A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



In the seventh year of his reign the king, disregarding their immuni- 

 ties, charged the inhabitants with a subsidy. In 1623 a bill was brought 

 into Parliament for the county to send knights to Parliament, but the king 

 refused to ratify it.'"*" Again in 1627 the question was broached, when 

 the people of Durham petitioned that they might either be called to 

 Parliament or enjoy their former immunities in the matter of taxation.^'"' 

 Nothing further seems to have been done, but in 1635 the sheriff of Durham 

 was successful in his claim to account before the king's auditor at Durham,, 

 and not at the exchequer at Westminster.^^"' 



In the great struggle between king and Parliament as a rule the 

 upper classes in Durham were Royalists,^" and the lower Parliamentarians. 

 Some difficulty was experienced in collecting the ship-money tax, especially 

 in the case of assessments on coal mines, the coal-owners refusing to pay, 

 and suits being instituted in the Court of Pleas at Durham to test its 

 legality.'"' 



Except for the general disturbance the first bishops' war (1639) did not 

 affect Durham,'"" and the question of the obligation of border service was laid 

 before the judges, who replied in the affirmative. °'° There is in addition an 

 interesting letter from Sir Thomas Morton on the subject of the local forces. 



I find that the train bands here will be in some disorder, chiefly in their arms, while 

 the defective were excused for that they could get none for money, and those corselets also 

 are wholly without tasses. ... As for the troops of horse I understand that the horses are 

 so small (and better not to be gotten) that most of them are not fit for cuirass, and therefore 

 the resolution being taken to convert them to carabines. . . . Concerning advancing the num- 

 bers from 1,000 to 1,500 I doubt it will hardly be feasible, although the bishop and all the 

 rest are very willing. . . . This place is of no strength nor any way tenable against great 

 shot, the hills commanding it round about. ^'^ 



No district suffered more severely than Durham during the second 

 bishops' war. The early months of 1640, whilst the tension between the 

 king and the Scots was deepening, were spent in increasing and equipping the 

 bishopric troops, who are described by Conway as being ' the men all hand- 

 some and well clothed, and the horses very good,' when he inspected them 

 on the occasion of their being consecrated by their venerable bishop on Elvet 

 Moor outside Durham. '^^ Of some other bishopric troops he met a few days 

 later at Newcastle, Conway formed a very different opinion, writing in strong 

 terms of their mutinous conduct.''" 



In August the Scotch invasion began, and by the end of that month 

 they were approaching the Tyne, the fords of which were being contested by 

 Durham troops. On 28 August the Scots concentrated at Newburn for the 

 passage of the Tyne by the ford there. Meanwhile Conway had not been 

 idle, and earthworks had been thrown up on the low ground near Stella, 

 which commanded the ford. These trenches on 28 August he occupied 

 with 2,500 foot and 1,000 horse. 



»"^ Cal. S.F. Dom. 1619-23, p. 265. "» Ibid. 1627-8, p. 121. 



*^ Allan MSS. xvii, 5 ; D. and C. Lib. Dur. 



^^ Royalist Compositions in Dur. and Northumb. (Surtees Soc). 



"' Cal. S.P. Dom. 163S-9, p. 4 ; 1639-40, p. 592 ; 1640, pp. 133, 140. 



™ In June a regiment mutinied at Durham; Cal. S.P. Dom. 1639, pp. 353, 375. 



''" Ibid. 1639-40, pp. 47, 223. 



"' Ibid. 1638-9, p. 325. 



'" Ca/. S.P. Dom. 1640, p. 64. >" Ibid. p. 73. 



168 



