington (d.1605) 1600, 1603 William Pilkington, mayor of Wigan 1637, 1638 Thomas Preston of Furness (d.1604) 1584, 1604 George Preston of Holker (d.1640) 1605, 1623 Edmund Prestwich of Hulme (r.1577-1629) 1615, 1629 John Radclifle of Ordsall, knt. (1582-1627) 1626 Alexander Radclifle of Ordsall, knt. (1607-1654) 1629, 1642 Savil Radcliffe of Todmorden (r-.1584-f.1652) 1615. 1642 William Radcliffe of Manchester (d.1645) 1633, 1642 Edward Rawstorne of Newhall (d.1653) 1624, 1642 Alexander Reddish of Reddish (d.1613) 1595, 1604 66 D.J. Wilkinson Edward Ridgeley 1616 NR? Edward Rigby of Burgh (d.1627) 1598, 1627 Alexander Rigby of Burgh (c. 1583- 1650) 1624, 1642 Hugh Rigby of Burgh (d.1642) 1638, 1642 Richard Shireburn of Stonyhurst (1557-1628) 1616, 1628 Richard Shuttleworth of Gawthorpe (c.1587-1669) 1615, 1641 Alexander Standish of Duxbury (1570-1622) 1604, 1621 Thomas Standish of Duxbury (c. 1593-1 642) 1624, 1642 Edward Standish of Standish (1532-1610) 1595, 1606 Edward Stanley of BickerstafFe (d.1640) 1608, 1622 Thomas Stanley of Bickerstaffe, bart. (1616-1653) 1640, 1642 John Starkie of Huntroyde (d.1665) 1624, 1642 Edmund Trafford of Trafford, knt. (1562-1620) 1588, 1620 Cecil Trafford of Trafford, knt. (c. 1599-1 672) 1620, 1639 Francis Tunstall of Thurland (\570-post 1595, 1603 1605) Gregory Turner, rector of Sefton (d.1633) 1615, 1633 Thomas Tyldesley of Orford, knt. (d. 1635) 1595, 1634 Edward Veale of Whinneyheys 1628, 1642 Edward Walmesley of Bannister Hall (d.1604) 1598, 1604 Edward Warren of Woodplumpton, knt. (d.1609) 1591, 1605 Hugh Whatmoughe, rector of Bury (d.1623) 1615, 1623 Thomas Woolfall of Woolfall (d.1650) 1634, 1636 Richard Worsley, mayor of Wigan 1631 John Wrightington of Wrightington 1589, 1616 Edward Wrightington of Wrightington, knt. (1581-1658) 1618, 1642 Peter Wynn 1634, 1641 NR?