A HISTORY OF NOTTINGHAMSHIRE 



bands, both trained and untrained, were in good condition, except that the 

 horse were lessened by the creation of some barons who claimed exemption, 

 as did some of the king's servants. 1 In 1622 the bands were ordered to be 

 ready for instant service, and to suppress riots if any should occur. 3 Three 

 years later the store of powder in the county was considered insufficient, 8 and 

 in 1626 William, Viscount Mansfield, wrote to Secretary Conway that in 

 Nottinghamshire, although the ' Muscatires ' were reasonably well ' for pikes 

 and corslets, there were not above six in the whole shire right as they should 

 be.' * He also reported that he had ' taken his own credit ' to supply the 

 deficiencies of the county musters, and promised to do his utmost to procure 

 a benevolence from the county, but feared they would be governed by * ill 

 precedents and factions, the dregs of the last Parliament.' 6 



Already, indeed, the county as a whole was beginning to revolt against 

 the illegal schemes fashioned to meet the financial difficulties of the Stuarts. 

 In January, 1626, Sir Gervase Clifton had reported concerning the forty-five 

 loans demanded under the Privy Seal that he had received amounts to 500 

 from thirty-four persons. Five persons (assessed together at 100) had been 

 silent or refused, and six others (assessed together at 90) had sent excuses. 6 

 Again, in September, 1626, the forced loan was met by a refusal of 'the 

 people in general, save a few whose offer amounted to 70 .... to give 

 to His Majesty otherwise than by Parliament, which they alleged to be the 

 ordinary way.' 7 However, in February, 1627, the commissioner for the 

 loan reported that, though the country at first was ' not a little perplexed at 

 the height of the demand, and the manner of it as not being included in 

 Parliament,' it had ultimately been persuaded to submit ' on allowance of 

 certain exceptions and the giving of time.' e Moreover, the gentlemen and 

 others of the town of Nottingham ' willingly assented to the loan,' and pro- 

 mised 'to pay down half at once (i.e. .129),' and the residue in three 

 months.' 10 Yet, though the county had yielded, there was a general simmering 

 of discontent, 11 and this, added to the ravages of the plague, in 1630 and 



1 Cal. S.P. Dom. 1619-23, 262. ' Ibid. 427. 'Ibid. 1625-6, 377. 



4 Cal. S.P. Dom. 1625-6, 406. * Ibid. 



6 S.P. Dom. Chas. I, xix, No. 21. Of the latter George J.iques petitioned that he had no land but a 

 poor cottage worth 4O/. a year ; that he lived upon a farm which, with a high rent, was scarcely worth 

 30 per annum, yet was the cheapest of his means, as for the estate and goods inherited from his uncle, 

 brother, and mother there were at the most but 1,000, and of this he had not a sixth. Added to this slender- 

 ness of estate he was 200 in debt, to be paid by Candlemas next. Gabriel Armestreye made the quaint 

 excuse, ' not forged to avoid it (the loan), but most true,' that he had great expenses since he had ' twelve 

 children living, and more than one hundred children and children's children alive and dead.' George Abell 

 had too little money for himself and family since he had no land, having lately sold it, no house of his 

 own, and many children. Alexander Stowe was already overwhelmed with many debts he could not pay, 

 and his lands, 'not being above 15 per annum,' he had a year ago conferred on his son in marriage, 

 half in possession, half in reversion. Thomas Grantham wrote, ' I presume by this time you take notice 

 that Mrs. Sacheverill hath changed her name, so as wee must both entreate you to make a faire excuse 

 on our behalfe. And in so doing I shalbe reddye to performe the like kindness to any of yo r freindes 

 in Lincolnshire.' Richard Welshe wrote that about four years ago he had bestowed most of his estate on his 

 eldest son in marriage, and had since had losses, ' the vallew of two hundred pounds in cattle and other 

 sheepe, beinge by trade a butcher, by reason whereof I am greatly impoverished in my estate.' 



' Ibid. p. 434. ' Cal. S.P. Dom. 1627-8, 65. Ibid. 338. I0 Ibid. 53. 



" This is seen in connexion with the muster levies of 1 63 3. The earl of Newcastle reported many defects 

 and many refractory persons in the county. Thomas Flower, of Askham, was especially censured since he had 

 refused to ' show his arms ' with ' such sauciness ' that if some course ' were not taken to reform him his 

 Majesty's service would much suffer.' He had also ' denied to compound for knighthood,' and when threatened 

 with a summons before the council had answered that ' he knew his way well enough thither, and it was but 

 buying a new pair of shoes more' (ibid. 1633-4, 28 ')- B X A P ril > l6 34 t nis same Thomas had been brought 

 to conformity by the council (ibid. p. 561). 



340 



