Cranfield University The Department of Applied Science, Security and Resilience PhD Thesis Academic Years 2007 – 2011 The military effectiveness of the West Country Militia at the time of the Monmouth Rebellion Christopher L Scott Supervisor Professor E. R. Holmes 2011 Cranfield University 2011. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyright holder. This work received a bursary from the Department of Applied Science, Security and Resilience of Cranfield University and also received a grant from the Society for Army Historical Research. i ABSTRACT This thesis considers the military effectiveness of the late seventeenth century militia, focusing upon those county forces which took part in the Monmouth Rebellion campaign of 1685. If the militia were effective then there should be evidence of it fulfilling a set of specified criteria for effectiveness. After examining the militia’s historical purpose and context, as well as its relationship with society, these criteria were defined and then used to test evidence assembled from primary sources. Documents containing information and comments upon the nature, operation and performance of the militia were consulted, including records of contemporary official and personal material held both by local and national record offices. The results showed the militia to have been militarily effective, thus lending support to the hypothesis that they were more effective than hitherto supposed. Further research was conducted using information gathered from personal accounts, private papers, letters, financial records, diaries and memoirs held in record offices, libraries and muniment rooms. These also supported the view that the militia was actually an efficient military organisation, according to the period expectations and demands made of it. The sheer number of references discovered, together with the nature and status of their authors, suggests that modern works have presented an inaccurate view of the militia and its qualities. In the light of this new evidence, it was concluded that the late seventeenth century militia were effective in contemporary terms, and recommends that current literature be revised. ii PREFACE My fascination with the militia of the Monmouth Rebellion began in 1985 during the 300 th Anniversary Celebrations, when the civil war re-enactment regiment which I ran was employed by the cider brewer Gaymer’s to promote their wares. My group marched through several West Country towns dressed as royal troops of 1685 and read James II’s declaration against the Duke of Monmouth at each venue’s central location before distributing Gaymer’s samples in pewter pots. As part of the research for the project I read the pro-royalist accounts of the rebellion, especially the writings of John Churchill and the Earl of Feversham. This had a profound effect upon my approach to studying military history because although until then a dedicated West Countryman and latter day Monmouth supporter, reading the accounts written by the traditional enemy opened my eyes to the folly of only seeing events through the eyes of one side in a military struggle. It caused me to question what I had hitherto accepted and seen repeated in history books purporting to be the truth. As the creator of the Guild of Battlefield Guides’ Validation Programme I now find myself frequently asking candidates presenting stories of battles to tell their audiences about the enemy perspective and which sources of enemy information they have consulted. Moreover this questioning of the veracity of what is written in history books led to a growing appreciation of how bias and personal agendas play a part in most accounts. From my reading pertaining to the Monmouth Rebellion I began to perceive that the militia regiments which took part in the campaign were often sweepingly dismissed as ineffective and were proclaimed, in short, useless as military bodies. There seemed to be universal condemnation. This was therefore either a fundamental truth or a repeated myth that had, by repetition been accepted as such. In iii all probability for such a generalisation across such a wide number of regiments to apply to all of them was unlikely. This sweeping dismissal of the militia of 1685 was seldom substantiated by contemporary evidence beyond the oft-repeated writings of John Churchill. I wanted to know what other contemporaries thought of the institution, especially the officers who commanded these county forces and the parliament which legislated for their funding. The more I looked through the available history books the more aware I became that this work had never been seriously undertaken and the same sources of criticism were paraded again and again. This realisation coincided with a chance conversation over lunch with Professor Richard Holmes at the Royal United Service Institution in Whitehall. He persuaded me that this work would be an original study worthy of a PhD investigation. The results of my work are presented in this thesis. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS No thesis can be undertaken without the help of a wide circle of professional and amateur assistance and I am indebted to an array of academics, public servants, colleagues, and friends who have unstintingly given their help and support over the years of this project. I would like to thank all the members of the various institutions I visited or contacted who have been helpful, sometimes bemusedly so. Regrettably I have not kept lists of their names, but if any reader works or has worked in a library, archive, museum, muniment room or record office and has assisted with an obscure militia enquiry, or dealt with a letter concerning county history or Restoration politics, or indeed has shared stories or discoveries with a stranger - I thank you all. I wish to thank specifically the Defence Academy Library (DCMT), Shrivenham, especially Ms. Amanda Smith for her unsurpassable skill in tracking down and borrowing obscure volumes and articles for my use, and Mr. Ian MacKay for his taking over of this role upon her promotion; his cheerful banter and continued interest were a great help. Friendly and supportive library staffs make all the difference to the rather isolated world of the researcher. I am extremely grateful to my supervisor Professor Richard Holmes who suggested I should undertake this work under his tutelage at Cranfield University. His formidable knowledge of the period and the assistance and guidance so frequently and unreservedly given, were all of immense value, as were his shared discoveries and thoughts on the personality and career of John Churchill. I am thankful for his insistence upon a more academic style of writing than I had hitherto practiced and for his support in securing a research grant from the Society of Army Historical Research which made possible several more trips to various centres of learning. His untimely v death during the last months of the work was a great tragedy. Other members of Cranfield University were also a great help, particularly Dr. Peter Caddick-Adams and Dr. Michael Dunn who served on my Thesis Committee, and although my subject was somewhat alien to their own areas of expertise, they never failed to help focus my thinking and direct my studies. I owe similar Cranfield gratitude to Dr. Michael Edwards, and Dr. Charles Kirke, and I am also grateful to Ms. Anne Harbour, the department secretary for her support and optimism, and to Ms. Steph. Muir, who as the keeper of Professor Holmes’ diary, always managed to find me a slot in his crowded commitments whenever I made a request. For tightening my argument and the deletion of extraneous material I am grateful to my two examiners Professor Malcolm Wanklyn and Dr. Bryan Watters. I would also like to thank the Department of Applied Science, Security and Resilience of Cranfield University for their generous bursary, and the Society for Army Historical Research for both their grant and their willingness to publish my findings. In addition to those who helped directly I would also like to thank my friends in The Battlefields Trust for their continued support and proffered ideas about sources and interpretation. Similar thanks are due to my colleagues in the Guild of Battlefield Guides who always forgive my obsession with pre-petrol engine days and frequent references to the Battle of Sedgemoor. The confidence derived from the support of these two learned and enthusiastic bodies is beyond measure. I am also grateful to Dr. John Kirkaldy who as my Open University tutor encouraged me on the path of lifelong learning; this thesis is in no small way a result of his influence. Similarly I would like to acknowledge the interest ignited in me for military history by Donald Featherstone who, with Roger Snell, took me on annual explorations of the battlefields of Europe for many years. I also thank the late David vi Chandler, who, apart from being a doyen of the Sedgemoor Campaign and a great friend, aroused my fascination with the events of 1685 and who was always a source of much-valued, jovial inspiration. As presenting papers was a valued tool in clarifying thought and developing argument I would like to thank those bodies who invited me to speak on my research findings. These include Canfield University, the Guild of Battlefield Guides, the Historic Miniature Gamers Society of the USA, and the Historical Societies of Chiseldon, Wootton Bassett and Wroughton, and the Highworth Wine Circle. I would particularly like to thank Dr. Eric Gruber von Arni who shared his journey to his own PhD. with me and then encouraged me to undertake one myself. I owe him a deep debt of gratitude for giving me access to his library of rare volumes and for being so liberal with his own research time to conduct investigations on my behalf.