1. Public Record Office STAC8/32/16.

2. In earlier centuries the area was associated with Lollardy. See in particular Plumb, D., ‘John Foxe and the later Lollards in the mid-Thames Valley’ (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 1987) passimGoogle Scholar and Spufford, M. (ed.), The World of Rural Dissenters (Cambridge, 1995), passimGoogle Scholar. Hepple, L. W. and Doggett, A. M., The Chilterns (Chichester, 1992) provides a general introduction to the area.Google Scholar

3. Hindle, S., ‘Persuasion and Protest in the Caddington Common Enclosure Dispute 1635–1639’, Past and Present 158 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hanley, H. A., ‘The Inclosure [sic] of Pitstone Common Wood in 1612’, Records of Bucks xxix (1987).Google Scholar

4. ‘Frith’ is Old English for wood (Oxford English Dictionary).

5. Williamson, T., ‘Understanding Enclosure’, Landscapes 1 (2000), 56–79; quotation from p. 76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Doggett, N. and Hunn, J., ‘The Origins and Development of Medieval Berkhamsted’, Hertfordshire's Past 18 (1985), 22.Google Scholar For the sake of clarity in this paper, ‘Berkhamsted St Peter’ denotes the parish of Berkhamsted St Peter, ‘Northchurch’ denotes the parish of Berkhamsted St Mary and ‘Berkhamsted’ denotes Berkhamsted manor. P.R.O. Ward 2 61/241/36, ‘A Survaye of Certayne parcelles of The Prince his Honnuer of Barkhamsteed’, 152 Heather Falvey made by John Norden in September 1612. Map 3 is based on P.R.O. MR 603 (formerly P.R.O. Ward 2 61/241/32) drawn by Norden to accompany this survey. Haslam, G., ‘Jacobean Phoenix: The Duchy of Cornwall in the Principates of Henry Frederick and Charles’ in Hoyle, R. W., (ed.), The Estates of the English Crown 1558–1640 (Cambridge, 1992), p. 227, n. 41.Google Scholar

7. Thirsk, J., ‘The Farming Regions of England’ in Thirsk, J. (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales, IV, 1500–1640 (Cambridge, 1967), p. 49Google Scholar; Glennie, P., ‘Continuity and Change in Hertfordshire Agriculture 1550–1700: I – Patterns of Agricultural Production’, Agricultural History Review 36: 1 (1988), 65.Google Scholar

8. Roden, D., ‘Studies in Chiltern field systems’ (PhD thesis, University of London, 1965), p. 208.Google Scholar

9. ibid., p. 223.

10. (Editor unknown), Two Surveys of the Manor of Berkhamstead [sic] (London, 1868), p. 191Google Scholar; Overton, M., Agricultural Revolution in England: The Transformation of the Agrarian Economy 1500–1850 (Cambridge, 1996), p. 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Thirsk, J., ‘Enclosing and Engrossing’ in Thirsk, (ed.) Agrarian History, p. 201.Google Scholar The following paragraph is based on pp. 200–36 except where noted otherwise.

12. The various debates are succinctly summarised in McRae, A., God Speed the Plough (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 7–12.Google Scholar

13. For details of the revolt, see Martin, J., ‘The Midland Revolt of 1607’ in Charlesworth, A. (ed.), An Atlas of Rural Protest in Britain 1548–1900 (London, 1983), pp. 32–6Google Scholar; Beresford, M., ‘Habitation versus Improvement: The Debate on Enclosure by Agreement’ in Fisher, F. J. (ed.), Essays on the Economic and Social History of Tudor and Stuart England in Honour of R. H. Tawney (Cambridge, 1961), p. 43.Google Scholar

14. Thirsk, J., ‘The Crown as Projector on its Own Estates, from Elizabeth I to Charles I’ in Hoyle, (ed.), Estates of the English Crown (Cambridge, 1992), p. 319.Google Scholar

15. P.R.O. C66/2134 Id.

16. Haslam, , ‘Jacobean Phoenix’, pp. 279–84.Google Scholar

17. Ibid., p. 276. For Hobart's agricultural improvements see Griffiths, E., ‘Sir Henry Hobart: A New Hero of Norfolk Agriculture?’, Agricultural History Review 46:1 (1998), 15–34.Google Scholar

18. Quoted in Hoyle, R. W., ‘Disafforestation and Drainage: The Crown as Entrepreneur?’ in Hoyle, (ed.), Estates of the English Crown, p. 378.Google Scholar

19. Thirsk, J., ‘Changing Attitudes to Enclosure in the Seventeenth Century’ in The Festschrift for Professor Ju-Hwan Oh on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday (Taegu, 1991), p. 520.Google Scholar

20. These people were not legally commoners, either according to local custom or, after 1607, at common law, but nevertheless they utilised the commons. (Hindle, , ‘Persuasion and Protest’, p. 52, n. 48.)Google Scholar

21. Birtles, S., ‘Common Land, Poor Relief and Enclosure: The Use of Manorial Resources in Fulfilling Parish Obligations 1601–1834’, Past and Present 165 (1999), 82CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, 3 describes the three principal types of common right.

22. Hipkin, S., ‘“Sitting on his Penny Rent”: Conflict and Right of Common in Faversham Blean, 1595–1610’, Rural History 11:1 (2000), 12,13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Two Surveys, p. 74. References for the original surveys are: Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies 66937 (Dodderidge) British Library Landsdowne MS 805, ff. 26–65 (Norden and Salter). John Norden was appointed a surveyor of Duchy lands in 1605 and was a very influential figure in raising the Duchy Council's awareness of the potential of its assets. (Haslam, , ‘Jacobean Phoenix’, pp. 265–6).Google Scholar The value/usefulness of the various rights are analysed in Falvey, H., ‘“Most riotous, routous and unlawful!” Behaviour: Enclosure and Unrest in Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, 1618–1642’ (unpublished Master of Studies dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1999), pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

24. Rackham, O., History of the Countryside (London, 1986), p. 121 Two Surveys, p. 192.Google Scholar

25. Duchy of Cornwall Office, Acts of the Council, 1618–19, Prince Charles, 3a, p. 47.

26. Of the very few manorial court rolls that have survived several provide evidence of fines for illegal timber felling by tenants. Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies 66922, Berkhamsted Manor Court Roll, Michaelmas 1603 to Easter 1610.

27. Wrightson, K., Earthly Necessities: Economic Lives in Early Modern Britain (New Haven and London, 2000), p. 74.Google Scholar

28. Wrightson, K., ‘The Politics of the Parish in Early Modern England’ in Griffiths, P., Fox, A. and Hindle, S. (eds.), The Experience of Authority in Early Modern England (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 22–5.Google Scholar

29. Sharp, B., In Contempt Of All Authority: Rural Artisans and Riot in the West of England, 1586–1660 (London, 1980), p. 86Google Scholar; Lindley, K., Fenland Riots and the English Revolution (London, 1982), p. 57.Google Scholar

30. Walter, J., Understanding Popular Violence in the English Revolution: The Colchester Plunderers (Cambridge, 1999), p. 4.Google Scholar

31. Wood, A., The Politics of Social Conflict: The Peak Country 1520–1770 (Cambridge, 1999), p. 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This point is echoed by Hindle, , ‘Persuasion and Protest’, p. 78Google Scholar; Wood, , Politics of Social Conflict, p. 265.Google Scholar

32. Walter, , Understanding Popular Violence, pp. 2–4 brings the various arguments together.Google Scholar

33. Collinson, P., ‘De Republica Anglorum: Or; History with the Politics Put Back’, in Collinson, P. ed., Elizabethan Essays (London, 1994),Google Scholar originally published as his Inaugural Lecture as Regius Professor of History in the University of Cambridge delivered on 9th November 1989 (Cambridge, 1990). Quotation from p. 11.Google Scholar

34. Manning, R. B., Village Revolts: Social Protest and Popular Disturbances in England, 1509–1640 (Oxford, 1988), pp. 2,Google Scholar 3. Clive Holmes has demonstrated that the fenmens’ action against the drainers was also ‘political’ in this sense (Holmes, C., ‘Drainers and Fenmen: The Problem of Political Consciousness in the Seventeenth Century’ in Fletcher, A. and Stevenson, J. (eds.), Order and Disorder in Early Modern England (Cambridge, 1985,) passim).Google Scholar

35. For example, see Hindle, , ‘Persuasion and Protest’, p. 77.Google Scholar

36. Wrightson, , ‘Politics of the Parish’, p. 11.Google Scholar

37. Hindle, , ‘Persuasion and Protest’, p. 43.Google Scholar

38. Various revenue raising projects are discussed at length in Thirsk, , ‘Crown as Projector’Google Scholar and Hoyle, , ‘Disafforestation and Drainage’ in Hoyle, (ed.), Estates of the English CrownGoogle Scholar; Thirsk, , ‘Crown as Projector’, p. 305.Google Scholar

39. Duchy of Cornwall Office, Acts of the Council, 1618 & 1619, Prince Charles 3A, pp. 39, 40.

40. BL Add MS 18733, Berkhamsted St Peter's churchwardens’ accounts, ff.59v, 72v ibid., passim Chauncy, Sir H., The Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire, vol. 2 (Hertford, 1826, reprinted 1975), p. 539.Google Scholar

41. H.A.L.S. AHH 15/52/26/2 and AHH 15/52/114/4,6;Two Surveys, passim.

42. However, although timber was valuable it took a long time to mature and annual revenue from wood was small so such a project would not raise much revenue (Hoyle, , ‘Disafforestation and Drainage’, p. 357).Google Scholar

43. P.R.O. STAC8/32/16,; Manning, R. B., Hunters and Poachers: A Social and Cultural History of Unlawful Hunting in England 1485–1640 (Oxford, 1993), pp. 210–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; describes James’ and Charles’ attitudes to hunting and includes a short discussion of the Berkhamsted riot; Hoyle, , ‘Disafforestation and Drainage’, p. 357.Google Scholar

44. The various discussions have been transcribed from the relevant pages of the Acts of the Duchy Council in H.A.L.S. AH 2785, Extracts from Duchy Office Book, ff. 5–14.

45. Two Surveys, p. 193. The charter was confirmed on 18th July 1618 (Chauncy, , Historical Antiquities, p. 534).Google Scholar

46. The agreement is transcribed in full in Whybrow, G. H., The History of Berkhamsted Common, (London, n.d. but c. 1934), p. 35.Google Scholar

47. Unaware of the Star Chamber papers, Whybrow also believed that the agreement signalled the end of local opposition (ibid., p. 37).

48. Walter, , Understanding Popular Violence, p. 2.Google Scholar

49. ibid., p. 5.

50. P.R.O. PC2/30, f.550, 9th July 1620.

51. P.R.O. PC2/30, f.571, 23rd July 1620.

52. P.R.O. STAC8/32/16, document 5.

53. Hindle, S., The State and Social Change in Early Modern England c. 1550—1640, (Basingstoke, 2000), p. 69.Google Scholar

54. At the time (October 1620) Sir Thomas Coventry was Solicitor General but he was ‘exercising the Office and place of your Atturney general! by force of your highness Lettres patents’. (P.R.O. STAC8/32/16); Barnes, T. G., ‘Star Chamber Litigants and their Counsel, 1596–1641’ in Baker, J. H. (ed), Legal Records and the Historian (London, 1978), p. 9.Google Scholar

55. Barnes, T. G., (ed), ‘Fines in the Court of Star Chamber’ (typescript list at P.R.O., 1971), p. 3.Google Scholar The treatment of the Berkhamsted rioters was unlike the merciless pursuit of the rioters at Epworth, Lincolnshire, in 1631 (Gardiner, S.R. (ed.), Reports of Cases in the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission, (Camden Society, new series, 39, London, 1886), pp. 59–65).Google Scholar

56. Barnes, T. G., ‘Due Process and Slow Process in the Late Elizabethan and Early Stuart Star Chamber’, American Journal of Legal History 6 (1962), 327.Google Scholar

57. H.A.L.S. 1971, ‘A note of Remembraunces aboute the Freeth October 1639’. The full text of the agreement, dated 20th February 1619, is reprinted in Whybrow, Berkhamsted Common, p. 35. The earlier promise of no further enclosure was also alluded to at a meeting in February 1639. (H.A.L.S. AH 2785, f.26.)

58. See the discussion in Hindle, , The State and Social Change, pp. 64, 65.Google Scholar

59. Hipkin, , ‘Sitting on his Penny Rent’, p. 23Google Scholar; Sharp, In Contempt Of All Authority. Quotation from Sharp, B. ‘Rural Discontents and the English Revolution’ in Richardson, R. C. (ed.), Town and Countryside in the English Revolution (Manchester, 1992), p. 260Google Scholar; Lindley, , Fenland Riots, p. 60.Google Scholar

60. Manning, Village Revolts, passim details numerous such occurrences.

61. P.R.O. STAC8/32/16. It is noticeable that in their statements the rioters hardly refer to the events of 3rd July 1620.

62. P.R.O. PC2/30, f.571.

63. Cf. Woods, R. L., ‘Individuals in the Rioting Crowd: A New Approach’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 14:1 (1983), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64. P.R.O. STAC8/32/16, document 4 (Robert Eames) and document 2 (the other five).

65. For detailed references concerning all the named rioters, see Falvey, , ‘ “Most riotous, routous and unlawful!” behaviour’, Appendix 1, Personal profiles of the named rioters.Google Scholar

66. Hanley, , ‘Inclosure of Pitstone Common Wood’, p. 188.Google Scholar

67. P.R.O. STAC8/32/16, document 3.

68. P.R.O. STAC8/32/16, document 1 (John Barnes) and document 5 (the other eight).

69. Bishops’ transcripts from Aldbury survive for nine years between 1604 and 1618 and then not again until 1694. There are no churchwardens’ accounts from this period so it is difficult to identify all the parish office holders.

70. There was a family named Gregory in Northchurch but as the parish registers do not survive and the bishops’ transcripts, which begin in 1604, are not complete, it is not possible to identify Thomas and Vince positively with this family. Shovelar's will, dated 22nd November 1620, was proved in December that same year. (H.A.L.S. AHH 115 HW 65).

71. Two Surveys, passim; B.L. Add MS 18773, f.74r.

72. He inherited land from his grandfather, Thomas Todd. (H.A.L.S. AHH 131 HW 7, will of Thomas Todd).

73. Two Surveys, passim; P.R.O. Ward 2 61/241/36 surveyed the holdings of the demesne tenants.

74. D.C.O., Acts of the Council 1618–1619, Prince Charles, 3a, p. 39.

75. P.R.O. STAC8/128/02, Edlyn v Rolfe and Johnson.

76. Wrightson, K., ‘“Sorts of people” in Tudor and Stuart England’ in Barry, J. and Brooks, C. (eds.), The Middling Sort of People: Culture, Society and Politics in England 1500–1800 (Basingstoke, 1996), pp. 44–5.Google Scholar The term came into more general use in the third decade of the seventeenth century. H. R. French has recently shown how the term, when used by contemporaries, was elastic but he endorses its use by historians to denote people of a certain status within the parish. (‘The Search for the “middle sort of people” in England, 1600–1800’ Historical Journal 43, 1 (2000), 227–93.) Two of the rioters, William Edlyn and Robert Eames of Little Gaddesden, were arguably the some of the ‘better sort’ of their communities.

77. Walter, J., ‘A “rising of the people”?: The Oxfordshire Rising of 1596’ Past and Present 107 (1985), 139.Google Scholar

78. P.R.O. STAC8/32/16. Whilst ‘conventicle’ often had religious connotations, it could also mean ‘a meeting or assembly of a clandestine, irregular, or illegal character, or considered to have sinister purpose or tendency’ (Oxford English Dictionary). There was no suggestion that a common purse had been levied at Berkhamsted.

79. Wrightson, , ‘Politics of the Parish’, p. 22.Google Scholar

80. These returns have been tabulated in Munby, L., Hertfordshire Population Statistics 1563–1801 (Hertford, 1964).Google Scholar

81. Everitt, A., ‘The Marketing of Agricultural Produce’ in Thirsk, (ed.), Agrarian History, pp. 589–90Google Scholar; Norden, J., A Description of Hartfordshire (1598) (reprinted London, 1903), p. 13.Google Scholar

82. For the purposes of this analysis, the term ‘testator’ covers anyone for whom a probate document survives, whether a will, an inventory, an administration bond or a probate account.

83. Weatherill, L., Consumer Behaviour and Material Culture in Britain 1660—1760 (London, 1988), p. 167.Google Scholar

84. H.A.L.S. AHH 40 HW 40, Henry Feild (1620); AHH H23/2, John Adams (1635).

85. Cockburn, J. S. (ed.), Calendar of Assize Records - Hertfordshire Indictments, James I (London, 1975)Google Scholar, passim. These particular records do not always differentiate between Northchurch and Berkhamsted St Peter, so some of the men may have been inhabitants of the former.

86. H.A.L.S. AHH 54 HW 35. William Hill (1615); AHH 138 HW 12, John Whelpley, weaver 1612); AHH 54 HW 66, John Hill (1620).

87. B.L. Add MS 18773, ff.59r-60r.

88. Ibid., f.59r.

89. B.L. Add MS 18733, f.60r: ‘Jhon[sic] Grover Carp[en]ter'; H.A.L.S. 55 HW 7, inventory of Roger Hunt (1627) AHH 79 HW 58, inventory of William Lake (1638).

90. Neeson, J. M., Commoners: Common right, Enclosure and Social Change in England, 1700–1820 (paperback edn., Cambridge, 1996)Google Scholar, Chapter 1, ‘The Question of Value’, passim; Sharp, B., ‘Common Rights, Charities and the Disorderly Poor’ in Eley, G. & Hunt, W. (eds.), Reviving the English Revolution: Reflections and Elaborations on the work of Christopher Hill (London, 1988), pp. 108, 124.Google Scholar

91. H.A.L.S. AH2875, f.13: transcript of Acts of Duchy Council, 3b, f.lll.

92. H.A.L.S. D/Ex 652/12, Berkhamsted borough records.

93. Wrightson, K., English Society 1580–1680 (London, 1982), p. 143.Google Scholar

94. P.R.O. 5P14/115/13 (10 May 1620), a letter from the Deputy Lieutenants of Hertfordshire listing their grievances about the project set up two years previously. I have been unable to find the original patent so cannot verify the names of these towns but from other records it is clear that Berkhamsted was involved in this scheme. P.R.O. SP14/96/39 (February 1618), ‘Difficulties obiected against the proiect of new Draperye’.

95. D.C.O. Book of Orders 1626–35, f.40r (11th May 1627), ‘An order for the Bayliff and Burgesses of Barkhampsted to paie 100H given by the King when he was Prince towards the Manufactuer of Bayes and Sayes’ P.R.O. SP14/115/13.

96. H.A.L.S. AH287S, f.13. Cf. Birtles, ‘Common Land, Poor Relief and Enclosure’, p. 86, where she discusses the use of common land to supplement parish poor rates.

97. Unfortunately no manor court rolls for Berkhamsted from the 1610s and 1620s have survived, so details of prosecutions for trespass on the common are not available: such trespassers might also have rioted.

98. P.R.O. STAC8/32/16.

99. Hindle, , ‘Persuasion and Protest’, passim.Google Scholar

100. ibid., p.75; pp. 71–72. The economic interests of the ring-leaders at Caddington probably included a desire to keep poor rates down.

101. Ex infra Walter, John, following his paper ‘Popular opposition to enclosure’ given at Oxford, 4th April 1998.Google Scholar

102. Williamson, , ‘Understanding Enclosure’, p. 77.Google Scholar

103. H.A.L.S. 1986. The map is undated but it was probably drawn some time between 1620, when the enclosure was made, and 1638, when the negotiations for a second enclosure began.

104. Whybrow, , Berkhamsted Common, p. 36Google Scholar; H.A.L.S. AH2785, f.59, transcript of Mrs Murray's lease.

105. Thirsk, , ‘Changing Attitudes’, p. 525Google Scholar; Hindle, , ‘Persuasion and Protest’, p. 73Google Scholar, quoting P.R.O. PC2/40, f.385, Privy Council to the High Sheriffs of Leicester and Nottingham, 7th March 1631.

106. Quoted in Barnes, , ‘Due Process and Slow Process’, p. 336, n. 112.Google Scholar

107. Hindle, , The State and Social Change, p. 75Google Scholar; Thirsk, , ‘Enclosing and Engrossing’, p. 237.Google Scholar

108. Thirsk, , ‘Changing Attitudes’, p. 531.Google Scholar

109. Some of the contemporary documents relating to this second enclosure are no longer accessible; consequently I have had to rely heavily on nineteenth-century copies and the text of Whybrow, Berkhamsted Common.

110. H.A.L.S. AH 2785, f.26: transcript of the Commissioners of the Revenue Book 1633–9, vol. 10, f.190; f.27: transcript of f.201.

111. H.A.L.S. 1974 is a contemporary copy of the articles of instruction to the commissioners H.A.L.S. AH 2779, is a nineteenth-century copy of the instructions and also of the commissioners’ returns.

112. Two copies of the agreement have survived, one (H.A.L.S. 1961) is signed by the burgesses of Berkhamsted St Peter and the other (H.A.L.S. 1975) is unsigned. It is possible that the latter was given to the leaders of Northchurch to sign but they refused; or, it may be a clerk's copy.

113. The names of the men who dug the ditches around the enclosure are given in two different lists: H.A.L.S. 1973 (fifteen men) and H.A.L.S. 1982 (twenty nine others). The exact positions of the new fences and ditches are described in the commissioners’ returns, H.A.L.S. AH 2779. The position of the fencing erected in the 1860s, as shown in figure 2, appears to have been approximately the same as that of the fences and ditches in 1639.

114. Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Charles I, 1639–1640, p. 71; H.A.L.S. AH 2779.

115. The sources for the second riot are: H.A.L.S. AH 2794, Note 21 and Whybrow, Berkhamsted Common, pp. 48–9. H.A.L.S. AH 2794 is a series of notes made for a nineteenth-century court case. Note 2 gives the actual date of the riot but the source is unknown. Whybrow quotes extensively from a statement made several years later by John Edlyn, which cannot now be located. This James Fenn was the son of the James Fenn who represented Northchurch at the negotiations in 1618–1619.

116. Haslam, , ‘Jacobean Phoenix’, p. 295Google Scholar, discusses the Duchy's revenues up to the beginning of the Civil War. House of Lords Record Office, House of Lords Journals, 24th March 1641–1631 July 1641, pp. 70–1; House of Lords Main Papers, Prince's petition (16th February 1641).

117. Berkhamsted's weekly malt market would have been a centre for the exchange of news; also a number of inhabitants are known to have had contacts in London and beyond. (Falvey, , ‘ “Riotous, routous and unlawfull” behaviour’, pp. 19, 20.)Google Scholar There was a vibrant communications network between Colchester and London, facilitated by the cloth trade, that enabled the ‘distribution of the newsbooks and pamphlets pouring from the presses after 1640’ (Walter, , Understanding Popular Violence, p. 288).Google Scholar At Berkhamsted however, even had such a network existed, the disturbances in the manor occurred in 1640, before the increased circulation of printed news.

118. Manning, B., The English People and the English Revolution, (2nd edition, London, 1991), pp. 195–202Google Scholar; Manning, B., Journals of the House of Lords, VI, p. 21Google Scholar quoted in Hart, J. S., Justice upon Petition:The House of Lords and the Reformation of Justice 1621–1675 (London, 1991), p. 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

119. Walter, , Understanding Popular Violence, pp. S, 6.Google Scholar

120. Manning, , English People, pp. 195–202Google Scholar; quotation from p. 196.

121. Whybrow, , Berkhamsted Common, p. 49.Google Scholar Unfortunately, it has not been possible to locate Whybrow's source for this quotation: apart from the Journal of the House of Commons, which makes no mention of Edlyn, no documents from the lower House survived the fire of 1834. Slack, P., From Reformation to Improvement: Public Welfare in Early Modern England, (Oxford, 1999), p. 53.Google Scholar

122. Whybrow, , Berkhamsted Common, p. 49.Google Scholar Again Whybrow's source cannot be traced. The date is uncertain but must be after the opening of the Long Parliament on 3rd November 1640 and before the events of February 1641 described below. Yet there is no mention of this summons in the Journal of the House of Commons between those dates.

123. H. of L.R.O. House of Lords Main Papers, prince's petition (16th February 1641) H. of L.R.O. House of Lords Journals, 24th March 1641–31st July 1641, pp. 70–1.

124. H.A.L.S. AH 2785, f.38: transcript of the Commissioners of the Revenue Book, 1640–1642, vol. 11 (9th February 1642), folio number not given; H. of L.R.O. House of Lords Main Papers (25th May 1642).

125. Nineteenth-century lawyers found ‘Correspondence of Thomas Williams the then Steward to the Earl of Bridgewater and other papers shewing that very tumultuous proceedings took place for 2 or 3 years subsequent to the enclosing of the 400 acres notwithstanding the Order of Parliament [in 1641]’. (H.A.L.S. AH 2794, Note 23.) I have been unable to locate this correspondence.

126. PRO. PROB11/236/180 (James Fenn, 1651); PRO. PROB11/383/74 (John Edlyn, 1684).

127. He died in 1649. (Victoria County History: Hertfordshire, vol. II, p. 246)Google Scholar His will does not survive, but was probably proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury too. The wills of his father and brother, both William, certainly were. (P.R.O. PROB11/107/22, William Edlyn, 1606; P.R.O. PROB11/193/23, William Edlyn, 1644.)

128. Cf. the rhetoric used by the opponents of the Grand Lessees at Whickham, co. Durham. (Levine, D. and Wrightson, K., The Making of an Industrial Society: Whickham 1560–1765 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 121–9).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

129. Walter has recently argued that the Protestation oath played a significant part in politicising the Essex crowd (Walter, , Understanding Popular Violence, p. 292).Google Scholar However, the available records do not suggest any religious connotations to the second riot at Berkhamsted. Also, since the disturbance occurred in August 1640, prior to the assembly of the Long Parliament, the possibility of pro-parliamentary motivation is reduced.

130. H.A.L.S. 1966, ‘Fryth Commons neare ashridge’ (1639) H.A.L.S. 1978, correspondence between the Earl's steward and the commissioners (17th March 1640) H.A.L.S. 1998, ‘A verdictte for Rectifieing the bounds…’ (10th February 1640).

131. Again, due to the lack of court rolls, there is no evidence to hand of trespassers on the common being prosecuted. Such people would also have opposed the enclosure.

132. B.L. Add MS 18773, ff.H9r, 125v, 126r.

133. H.A.L.S. AH 2785, p. 26: transcript of the Commissioners of the Revenue Book 1633–1639, vol. 10, f.190.

134. Sharp, , ‘Common Rights’, p. 127.Google Scholar

135. Cf. the letting of the Poor Folks’ Pasture in the former forest of Bernwood, Buckinghamshire (Broad, J. ‘The Smallholder and Cottager after Disafforestation - A Legacy of Poverty?’ in Broad, J. and Hoyle, R. (eds.), Bernwood: The Life and Afterlife of a Forest (Preston, 1997), p. 98).Google Scholar

136. Hindle, , ‘Persuasion and Protest’, p. 72.Google Scholar However, the actions of the Caddington ratepayers were not entirely altruistic for if the common remained open, poor rates would not need to be increased.

137. Whybrow, , Berkhamsted Common, p. 46Google Scholar; H.A.L.S. 1973.

138. Whybrow, , Berkhamsted Common, p. 46.Google Scholar The signatories mentioned by Edlyn were presumably the twelve men whose names appear on H.A.L.S. 1961.

139. B.L. Add MS 18773, ff. 112r-13r.

140. Little is known about the twelve soldiers who assisted the rioters, except that they came from elsewhere in Hertfordshire. In neighbouring Essex, ‘(in) the summer of 1640 those soldiers who did not desert became increasingly insubordinate’ (Hunt, W., The Puritan Moment: The Coming of Revolution in an English County (Harvard, 1983), p. 284).Google Scholar I owe this reference to Professor K. Wrightson.

141. H. of L.R.O. House of Lords Main Papers (25th May 1642).

142. H.A.L.S. AH 2779.

143. Whybrow, Berkhamsted Common, p. 46.Google Scholar It would be interesting to know which inhabitants signed the Protestation oath but the returns from Dacorum hundred do not survive (Gibson, J. and Dell, A. (eds.), The Protestation Returns 1641–2, (Birmingham, 1995), p. 39).Google Scholar

144. Walter, , Understanding Popular Violence, p. 6.Google Scholar

145. H.A.L.S. AH 2785, f.43: particulars of the sale (4th June 1651).

146. Dacorum Borough Council Archive, document dated 27th April 1654 (no reference).

147. P.R.O. E317 Hertford 11.

148. The original map is H.A.L.S. 56473, a reduced plan of Ashridge estate.

149. Whybrow, Berkhamsted Common, Chapter 9. Cf. the disputes over common rights in Ashdown Forest, Sussex, during the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries (Merricks, L., ‘“Without violence and by controlling the poorer sort”: the enclosure of Ashdown Forest 1640–1693’, Sussex Archaeological Collections 132. (1994), 115–28Google Scholar; Short, B., ‘Conservation, Class and Custom: Lifespace and Conflict in a nineteenth-century Forest Environment’, Rural History 10, 2, (1999) 127–54).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

150. Stamp, L. Dudley and Hoskins, W. G., The Common Lands of England and Wales (London, 1963), p. 160.Google Scholar

151. The survival of the resultant large archive of transcripts of seventeenth-century documents is fortuitous for research purposes since many of the originals are now inaccessible.

152. Williamson, , ‘Understanding Enclosure’, p. 77.Google Scholar

153. Wrightson, , Earthly Necessities, p. 75.Google Scholar

154. Hindle, , The State and Social Change, p. 64.Google Scholar

155. Slack, , From Reformation to Improvement, p. 69, quoted in Wrightson, Earthly Necessities, p. 214.Google Scholar

156. Cf. Walter, Understanding Popular Violence, p. 7 regarding historians’ insensitivity to the context of crowd actions.

157. Thompson, E. P., ‘Anthropology and the Discipline of Historical Context’, Midland History 1, 3 (1972), 45.Google Scholar