Family and Education

b. c.15 July 1589,1 2nd but o. surv. s. of John Hotham† of Scorborough and 3rd w. Jane, da. and coh. of Richard Legard of Rysome, Yorks.2 m. (1) 16 Feb. 1607 (with 1,000 marks), Katherine, da. of Sir John Rodes of Barlborough, Derbys. 2s. 2da. d.v.p.;3 (2) 16 July 1614, Anne, da. and h. of Ralph Rokeby†, dep. sec., Council in the North 1587-95, 3s.;4 (3) Frances, da. of John Legard, Haberdasher of London and Ganton, Yorks., 3da. d.v.p.;5 (4) 27 Oct. 1631, Katherine (d. 31 Aug. 1634), da. of Sir William Bamburgh, 1st bt. of Howsham, Yorks., wid. of Sir Thomas Norcliffe of Langton, Yorks. 2da. (1 d.v.p.);6 (5) 7 May 1635, Sarah, da. of Thomas Anlaby of Etton, Yorks. 4da.7 suc. fa. 1609;8 kntd. 11 Apr. 1617;9 cr. bt. 4 Jan. 1622.10 exec. 3 Jan. 1645.11 sig. John Hotham.

Offices Held

Commr. sewers, Yorks. (E. Riding) by 1613-d., Hull, Yorks. 1622, N. Riding 1632-?d.;12 j.p., E. Riding by 1614-26, 1628-40, Beverley, Yorks. by 1615-40, N. Riding 1631-40;13 commr. subsidy, E. Riding 1621, 1624, 1641,14 assessment 1641, 1643, levying money 1643;15 collector (jt.), 10ths, E. Riding 1624;16 commr. oyer and terminer, Northern circ. 1629-?40, recusants, Northern counties 1629-?40; member, Council in the North, 1629-41, dep. v.-pres. 1635;17 dep. lt. E. Riding ?1625, 1629-40, col. militia ft. by c.1635-43;18 commr. St. Paul’s Cathedral repair, E. Riding 1633;19 sheriff, Yorks. 1634-5;20 commr. piracy, Hull 1637, raising forces Northumbs. and co. Dur. 1642,21 sequestration E. Riding 1643.22

Vol. Bohemia, 1619-20, ?Germany, 1620-1;23 gov. Hull 1628-39, 1642-3.24

Treas. (jt.) assessment 1642;25 commr. treaty with Scotland, 1643.26

Biography

Named after a Howdenshire village they may have held shortly after the Conquest, the Hothams acquired their main seat at Scorborough, four miles north of Beverley, during the thirteenth century, and fought in the Hundred Years’ War, the Wars of the Roses and the border wars with Scotland.27 However, only three family members are known to have sat in Parliament before 1485, and Hotham’s father, returned for Scarborough in 1584, was the first MP the family produced in over a century.28

Hotham’s elder brother died in infancy, and his father, clearly relieved to secure a male heir, included him in the family entail when he was only five. Still a minor at his first marriage, he was unable to assign his interest to trustees to create a jointure for his wife, a problem resolved by the passage of a private Act of Parliament in 1607.29 The estate Hotham inherited was valued at £1,200 a year in 1650, while his mother’s lands brought in a further £300 p.a.30 He further enhanced his fortune with a succession of lucrative marriages: his first wife brought him a dowry of 1,000 marks; and the second, whose father died in 1595 in considerable debt, had probably acquired a reasonable portion by the time of her marriage.31 The dowry of his third wife is unknown, but his fourth, a stepdaughter of Sir Thomas Fairfax II*, inherited lands worth £700 a year when her brother died seven weeks after her marriage. These lands were ultimately inherited by the children of her first marriage, but Hotham must have secured a lease, as his family was still in possession in 1650.32 In 1633 Hotham’s finances were sound enough to allow him to buy lands in Fylingdales worth £240 a year from his cousin, (Sir) Hugh Cholmley*.33

Hotham played little part in local politics during the first decade of his adult life, although in January 1615 he was involved in a quarrel with Sir Thomas Hoby* over the latter’s attempt to prosecute 300 recusants at the East Riding quarter sessions. Sir William Constable 1st bt.*, John Legard* and several other magistrates protested against what they saw as an unacceptable intrusion into local affairs by Hoby, a North Riding man, who was particularly affronted when Hotham (only half his age) interrupted his address to the jury and asked to examine his evidences. Hoby, construing the bench’s lack of sympathy as evidence of a crypto-Catholic conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, sued in Star Chamber, but his charges appear to have been dismissed.34 Hotham secured a passport to travel abroad in May 1619, and, during his subsequently travels, served as a volunteer in Count Mansfeld’s army defending Bohemia for the Elector Palatine.35 He may have returned home after the rout at White Mountain in November 1620, as he was included on a subsidy commission for the East Riding five months later, but he can only definitely be placed in England in January 1622, when he purchased a baronetcy.36 The impact of this campaign on Hotham’s character is difficult to assess, but his subsequent actions suggest that it shook him out of the complacent attitude he had exhibited towards recusants in 1615.

There is no firm evidence that Hotham sought a place in the Commons in 1624, but he may have considered standing, in view of his support for the Palatine cause. Sir William Alford* applied to the Beverley corporation for a seat, and Hotham, with whom Alford was paired as MP for the remainder of the decade, may have joined him.37 In the event the town was swayed by other interests. If Hotham shared in Alford’s rejection at Beverley, it would explain the outrage he and Alford expressed upon discovering that Arthur Fish, one of the wealthiest members of the Beverley corporation, had abused his position as an assessor to award himself a derisory subsidy rating.38

Returned at Beverley in 1625, Hotham was clearly doubtful of his standing with the corporation, and was therefore also elected at Appleby on the interest of Francis (Clifford*), 4th earl of Cumberland. This was probably arranged by Cumberland’s erstwhile son-in-law, Sir Thomas Wentworth*, one of the candidates for the Yorkshire county seats, for whom Hotham canvassed in the East Riding.39 Between the election and the meeting of Parliament Hotham was at Hull, helping to dispatch 2,000 recruits to the English army in the Low Countries, but he apparently arrived at Westminster promptly, as he opted to sit for Beverley on 21 June, the first day of business.40 Although the dispute over Wentworth’s election featured prominently on the Commons’ agenda, Hotham left no further trace on the records of the session.

Yorkshire’s political landscape had altered by the time Parliament next met in January 1626: Wentworth was excluded by his appointment as sheriff, and the senior county seat was taken by his rival Sir John Savile*, who looked to the duke of Buckingham for preferment. This explains Hotham’s outspoken criticism of both Savile and the favourite, first voiced in a debate of 17 Mar. on the failure of the recent attack on Cadiz. Buckingham’s policies were widely attacked, but it was Hotham who drew the obvious conclusion, formally moving that ‘the possession of many offices by one man’ should be cited as a grievance. A week later, a report blaming the increase of popery in Yorkshire on lord president Scrope and Buckingham’s other northern allies was dismissed by Savile, who suggested that recusancy was due to the lack of good preachers. Hotham joined Sir Thomas Hoby in asserting ‘that they have as many preachers and as good in Yorkshire as in any other place’, and he speculated that ‘Lord Scrope [is] continued and countenanced in his place, as may be guessed, by the duke’. In the subsidy debate of 27 Mar. Hotham agreed that the three subsidies then offered should all be paid within a year, but even this concession was aimed at Buckingham, as the grant was conditional on the redress of grievances, which focused on the favourite’s overweening influence at Court.41

In addition to the impeachment charges brought against Buckingham by the Commons, other accusations were made by the duke’s bitterest enemy, (Sir) John (Digby*), earl of Bristol. On 4 May, Hotham moved to debate ‘whether the duke were a countenancer of popery or not’, a motion obviously concerted with Bristol, whose stepson, Sir Lewis Dyve, promptly offered testimony that the duke had adored the Host during a Catholic procession in Madrid in 1623.42 The impeachment was disrupted a week later when (Sir) John Eliot and Sir Dudley Digges were arrested for implying that Buckingham and Charles had conspired to murder King James on his deathbed. On 16 May Hotham successfully pressed for a vote to clear other Members, which exonerated Wentworth’s ally Christopher Wandesford*, who had presented the Commons’ case on the poisoning charge.43 At the beginning of June, it was resolved to investigate Buckingham’s election as chancellor of Cambridge University, which flouted earlier criticisms of his engrossing of offices. A letter was quickly drafted demanding that the university explain its proceedings, but the king only consented to an investigation on condition that the result be allowed to stand. Several Members urged that the Commons’ letter be redrafted, but Hotham rashly moved to send it unaltered, without considering the consequences of the king’s command.44 While this attack stalled, Sir Francis Foljambe* produced a letter widely circulated in Yorkshire, in which Savile had criticized the Commons for harrying the duke at the expense of all other business. The matter came to a head on 13 June, when Hotham and Bristol’s ally Sir John Strangways were tellers for a motion which resolved to hear the case on the following day; Savile was only saved by the dissolution on 15 June.45

Buckingham’s partisans took revenge on their tormentors a month after the dissolution, when Savile’s enemies, including Constable and Hotham, were purged from the Yorkshire commissions of the peace. In October, the two men were reported to the duke as being ‘in all things ... opposed to your Grace’,46 and, not surprisingly, they became the leading opponents of the Forced Loan in the East Riding. Hotham was (allegedly) absent when the warrant for the Loan arrived at his home; both he and Constable were included on the list of refusers sent to the Privy Council in June 1627, and were subsequently arrested.47 Lord Henry Clifford* assumed that the pair would be imprisoned, but they were discharged after a brief appearance, only to be rearrested in September and confined, like Wentworth, somewhere in southern England, where they remained until the general amnesty of 2 Jan. 1628.48 During these enforced visits to London, Hotham helped Sir Hugh Cholmley reach an agreement with his creditors, standing surety for £2,500 of his cousin’s most pressing debts.49

Hotham supported Wentworth’s stand against the Saviles at the general election of 1628, lobbying the Cholmleys, Sir Matthew Boynton* and Sir Henry Griffith shortly before the election.50 He was himself returned for Beverley once again, and while less prominent than in 1626, he was placed on the committee of privileges (20 Mar.), and claimed privilege to stay a lawsuit against one of his tenants.51 Somewhat surprisingly, he played no part in the debates over the constitutional implications of the arrest of Loan refusers, although he did agree with the king’s request that the House forgo its Whitsun recess to hear his (first) answer to the Petition of Right.52 As in 1626, Hotham’s most noteworthy contributions to the debates were his criticisms of Buckingham. On 5 June, when Charles Price protested that Buckingham’s generosity was sometimes abused by others. Hotham retorted ‘that if the gentleman [Price] could name any other, he should do the king and commonwealth good service to name them’.53 Six days later, he was a teller for the yeas when the House divided over the question of whether to submit a Remonstrance to the king, which named the duke as the chief cause of the ills of the kingdom.54

Hotham also struck back at his local enemies in Parliament. On 12 May he was added to the committee charged with drawing up a list of recusant officeholders: Buckingham’s Yorkshire allies Lords Scrope (now earl of Sunderland) and Dunbar were included, despite the efforts of their supporters to get their names removed.55 In addition, Hotham attempted to get Dunbar included in the Remonstrance of June 1628, for procuring Privy Seal letters suspending proceedings against Catholics at the East Riding quarter sessions.56 When Savile’s commission for compounding for recusancy fines was attacked, Hotham was one of those named to investigate (24 May).57 He was more generous towards those with whom he had no quarrel, although he called for the ‘exemplary punishment’ of Sir Simeon Steward* if found guilty of bribe-taking and embezzlement.58 When Sir Thomas Monson* fell foul of the House for reviving a contentious patent for sealing writs issued by the Council in the North, Hotham insisted that he ‘would have no touch upon Sir Thomas Monson ... having denied that he [Monson] knew of [the background to] this patent’.59

Hotham was one of the main beneficiaries of Wentworth’s appointment as president of the Council in the North in December 1628: he regained his place on the East Riding bench, became a deputy lieutenant, advised Wentworth about the replacement of Dunbar’s clique in the East Riding lieutenancy, and was appointed to the Council in the North in June 1629. He apparently also gained the honorific title of governor of Hull.60 Buckingham’s death and Wentworth’s favour encouraged Hotham to mute his criticisms of the government in the parliamentary session of 1629: he remained silent on the key issues of Tunnage and Poundage and Arminianism. On 30 Jan. he was added to the committee investigating the printing of the Petition of Right, which omitted the king’s crucial second reply, but the report never appeared, and Charles’s personal interference in this matter remained obscure.61 Hotham also renewed his attacks on the lenient treatment of Catholics, being included on a fresh committee to investigate Savile’s recusancy commission (16 Feb.), and moving to examine letters from attorney-general Sir Robert Heath* halting recusancy prosecutions in the north.62 He may have promoted a bill to reverse a Court of Wards decree concerning the Yorkshire estate of John Estofte, as he was first named to its committee (21 February).63 During the session he also secured a passport allowing his son, John Hotham†, to gain military experience in the Low Countries together with Thomas Fairfax†.64

Hotham was one of Wentworth’s most energetic subordinates during the early years of the Personal Rule. In January 1630 he complained to Wentworth about official letters suspending recusancy prosecutions, warning that this would disrupt Wentworth’s composition scheme. Commended as ‘very forward’ over the collection of knighthood fines by Sir Thomas Tildesley, he was doubtless disappointed by Wentworth’s decision to appoint Sir Edward Osborne* as vice-president of the Council in the North on his departure for Ireland in 1633, although he deputized during Osborne’s absence in the summer of 1635.65 Hotham enthusiastically enforced the Ship Money levies of £12,000 apiece under writs of October 1634 and August 1635, which both fell due during his tenure as sheriff of Yorkshire. In November 1635 he obtained an audience with the king, who professed himself ‘well content and satisfied’ with his efforts, and personally ordered him to distrain the goods of the county’s only outright refuser, Sir Michael Warton†. Hotham, profoundly flattered, told Wentworth ‘I shall not fail to do it [distrain Warton’s goods], though I am persuaded he will sue me’ for acting without a written warrant.66 Meanwhile, Wentworth interceded with secretary of state (Sir) John Coke* to quash a Star Chamber suit pending over Hotham’s decision to lease the office of under-sheriff for profit.67 Protests from Thomas Stockdale†, rating disputes with Sir William Pennyman† and the York corporation, and problems over his own expenses and the collection of arrears left Hotham unable to settle his Ship Money accounts until the spring of 1636, but, most exceptionally, he borrowed money on his own credit to meet his obligations.68 In 1637 Hotham and Cholmley were sued in Star Chamber by Sir Thomas Hoby over rates for a House of Correction in the North Riding. Cholmley laid a counter-suit at York, and Hotham informed Wentworth of Hoby’s unwillingness to support the York administration. Hoby eventually submitted to the arbitration of lord keeper (Sir Thomas) Coventry*, who ended the suit and deprived Hoby of his position as custos of the North Riding.69

Hotham broke with Wentworth over the Covenanter revolt: Wentworth sought his advice about the guardianship of the grandson of Sir Thomas Fairfax II* as late as November 1637, but when Osborne asked for assistance over the mustering of the militia in July 1638, he proved uncharacteristically reluctant, ‘alleging ‘tis now harvest time’.70 As the county prepared for a campaign against the Scots during the following winter, Hotham complained about the cost of gunpowder supplied from the Tower, and also about plans to move the Yorkshire militia forward to the Tyne, leaving the county unprotected against unruly soldiery from further south.71 Matters came to a head in the spring of 1639, when he was replaced as governor of Hull by Capt. William Legge†, who was establishing an arsenal there for the royal ordnance.72 Wentworth protested, ‘I do know his faithfulness to be such as I durst answer for him with my life; nor am I ignorant that in party [i.e. partisanship] he is very eager, and in truth over earnest, yet it were very easy to have him as forward on the king’s party’.73 Meanwhile, he warned Hotham that ‘it is a very ill time to dispute when Hannibal is ad portas’, and the latter marched his militia regiment for Berwick on 27 May 1639, probably arriving at the king’s camp in time for the brief campaign of 3-5 June.74

Hotham finally turned his back on Wentworth in March 1640, when he played a key role in the county’s refusal to provide reinforcements for the Berwick garrison until the cost of levying the troops was settled.75 Removal from local office increased his intransigence in the Short Parliament, and he promoted a series of petitions hostile to the king over the summer,76 possibly at the behest of the English peers who were secretly communicating with the Covenanters. The king warned Hotham and Cholmley that he would hang them for these crimes, a threat which drove them into the arms of Charles’s opponents.77 Hotham eventually regained the governorship of Hull from the Commons in the aftermath of the king’s attempt to arrest the Five Members in January 1642. For the next eight months his command lay at the epicentre of national politics, but its importance was eclipsed by the end of the year. In March 1643 Hotham and his son came under suspicion after Cholmley defected to the royal cause. On 29 June, before Hotham’s plans to deliver Hull to the king could come to fruition, the town was seized by sailors landed from a warship in the Humber. Hotham managed to escape, but was quickly captured at Beverley and sent to the Tower.78

Although ejected from the Commons on 7 Sept. 1643, Hotham was only court-martialled after his correspondence with the royalist commander, the duke of Newcastle (Sir William Cavendish II*) was captured at Marston Moor. Found guilty on 7 Dec. 1644, his execution was delayed to allow him to settle his affairs,79 which were in some confusion, owing to the fact that his goods, amounting to £10,000 in cash and plate, had been seized at his arrest.80 Having established that his lands were not liable to forfeiture for his treason, he hastily augmented his wife’s jointure and made provision for his younger son Charles and four unmarried daughters. Attempts to reprieve either Hotham or his son, also been sentenced to death, proved fruitless, and Hotham was executed on Tower Hill on 3 Jan. 1645. Both were buried at the nearby church of All Hallows’ Barking.81 The estates passed to Hotham’s 12-year-old grandson, also named John, who sat for Beverley almost continuously from the Convention Parliament of 1660 to his death in 1689.

Hotham’s abandonment of his erstwhile allies in both 1640 and 1643 naturally led contemporary commentators to draw an unflattering picture of his motives: King Charles (or his amanuensis) recorded in the Eikon Basilike that ‘Sir John Hotham was ... most liable to those downright temptations of ambition which have no cloak or cheat of religion to impose upon themselves or others’.82 Sir Henry Slingsby* and Sir Edward Hyde† both thought him ‘covetous and ambitious’,83 and even Sir Hugh Cholmley expressed misgivings:

Sir John was a man of good understanding and ingenuity, yet of a rash and hasty nature, and so much wedded to his own honour as his passion often overbalanced his judgment, and yet he was able to give good counsel and advice where his own interest was not concerned.84

While these judgments were largely made in the light of Hotham’s later career, they can be applied with equal force to the period before the Civil War: Hotham called for the investigation of Savile’s commission for compounding with recusants, but then condoned Wentworth’s use of the same device; he opposed the Forced Loan, but was one of the most zealous enforcers of knighthood fines and Ship Money. In February 1639 Wentworth observed that ‘there is somewhat more will and party than I could wish, but he [Hotham] is very honest, faithful and hearty whichsoever way he inclines, and to be won and framed as you please with good usage’.85 Neglect of this advice led Hotham into opposition in the following year, a move which was probably intended to highlight his own local influence and force Charles offer him preferment, the strategy by which Wentworth had secured his promotion in 1628. His attempt to reverse this rash decision cost him his life.

Ref Volumes: 1604-1629

Author: Simon Healy

Notes

• 1. C142/319/179.
• 2. Clay, Dugdale’s Vis. Yorks. iii. 260-1; Borthwick, Reg. Test. 25, f. 151v.
• 3. Clay, iii. 261; PROB 11/74, f. 131v.
• 4. Clay, iii. 261; Borthwick, Reg. Test. 26, f. 163.
• 5. Clay, iii. 261-2.
• 6. Ibid. iii. 262; C142/664/2.
• 7. Clay, iii. 262; C142/774/14.
• 8. C142/319/179.
• 9. Shaw, Knights of Eng. ii. 162.
• 10. C66/2245.
• 11. C142/774/14.
• 12. C181/2, f. 181; 181/4, f. 114; 181/5, p. 198; Yorks. Arch. Soc. MD125.
• 13. C181/2, f. 223; 181/5, p. 143; STAC 8/175/4; C231/4, f. 262.
• 14. C212/22/20-1, 23.
• 15. SR, v. 83; A. and O. i. 91, 147, 149.
• 16. E179/283, Vol. ‘TG 28398’.
• 17. R. Reid, Council in the North, 498; SCL, Strafford Pprs. 16/54.
• 18. SCL, Strafford Pprs. 12/50; Add. 28082, f. 80v.
• 19. HUL, DDHA 18/35.
• 20. List of Sheriffs comp. A. Hughes (PRO, L. and I. ix), 163.
• 21. CJ, ii. 853b.
• 22. A. and O. i. 112.
• 23. APC, 1618-19, pp. 454-5; Strafforde Letters ed. W. Knowler (1739), ii. 288.
• 24. Strafforde Letters, ii. 310-1.
• 25. SR, v. 167.
• 26. LJ, vi. 55b.
• 27. A.M.W. Stirling, Hothams, i. 1-23.
• 28. Sir Geoffrey de Hotham (1307, 1309), John Hotham (1378) and Ralph Hotham (1472, 1478).
• 29. C142/319/179; CJ, i. 258b, 260a, 265b, 277a, 278b; LJ, ii. 388b, 390-2; HLRO, O.A. 3 Jas.I, c. 42.
• 30. HUL, DDHO/20/7.
• 31. PROB 11/74, f. 131v; Borthwick, Reg. Test. 26, f. 163.
• 32. C142/556/102; 142/664/2.
• 33. H. Cholmley, Memoirs (1787), p. 54.
• 34. STAC 8/175/4, ff. 40-43.
• 35. APC, 1618-19, pp. 454-5; Strafforde Letters, ii. 288.
• 36. B.N. Reckitt, Chas. I and Hull, 107; C212/22/20; G. Parker, Thirty Years’ War, 61-4; C66/2245.
• 37. Yorks. ERRO, DDCC/144/1, Visct. Dunbar to John Kirton, n.d. See also BEVERLEY, SIR WILLIAM ALFORD.
• 38. SP14/170/42.
• 39. Strafforde Letters, i. 27.
• 40. APC, 1625-6, pp. 58, 70; Procs. 1625, p. 205.
• 41. Procs. 1626, ii. 307-8, 357-8, 381.
• 42. Ibid. iii. 157, 164.
• 43. Ibid. iii. 266-7; C. Russell, PEP, 304-7.
• 44. Russell, 307; Procs. 1626, iii. 388-9.
• 45. Procs. 1626, iii. 303; CJ, i. 870b.
• 46. R. Cust, Forced Loan, 188-9; SP16/37/28.
• 47. SP16/60/52; 16/68/51.I; APC, 1627, p. 382.
• 48. SCL, Strafford Pprs. 16/213; APC, 1627, p. 418; 1627-8, pp. 75, 217; Cust, 82-3.
• 49. Cholmley, 45-8.
• 50. Wentworth Pprs. ed. J.P. Cooper (Cam. Soc. ser. 4. xii), 283, 289.
• 51. CJ, i. 873a; CD 1628, iv. 293.
• 52. CD 1628, iv. 16.
• 53. Ibid. iv. 128.
• 54. Ibid. iv. 237.
• 55. Ibid. 319, 323-4; CJ, i. 896b; JAMES HOWELL.
• 56. CD 1628, iv. 151, 156, 163, 167.
• 57. CJ, i. 904a.
• 58. CD 1628, iii. 358. He was also named to the cttee. appointed to investigate the allegations, CJ, i. 895a.
• 59. CD 1628, iv. 30.
• 60. C231/4, f. 262; Reid, 498; Strafforde Letters, ii. 288; SCL, Wentworth Pprs. 12/50.
• 61. CJ, i. 924b; Russell, 401-2.
• 62. CJ, i. 930b; CD 1629, p. 205.
• 63. CJ, i. 931a.
• 64. APC, 1628-9, p. 371.
• 65. SCL, Wentworth Pprs. 12/99, 114, 162, 209, 234; 15/64.
• 66. Ibid. 15/261; CSP Dom. 1635, p. 479.
• 67. SCL, Strafford Pprs. 15/261; Strafforde Letters, i. 476, 495; HUL, DDHO/1/69.
• 68. CSP Dom. 1635, pp. 487, 504, 507, 537; 1635-6, pp. 198, 210, 223, 257, 297.
• 69. SCL, Strafford Pprs. 16/105; Strafforde Letters, ii. 94-5; Cholmley, 55.
• 70. SCL, Strafford Pprs. 17/221; Strafforde Letters, ii. 193.
• 71. CSP Dom. 1638-9, p. 305; SP16/409/67; SCL, Strafford Pprs. 18/157.
• 72. M. Fissel, Bishops’ Wars, 107-10.
• 73. Strafforde Letters, ii. 288, 310-11.
• 74. Ibid. ii. 307-9; E351/292; Fissel, 26-33.
• 75. SP16/488/6.
• 76. Cholmley, 61-2.
• 77. We owe this point to Dr. David Scott.
• 78. Reckitt, 17-84.
• 79. Ibid. 101-5.
• 80. Hull RO, L.309; HUL, DDHO/1/77.
• 81. C142/774/14; S.R. Gardiner, Hist. Civil War, ii. 103-5; Reckitt, 106-7.
• 82. Quoted in Reckitt, 108.
• 83. H. Slingsby, Diary ed. D. Parsons, 91; Clarendon, Hist. of the Rebellion ed. W.D. Macray, ii. 261-3.
• 84. Clarendon SP, ii. 181-6.
• 85. Strafforde Letters, ii. 288.