William Sykes. SP 16/515/1 f. 91 (1647)
To the right honourable the Lords assembled in Parliament
The humble petition of William Sykes of Hull marchant
Sheweth that the petitioner out of his abundant and large affection to the Parliament the effects whereof he is able to prove by the testemony of divers worthy gentlemen of his owne contry who can sufficiently testifie his continual readynes upon all occasions for that honourable service wherein a verry great and large summe partly in arms and amunition of severall kinds mony and plate amountinge to the summe of eight thousand foure hundred sixtie three pounds eighteene shillinges five pence which is your petitioner whole estate may be an undoubted witnes besides the consideration mony amountinge to the vallue of two thousand five hundred elleven pondes foure shillings one penny both which said sommes by a perticular hereunto anexed may apeare
That your petitioner also haveinge no command layed upon him yet out of his abundant desire to advance the Parliamentes sarvice beinge then in a verry low condition did volluntarily adventure his parson and went from Hull to Gainsbrough in a sarvice which at that time did exceedingly concerne the northerne parts and was in that assault taken prissoner stript naked and exeedingly endangered
That he hath beene severall times plundred and taken prissoner by the enemy when he lived out of Hull and which adds more still to his forementioned losses his father dureinge his absence accasioned by these severall services did for his good affection to the Parliament alter his will and gave a way from him to his bro= thers which he intended to this petitioner to the vallue of thre hundred pondes per annum
He therefore most humbly prayes that this honourable house will be pleased to commisserate the estate of your poore petitioner as also to assigne him somme competent some for his present necessity and reliefe for his poore wife and children and the residue of his debt out of such delinquents estates as to your honores shall seeme expedient
And your petitioner shall ever pray etc
Report by Frank Edwards
William Sykes in his petition asserted he was loyal to Parliament, as others could testify, and his contribution of arms, ammunition and coin, could evidence. He valued this contribution at £8463 18s 5d which, he claimed, attracted ‘consideration money’ (money due as a ‘reward’, that is, interest) of £2511 4s 1d. His service at Gainsborough, as a result of which he had been taken prisoner and greatly endangered, further evidenced his loyalty. He had moreover been robbed and taken prisoner again when away from Hull. Because of William’s support for Parliament, his father, he claimed, had altered his will in his brothers’ favour, at a cost to William of £300 a year. Have sympathy for my plight, he asked, and pay a suitable sum to aid my wife and children and clear my debts.
The attachment to the petition confirmed the amount ‘due by the Parliament or State to Wm. Sykes for money lent on their Propositions’ was £10, 975. 2s. 6d., the total of the two sums William referred to in his petition and, in today’s money, over £1 million.
The national context
William’s petition was submitted in the midst of the English civil war. The first phase of the war is generally dated as beginning in August 1642 and ending in May 1646 with the King’s surrender. From January 1647 the King was held in Parliament’s custody. By March 1647, the date of the petition, it appeared Parliament had prevailed and the war was over. In the event, before the year was out the King escaped and renewed military action. The second phase of the civil war began, culminating in the King’s re-defeat and capture, his trial for treason and, in January 1649, his execution.
The financing of the war
The war came with an immense human cost. Some 200,000 people, soldiers and citizens, died: as a proportion of the population a loss of life equivalent to that suffered by the country in the First World War. There was a financial impact, too, arising for example from damage to property and disruption to everyday life. In addition, the direct cost of maintaining the two opposing armies amounted, it has been estimated, to £10 million (around £1 billion in today’s money).
Prosecuting the war required funding, therefore. Some costs were met voluntarily, for example by individuals prominent in their locality and loyal to one side or another, recruiting and servicing a regiment of fighting men at their own expense; some involuntarily, for example by the plunder of supplies and the forced quartering of soldiers.
To these sources were added the more systematic extraction of finance. For Parliament, this entailed creating a revenue-raising system to operate independently from the Crown’s established structures. It ordered ‘weekly assessments’: a sum to be raised by commissioners within a county, divided between local contributors as they saw fit. It imposed the ‘fifth- and twentieth-part levy’ on households: one-fifth of annual income or one-twentieth of the capital value of moveable goods. It subjected those who had contributed to the royalist cause to ‘sequestration’: the confiscation of property and other assets and sale of moveable goods. It allowed those viewed as mild in their royalism – ‘delinquents’ – to pay a large fine instead, known as ‘a composition’.
In addition, from the early days of the war Parliament encouraged ‘propositions’: loans repayable at 8% interest (which may have been compounded on a bi-annual basis). It has been estimated that by this means Parliament raised over £1 million between 1642 and 1645; in some parts of the country as much as it raised from weekly assessments. On paper the contributions were voluntary but it is likely some stepped forward knowing that those not offering a loan were targeted for the compulsory ‘fifth- and twentieth- part levy’.
In using propositions to raise revenue Parliament may have drawn from the King’s recent method of financing a campaign to suppress a rebellion in Ireland. The Adventurers’ Act of 1642 invited investments of £200, in return for which donors stood to gain 1000 acres of land to be seized from the rebels. ‘Adventurer’ was used here in its then meaning of ‘to risk oneself, to venture’. It was an Adventurers’ Act because there was no guaranteed return of land; investors were therefore risking their money. Propositions came with a similar element of risk, not least because in 1642 or 1643 there could be no certainty Parliament would prevail over the King. This calls into question the extent to which contributions to Parliament’s war chest as propositions were strictly ‘loans’. One historian states they were loans in name only and ‘never repaid’.
Money raising to finance the war operated at a local level but was overseen by a collection of Parliamentary Committees. Three are relevant to this petition. The Committee for the Advance of Money, formed in November 1642, was tasked with securing funds for Parliament, for example via propositions. It met at Haberdashers Hall. The Committee for Compounding, formed in 1643, was also tasked with raising money by loans and from the estates of delinquents. It met at Goldsmiths Hall. The Committee for Taking the Accounts of the Kingdom was formed in February 1644. Its examination and approval were required before any account could be passed for payment.
Revenue raising during the civil war was an intensive process, for those seeking funds and for those liable to pay. It worked but only up to a point. It has been estimated that despite both sides’ efforts there were never enough resources to supply and service the respective armies. By 1647 and the end of the first phase of the war arrears of pay, owed to soldiers throughout England and Wales, amounted to some £2.5 million; many regiments had received less than half the wages they were due.
The geography of the war
The extent to which either Parliament or the King could secure any resources from a particular area depended on the control they exerted within that area. It is customary to summarise (and represent visually) that initially Parliament had most influence in the south and east of the country and the King in the west and north. As the war developed Parliament gradually extended its control into the north and west. These evolving spheres of influence were never uniformly for or against one or other party to the conflict, however. Any Parliamentary stronghold contained its Royalist sympathisers and vice versa. This conflicted and changing pattern of allegiance operated at a family level, pitching father against son, and even on a personal level – many who began the war as staunchly pro-Parliament had switched to the Royalist cause by its end.
Yorkshire and its adjoining areas illustrate these shifting fortunes of the war and the mix of loyalties. At the war’s outbreak York, where the King established his alternative court, and areas to its north and west were largely Royalist; there were Royalist garrisons, including at Leeds. In 1643 Royalist forces extended their influence throughout the county. Despite these Royalist gains the east of Yorkshire including Hull always remained under Parliament’s control. Using Hull as a base Parliament began raids into Lincolnshire, to the south. On 20 July 1643, a force led by Francis, Lord Willoughby captured Gainsborough. A Royalist counter-attack immediately threatened the town and a further Parliamentarian force, led in part by Oliver Cromwell, was sent to assist. This was initially successful in relieving the town; however, faced with the arrival of an even larger Royalist contingent it retreated. On 30 July Gainsborough fell back into Royalist hands.
In 1644 the tide of war turned in Parliament’s favour. In July it decisively defeated Royalist forces at Marston Moor and secured York; by 1645 Parliament controlled all Yorkshire and indeed the north generally.
On a personal rather than geographical basis, it has been assessed that of 679 ‘gentry’ families in the county, 242 were Royalist and 128 Parliamentarian. Some of the families supporting Parliament were ‘middling squires’ in the neighbourhood of Leeds and Bradford. Some 240 families were neutral and 69 divided.
The petition in its national context
The above background casts light on a number of aspects of William Sykes’s petition. He describes himself as from Hull, an area which was throughout pro-Parliament. His assistance to Parliament was by way of a proposition, attracting interest at 8%. The term of William’s loan can be extrapolated from his assessment of the interest due; this places his donation to Parliament sometime in 1643.
In addition to this financial help William ‘did voluntarily adventure his person’ to take part in the attack on Gainsborough. His use of the word ‘adventure’, with its connotation of personal risk, is apt, given his capture and claimed ill-treatment. It is unclear for how long he was held prisoner but his experience reflects the fact that Parliament’s forces were defeated at Gainsborough. That he was captured on other occasions ‘when he lived out of Hull’ reflects Royalist strength throughout Yorkshire, at least in 1643, particularly if he was a known sympathiser of Parliament. If his father took a contrary view on the civil war theirs would not have been the only family in Yorkshire so affected.
William’s proposal that the estates of delinquents be used as one source for his claimed payment, indicates he knew about this aspect of Parliament’s revenue raising. That he did not address his petition to or urge favourable treatment from any of the Parliamentary Committees likely to become involved in dealing with his request suggests he was not familiar with these bodies’ national oversight of local matters.
Finally, the timing of William’s petition is of interest. As noted above, there is some doubt about whether propositions were loans ever likely to be repaid. William was perhaps aware of this. On the other hand, the value of his donation (as he assessed it) was enormous and one can understand why he sought its recovery, particularly if he had fallen on harder times. He may, therefore, have submitted his petition in March 1647 in the belief that this was an opportune moment to call in a favour – the war was, for now, over and Parliament had won. He may have been unaware, however, that Parliament, while victorious, was also heavily in debt.
But who was William Sykes? One possibility is that he was a descendant of the Sykes family, latterly of Sledmere, a village about 30 miles north of Hull, but, at the time of the petition, based in Leeds, in the west riding of Yorkshire. In 1593 Richard Sykes, of this family, an eminent cloth merchant and ‘gentleman’, married Elizabeth Mawson; they had four daughters and six sons. Three sons survived into adulthood, including a William Sykes, born in 1605. William is described as a ‘merchant’ and ‘joint proprietor of the manor of Leeds’. He married Grace Jenkinson; they had three daughters and five sons.
This William Sykes was a merchant; he appears to have had the wealth necessary to make a loan of some £10,000; he had brothers; he had a wife and children. These biographical details echo with what we know of the William of our petition. This much is straightforward; what is less so is the issue of a will. Richard Sykes, of the Sykes family of Leeds, made a will dated 14 April 1641, leaving bequests to each of his three sons, including, to William, a ‘ninth-part’ of the manor of Leeds. He did indeed alter his will, adding a codicil dated 2 August 1644. This referred to the bequest of the ninth-part of the manor of Leeds, but it is not clear in exactly what context. Richard died on 27 March 1646; his will was not ‘proved’ until 16 February 1654. It is possible that the codicil in 1644 reflected a father’s dissatisfaction with his son’s actions in the civil war, of which he would now have known. This too would be consistent with the information in the petition. That it took so long to prove the will after Richard’s death suggests there may have been disputes about its content, driven perhaps by a disgruntled William.
It is also possible, of course, that the contents of the will are not directly consistent with what William wrote in his petition. That would not necessarily mean that the William of our petition was not the William of the Sykes family of Leeds. He may not have known just how his father had altered his will; he may have exaggerated or distorted the alteration to highlight the impact on him of assisting Parliament. We do not have to take all that William said at face value; indeed, as will be seen, the House of Commons treated this aspect of William’s petition with scepticism.
There are two other points to note from the surviving biographical information about the William of the Sykes family of Leeds. There are no references to service in the Parliamentary cause. More importantly, one part is directly at odds with the petition. The William of our petition describes himself as a merchant of Hull; this William is recorded as ‘a merchant of Leeds … afterwards of Knottingley’. Knottingley is a town about 20 miles south-east of Leeds and we know that William was living there in 1652. However, we also know that two of this William’s sons, another William and Daniel, born between 1627 and 1632, were merchants based in Hull. In the light of this, it remains feasible that the William of the Sykes family of Leeds and the William of our petition are one and the same. The William of our petition, by his own admission, did not always live in Hull. He may, then, have retained a substantial base in Knottingley while developing an association with Hull, an association his sons subsequently consolidated. As noted above, although areas around Leeds generated supporters for Parliament, this part of Yorkshire was from time to time under Royalist control. Hull, on the other hand, was always held by Parliament. William in his petition may have chosen to emphasise his links with Hull and downplay those with Leeds as a means of presenting his Parliamentary credentials in their strongest light.
There are loose ends here and evidence for and against but on balance (and in the absence of any other possible candidate), the William of our petition is most probably the William of the Sykes family of Leeds.
The petition’s progress
William’s petition made an auspicious start. On 2 March, 1647 the House of Lords, on its receipt, ordered that the House of Commons should be ‘specially recommended’ to provide him with some relief; it so advised the Commons on 12 March. However, if William thought matters would come to a swift conclusion he was mistaken.
On 22 April the House of Commons agreed in principle to pay William £4000 plus interest at 8% per annum. This payment was to be generated at Goldsmith’s Hall, that is via the Committee for Compounding (perhaps because it was to be sourced, as William had suggested, from the estates of delinquents). The Commons sought the concurrence of the Lords to this decision. At the same time, it asked the Committee for Taking the Accounts, ‘to receive, state and certify’ William’s financial circumstances. It asked the ‘Northern Committee’ (the Committee of the Parliamentary army, the Northern Association) ‘to examine the truth of the suggestion’ in William’s petition that his father had altered his will and taken away ‘a considerable estate’ from him.
On 30 April the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament ordered the payment to William of £4000, plus interest. On 11 May the Committee for Compounding issued the necessary warrant. Although the Commons, the Lords and the Committee for Compounding had agreed a payment, the Committee for Taking the Accounts had not yet completed its work. On 26 June Lord Willoughby (who had commanded William in the attack on Gainsborough in 1643), wrote to the Chairman of the Committee on his behalf. He testified to William’s efforts on behalf of Parliament, observing ‘he has suffered much for his good affection’. Concerned that others should not be discouraged from offering assistance he urged the Committee to ‘expedite his business under your hand’.
There is no evidence the Committee did expedite matters. It was not until 30 December 1647 that the Lords advised the Commons that the Committee had certified payment to William of £3963-18s-5d, in respect of the arms and ammunition he had provided. The Commons ordered that steps be taken to pay William this sum, the payment ‘to be charged upon the moiety of [that is from part of] the receipts of the Excise’ (suggesting the funds were no longer to come from the estates of delinquents).
The Commons also ordered that the payment should attract interest at 8% per annum, but this was a decision in principle, it seems. The Committee for Taking the Accounts had not certified a payment of interest. The House of Commons identified the sum in question as £2711-4s-1d. (This was almost certainly an error in transcribing the £2511-4s-1d William sought in his petition, but it also took no account of the fact that William’s contribution had been valued at less than £4000, rather than the more than £8000 he had cited.) The Commons nevertheless asked the Committee of the Northern Association to consider William’s claimed interest and ‘if they find the demand just and reasonable, to report to the House, how satisfaction may be made to him’.
As the Commons, the Lords and now the Committee for Taking the Accounts were agreed on the substantive payment of just under £4000, the way was open for William to receive this money. However, matters stalled again. William’s petition was now considered by the Admiralty Committee (possibly because the proposed payment would draw on customs revenues) before returning once more to the House of Commons on 4 April, then the House of Lords on 14 April 1648. Both Houses agreed a recommendation of the Admiralty Committee that William be paid £3963-18s-5d, plus interest at 8% per annum.
The passing of time had increased the urgency of matters for William. On 10 June the Lords learned that he had been arrested ‘and laid in prison’ for his debts. It asked the Commons to take some speedy action on his behalf.
On 31 July the matter returned to the House of Commons. It received a report from the Committee of the Northern Association about William’s claim for interest, the contents of which are not known. It recommended an immediate payment of £350 towards William’s total debts of £778-10s-3d, with the balance to be paid in due course. Conscious perhaps that William’s original donation was by way of a proposition, it asked the Committee at Haberdashers Hall, that is, the Committee for the Advance of Money, to use its best means to secure his release from prison. On 2 August the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament agreed the payment of £350 and endorsed the request to the Committee to help William in his captivity. At this point the trail goes cold.
By now the House of Commons and the House of Lords had each considered William’s petition on at least six occasions; it had been referred to the Committee of the Northern Association twice, and once to each of the Committees for Taking the Accounts, for the Advance of Money and for Compounding; it had also been considered by the Admiralty Committee. Was this cumbersome administration? Possibly, but it probably also reflected caution on Parliament’s part in agreeing to any payment of the sort sought by William, particularly in a time of financial difficulty.
We might nevertheless conclude, optimistically, that, as a result of this repeated consideration (and contrary to the suggestion that propositions were never repaid), following the decision by the House of Lords on 14 April 1648, William did at least receive £3963-18s-5d, albeit over a year after submitting his petition. We might also conclude that, following the decision of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament on 2 August, he received £350 towards his debts. However, there is no evidence that William’s claim that his father had altered his will, to William’s disadvantage, was pursued, following the reference to the Committee of the Northern Association. Whether he received any further payment towards his debts and when he was able to leave prison is not known. Nor is it clear if he ever received any interest in respect of his donation to Parliament. Even if William did secure some additional payments the total sum paid to him by Parliament would have fallen some way short of the £10,000 plus he considered his due.
What happened to William subsequently? On the basis that the William of our petition is indeed the William of the Sykes family of Leeds, we know he retained his association with Knottingley, near Leeds. In 1652 he was its parish constable, responsible for enforcing local law and order, albeit without pay. William would have been appointed to this position by the parish, suggesting he was of some local standing still. But, having also developed an association with the newly-emerging Quaker movement, which was often at odds with the established Church, he opposed the collection of tithes, which he considered contrary to the teachings of the gospel. He encouraged others in Knottingley to join him in his refusal to pay. William had not lost the ability to stand up for what he believed, it seems, but his actions incurred the great displeasure of the local clergy.
In August 1652, at their prompting, he was prosecuted for his role in the campaign and fined a total of £266-13s-4d. William had been imprisoned in 1648 for his debts. Unable to pay this harsh penalty he found himself in prison once more, in York Castle, where he remained until his death on 20 October.
 ‘Currency converter: 1270-2017’, The National Archives, https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/.
 For concise accounts of the broad events of the civil war: Christopher Hill, A Century of Revolution (2002), pp. 109-116; Blair Worden, The English Civil Wars 1640-1660 (2009), chapters 2 and 3; for a fuller account: Michael Braddick, God’s Fury, England’s Fire (2009).
 Peter Gaunt, The English Civil War: A Military History (2014), pp. 13, 237; Braddick, pp. 389-412.
 Gaunt, pp. 107, 238.
 John Morrill, Revolt in the Provinces: The People of England and the Tragedies of War 1630-1648 2nd Edition (1999), pp. 79-81, 119.
 Morrill, p. 119; for the suggestion that interest was paid on a compound basis: ‘House of Commons Journal Volume 5: 22 April 1647’, in Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 5, 1646-1648 (1802), pp. 151-152. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/commons-jrnl/vol5/pp151-152.
 ‘Adventurers’ Act’, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventurers%27_Act.
 Morrill, p. 119.
 ‘Preface’, in Mary Anne Everett Green (ed.), Calendar, Committee For the Advance of Money: Part 1, 1642-45 (1888), pp. v-xviii, British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cttee-advance-money/pt1.
 ‘Preface’, in Mary Anne Everett Green (ed.), Calendar, Committee For Compounding: Part 1, (1889), pp. v-xxiv, British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/compounding-committee/pt1.
 ‘Preface’, in Green, Calendar, Committee For the Advance of Money. In her preface Green discusses this Committee, as well as that for the Advance of Money.
 Morrill, p, 121.
 Hill, p.120; Braddick, pp. xvi-xix; Lawrence Stone, The Causes of the English Revolution 1529-1642 (2017), p. 62.
 Stone, p. 37.
 Gaunt, pp. 126-29, 158, 186-87; Braddick, pp. xviii-xix, 328-31; ‘Battle of Gainsborough’, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gainsborough.
 J.T. Cliffe, The Yorkshire Gentry from the Reformation to the Civil War (1969), pp. 336-38.
 If William assessed his interest due on a compound basis a donation of £8463 would have taken around three years and three months to accrue £2511 in interest. If, as seems more likely, he assessed his interest on a simple basis, it would have taken around three years and eight months.
 ‘Papers of the Sykes Family of Sledmere/Description’, Hull History Centre Catalogue, http://catalogue.hullhistorycentre.org.uk/catalogue/U-DDSY?tab=description;
‘Pedigree of Sykes, of Sledmere, Roos etc.’, Joseph Foster, Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire: Vol. IV, North and North East Riding (1875).
J.W. Clay (ed.), Dugdale’s Visitation of Yorkshire with Additions Vol. II (1907), p. 481 describes the same family as ‘The Sykes of Spofforth’, a village some 65 miles to the north of Hull, https://archive.org/details/dugdalesvisitati2dugd.
 ‘Papers of the Sykes Family of Sledmere/Third Deposit of Papers of the Sykes Family of Sledmere/Sykes Letters and Papers/Copy will. Richard Sykes of Leeds, gent.’, Hull History Centre Catalogue, http://catalogue.hullhistorycentre.org.uk/catalogue/U-DDSY3-2-1, ‘Norcliffes of Langton, Family Papers/Documents presented 12 March 1960/Folder containing “Wills of Near Relations”’, (zDDX65/3/17, DDX65/20), East Riding of Yorkshire Archives https://www.eastriding.gov.uk/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=zDDX65.
 Foster, ‘Pedigree of Sykes, of Sledmere, Roos etc.’; James Raine (ed.), Depositions from the Castle of York relating to Offenses Committed in the Northern Counties in the Seventeenth Century (1861), pp. 54-55, https://archive.org/details/depositionsfromc00grea.
 Foster, ‘Pedigree of Sykes, of Sledmere, Roos etc.’.
 ‘House of Lords Journal Volume 9: 2 March 1647’, in Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 9, 1646 (1767-1830), pp. 49-54. British History Online, https://www.british-history.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol9/pp49-54. ‘House of Lords Journal Volume 9: 12 March 1647’, in Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 9, 1646 (1767-1830), pp. 74-76. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol9/pp74-76.
 ‘House of Commons Journal Volume 5: 22 April 1647’, in Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 5, 1646-1648 (1802), pp. 151-152. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/commons-jrnl/vol5/pp151-152.
 ‘House of Lords Journal Volume 9: 30 April 1647’, in Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 9, 1646 (1767-1830), pp. 160-165. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol9/pp160-165; ‘Warrants for Payment of Money’, in Mary Anne Everett Green (ed.), Calendar, Committee For Compounding: Part 1 (1889), pp. 778-826. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/compounding-committee/pt1/pp778-826.
 ‘Charles I – volume 515: June 1647’, in William Douglas Hamilton (ed.), Calendar of State Papers Domestic: Charles I, 1645-7 (1891), pp. 559-564. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/chas1/1645-7/pp559-564.
 ‘House of Commons Journal Volume 5: 30 December 1647’, in Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 5, 1646-1648 (1802), pp. 410-411. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/commons-jrnl/vol5/pp410-411.
 ‘House of Commons Journal Volume 5: 4 April 1648’, in Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 5, 1646-1648 (1802), pp. 525-527. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/commons-jrnl/vol5/pp525-527; ‘House of Lords Journal Volume 10: 14 April 1648’, in Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 10, 1648-1649 (1767-1830), pp. 192-195. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol10/pp192-195.
 ‘House of Lords Journal Volume 10: 10 June 1648’, in Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 10, 1648-1649 (1767-1830), pp. 316-320. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol10/pp316-320.
 ‘House of Commons Journal Volume 5: 31 July 1648’, in Journal of the House of Commons: Volume 5, 1646-1648 (1802), pp. 653-654. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/commons-jrnl/vol5/pp653-654.
 ‘House of Lords Journal Volume 10: 2 August 1648’, in Journal of the House of Lords: Volume 10, 1648-1649 (London, 1767-1830), pp. 406-414. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/lords-jrnl/vol10/pp406-414.
 Raine (ed.), Depositions from the Castle of York pp. 54-55; Joseph Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of the People Called Quakers, Volume II (1753), p. 90, https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=RaNAAQAAMAAJ&hl=en_GB&pg=GBS.PP1.
This report is part of a series on ‘Petitioners in the reign of Charles I and the Civil Wars’, created through a U3A Shared Learning Project on ‘Investigating the Lives of Seventeenth-Century Petitioners’.