It is often complained that history is written about the winners. This popular misconception is nowhere more proved false than by even a cursory study of the writings on one of the most important political forces in early Georgian Britain; that of Jacobitism and the Jacobite campaigns to overthrow the relatively new status quo.

Although this book is not about Jacobitism, it is necessary to briefly state what it was. It was a political creed which existed throughout Britain in the decades following the revolution of 1688, petering out only in the later years of the reign (1727–1760) of George II, nearly a century later. It was grounded in a belief that the Catholic branch of the Stuart family which had lost the thrones of Britain following that revolution, was the legitimate monarchy of Great Britain. These followers were known as Jacobites, after the Latin for James; Jacobus. Some of them made strenuous attempts to overthrow those monarchs who succeeded the ousted Stuart King, James II and VII (1632–1701) and to replace him or her with the said James and, after his death in 1701, with his son James Francis Stuart (1688–1766) titular James III and VIII. Jacobitism encompassed a whole range of actions and words; from toasting the King over the water in private, writing insulting references to the Georges in a diary, to making such expressions in public, to taking part in Jacobite demonstrations and, in a few cases, to enlisting in the Jacobite armies. Most English Jacobites were to be found among Catholics, Non-Jurors (that minority of Anglicans who did not accept the deposition of James II) and some Tories, who formed much of the Parliamentary opposition in 1714–1760. Some were ideologically committed; others were political opportunists, whose Jacobitism changed over time. It led to two major and one minor armed attempt in mainland Britain to overthrow the Hanoverian monarchy.1

Support for the Stuarts once appeared to be mainly confined to Scotland, and especially to the Highlands of Scotland, because that is where the bulk of those willing to fight for the Stuarts came from and that is where most of the battles and sieges took place. This is still the popular view but has not been that of scholars for decades. The amount of work on the Jacobites in England in the last half-century is not inconsiderable. Scholars such as Eveline Cruickshanks took the phenomenon seriously in work produced from the 1970s onwards. Her focus was on elite Jacobitism and concluded that among the nobility and gentry of early Hanoverian England, there was considerable sympathy for a Jacobite restoration, especially in the years leading up to and including 1745.2 Taking a wider perspective in the following decade was the first and so far only all-encompassing study of Jacobitism throughout England from 1688 to 1788. This showed that Jacobite support permeated English society from the nobility to those at its humblest level and it took shape in many forms, from poetry and song, to rioting and rebellion. It was as much a social, political and religious belief as well as a military challenge.3 Jacobitism has also been written about at the British level by Professor Szechi in the following decade; a revised work came forward recently4 and a synthesis of the phenomenon was published a few years after the first edition.5 There have been other studies, such as several on the predominantly English regiment of the Jacobite army of 1745.6

Although romantic Jacobitism had been long dead in academic, if not popular circles, a number of books from the 1980s onwards have stressed that the last Jacobite campaign was a near-miss for the insurgents and that its leader, the eldest grandson of the former James II, Charles Edward Stuart (1720–1788), was a credible political and military leader. No longer was the Forty Five seen as a heroic yet inevitably doomed enterprise. Had it succeeded, it would have had the power to decisively change British and world history and that success had been in the realm of the possible.7

As said, there were two major military attempts to overthrow the early Hanoverian monarchs as well as a lesser one, and these have attracted the interest of historians, being the last military campaigns on British soil. Of these, the lion’s share of attention has gone to the Jacobite campaign of 1745–1746, which was led by its most charismatic leader: Charles Edward Stuart. There have been numerous histories of the campaign published since 1746, and they show no signs of abatement over two and three quarters of a century later. There have also been studies of niche aspects of the campaign and on its key personalities, principally Charles himself. Popularly, there have been a great many songs, novels, TV and film dramas about this episode.

Far less well known and studied is the first attempt to oust the Hanoverian monarchy, which occurred in 1715. Compared to its successor, it lasted for a far shorter period of time and the Jacobite army scored no major victories. Yet it attracted far more active support in both England as well as Scotland than that of 1745.8 The present century has brought forth a limited renaissance of works of this topic; even so, it has not the same resonance as Charles’ campaign. Far less well known is the even shorter-lived invasion/rising of 1719, which lasted a matter of weeks and was limited to the north-west of Scotland, before its few adherents dispersed after a small battle.9

This study, though, looks at the Jacobites’ enemies. The phrase ‘anti-Jacobitism’ is not a contemporary one. It is one which, as far as is known, is coined by this author and inspired by the title of Monod’s excellent work of scholarship of over three decades ago. This is not to say that no author has ever examined the supporters of the Hanoverian dynasty previously. The late Professor Speck wrote of them and their actions in the groundbreaking The Butcher, although this book was as much interested in the military campaign of the Forty Five, and, in particular, the activity of the Duke of Cumberland (1721–1765), than that of the English people, though there are two chapters dedicated solely to them. The first chapter is ‘This thing is now grown very serious’, which focusses on secular responses; namely, the display of political and amateur military support in the counties and boroughs of England. A later chapter, ‘King George reigns in Hearts of all’, explores the reasons why such support was forthcoming.10

Local studies about both the Fifteen and the Forty Five in England focus almost entirely on the counties in the north of England, especially those counties through which the Jacobite army marched in 1745, though there has been some attention paid to the Midlands, namely Derbyshire and Staffordshire.11 There have also been a few, more substantial works on the local dimensions of the period.12 Although there have been a very few studies about events in and around London, almost nothing has been published about such in the southern counties of England, compared to that which occurred to the north. Perhaps this is due to the fact that the Jacobite army did not pass through or threaten these districts; thus, there was no apparent need for local defensive preparations. Yet, as Monod has noted, Jacobite activity was not geographically limited to the north of England, nor was that of their opponents’, as evidence which appears later in this book will show.13

Specific issues have been explored in other studies. The press during the Forty Five has been examined by Robert Harris, who, in a wider study of newspapers during the decade, concluded that though it was frequently anti-government, it became uniformly loyalist during the ultimate crisis in 1745–1746.14 The Church has also been the subject of a number of studies or featured as a part in wider ones; and these have shown that the clergy was overwhelmingly loyalist too. Thomas Herring (1693–1757), Archbishop of York, has featured prominently in much of this work.15 Military responses in England to the Jacobite rebellions have been discussed in a few articles, principally those from the north of England.16

National perspectives have been examined, inevitably cursorily, in wider studies of eighteenth-century Britain; notably that of Professor Linda Colley’s Britons. In her chapters concerning ‘Protestantism’ and then that about ‘Profits’, she shows how these forces led to support for the first two Georges against those which threatened to disrupt both the exercise of the Protestant religion and successful commerce.17 There is also relevant matter in Hannah Smith’s Georgian Monarchy, which argues for widespread loyalty in the localities of Britain towards the first two Georges, not just during times of extreme crisis.18

However, most works on the subject of Jacobitism and the Jacobite campaigns make but passing remarks on the English people. Most of this is very limited, narrowly focussed on matters military, and usually derogatory, castigating them for either apathy or ineffectiveness or both, without taking into account the very limited options of civilians when faced with overwhelming military force on their doorstep. Perhaps this is understandable, with military narratives quite logically focussing on the marches and battles of armies and on military decisions made by commanders.

It has often been observed, by those sympathetic to the Jacobite cause, that opposition to the Jacobites was extremely limited indeed. According to McLynn:

The older civic tradition of virtue and martial responsibility was almost dead. The Whig grandees, driven by stark pecuniary interest, had, by their proscription of the Tories, alienated the powerful squirearchy. The mass of the people remained apathetic to the outcome of the dynastic struggle. In other words, the social base of Whig prosperity was not broad enough. Not enough people benefitted from the era of the moneyed interest to make it worthwhile for them to lose their lives.19

He added in a later book as a pre-emptive strike;

Naturally, great stress is laid by pro-Hanoverian historians on the copious professions of loyalty before the invasion of England. But there is not much evidence of this crucial loyalty in the crucial month 8 November–5 December 1745. What is certain is that all ‘loyal’ forces set up to oppose the clansmen melted away with amazing rapidity once the prospect of a real fight loomed.20

This is echoed by Black:

it was their passive position on the march south that was crucial. Neither side appeared to have enjoyed the enthusiastic support of the bulk of the population, certainly to the extent of armed action.21

As against this, Speck wrote:

Yet this in itself is no measure of his [Charles’] acceptability to people in England… It is not altogether surprising that the amateur garrison of Carlisle, hastily scratched together from the local militias, capitulated when they heard that they could not expect any help from Wade’s army, and were threatened with fire and sword if they refused.22

Colley added:

hardly any civilians who were not Roman Catholic joined it [the Jacobite army]. True, few civilians acting on their own initiative attempted to physically stop it either. But those historians who put this inaction down to indifference need to think again. English civilians had at this time no adequate militia training and only limited and usually obsolete firearms. Unless they were very brave or very stupid, therefore, they were hardly likely to take pot shots at an army of Highlanders and risk reprisals.23

On the other hand, studies of English Jacobitism have, in recent decades, taken a far broader perspective and so it would seem unjust not to award a similar view of their opponents. English Jacobites are not now usually dealt harshly with because most of them did not commit to the ‘all or nothing’ dangers inherent in rising in armed rebellion. Jacobite military leaders took an understandably different view. Both Thomas Forster in 1715 and Lord George Murray, 30 years later, bemoaned the lack of English Jacobites ready to rise. Historians have defended the latter’s position. Cruickshanks, for example, wrote:

It cannot be assumed that the only Jacobites were those who rose in rebellion. This was recognised at the time and is now being recognised by historians, as, for example, in the case of William Shippen, perhaps the most notorious Jacobite MP of them all. What indeed would Shippen have done, a lawyer and something of a windbag in Parliament, against redcoats and Dutch troops? 24

Likewise, Monod also calls for a more broader comprehension of the term Jacobite:

No clear dividing line separates ‘real’ Jacobites from those whose commitment was less ‘serious’. To be sure, disgruntled Stuart adherents complained at times about ‘tippling’ Jacobites who would do no more than toast the Pretender’s health, but this was an invidious distinction. If a willingness to die for a cause were the only true indication of resolve then few Englishmen or women in the modern age have been seriously committed to anything.25

The definition of a Jacobite has been laid down by both Szechi and Monod, among others, in recent decades. As Speck has pointed out, there once seemed no need to explore the other side of the coin because the supporters of the Hanoverian dynasty were the winners and their triumph was inevitable. This view has not held true for some decades, especially given the surge in Jacobite studies.

Anti-Jacobitism is not entirely the same as Whiggism. It has been said that not all Tories were Jacobite but that all Jacobites were Tories; conversely, not all those opposed to Jacobitism were Whigs but all Whigs, supportive as they were of the Hanoverians, were surely anti-Jacobite. There were some Tories who temporarily allied to the Whigs against a possible Stuart restoration.

To be anti-Jacobite meant to act or speak or even write against the Jacobite cause and to speak, act or write in favour of the Hanoverian monarchs. Such behaviour was crucial when the post-1714 status quo was in danger. This might mean enrolling in a volunteer corps or the militia, acting as a spy on the Jacobite army, relaying messages to London or the British army, giving a sermon in favour of George I or II, toasting confusion to the Stuarts, or ensuring church bells rang on appropriate occasions.

This book is a study of how the English people showed their support for the first two Georges during the times of crisis when it mattered the most. It is essentially a chronological narrative of their behaviour, with the first chapters focussing on 1715–1716 and the latter ones on that of 1745–1746. This is not to suggest that there were no displays of support of the Georges at other times, and these have been noted by Hannah Smith. As well as the coronation of George II in 1727 there were regular displays of support during key royal anniversaries (the King’s accession to the throne, his coronation, his birthday and that of the weddings and birthdays of other key members of the royal family) throughout the year, as there had been for previous monarchs. However, when that monarchy was secure, there was no need for its supporters to exert themselves to the hilt. It was when danger threatened that action was required and that was more difficult than in more peaceful times.

This book presents the reader with a new account of the responses to the challenges which beset the first two Georges and their governments. It is not an account of the military campaigns, of which there are very many and of varying quality; eschewing a military narrative, rather, this is an account of the activities of those who supported these two monarchs.

The sources being used include those from the great national repository of the National Archives, chiefly from State Papers Domestic, which consist of correspondence to and from those in the counties to the Secretaries of State, which are particularly voluminous for 1745–1746. The Cumberland Papers, from the Royal Archives, are similarly important for these years, being the letters to and from the government’s military commander in chief. The British Library also included important material in the collections of the government’s leading figures, such as the Duke of Newcastle and the Earl of Hardwicke.

County record offices are a useful source for the activity of what would now be termed ‘local government’; the county quarter sessions, borough corporations and parishes. Correspondence of nobility and gentry is usually to be found here, too. Local and national newspapers included a column or more of what they termed ‘Country News’ as well as ‘London News’, which often included letters from the provinces and capital about loyalist activities.

Other published contemporary sources include histories written at the time, published correspondence and diaries, many of which have been edited for publication in more recent times. Sermons were occasionally published and these are used throughout, demonstrating the importance of the Anglican Church in politics at this time.

This evidence is largely taken from what survives written by the literate minority: nobility and gentry, professional men, clergy and a few women. The correspondence and other writings of these figures will dominate the text. The activity of those lower down the social scale is referred to by their social betters, but it is filtered through their lenses. Sources written by Jacobites have also been included where they comment on, or rather criticise, their enemies.

The importance of the English people to the outcome of these campaigns is clear. Though the military danger came primarily from Scotland, and to a lesser extent, from France and Spain in 1745–1746, it was in England where the matter would be decided. England was the heartland of the Hanoverian dynasty. It was the most populous and richest part of Great Britain as well as being the seat of monarchy and government. This has been the case in previous centuries; and was made obvious by the events of the civil wars of 1642–1651 and of the revolution of 1688. For a monarch to lose control of England was for him to lose control of the whole. Once Parliament had gained England, which it effectively had by 1645, support for Charles I from elsewhere in the kingdoms was not enough, as the climaxes of incursions from Scotland in 1648 and 1651 were to prove. In 1689–1691 James II had active supporters in Scotland and also, even more so, in Ireland, but, once again, these were not enough. He needed either widescale active support in England or for significant apathy among those of his opponent. Neither was forthcoming.

This book is, then, the first systematic survey on a national scale of the responses of the English supporters of the Hanoverian dynasty. It does not study Jacobitism per se, though Jacobite activity is alluded to, usually when their opponents took note of it and sought to counter it. This is not to downplay the Jacobite movement or the men and women involved in it. However, such has already been covered in works already mentioned, though more could be done by examining sources at the county level.

This book focusses on reactions to the two main insurrections in the early eighteenth century and is structured as follows.

Chapter 1 deals with loyalist activity during the first year of George I’s reign, between 1 August 1714 and 1 August 1715. It will show that on the occasions of his accession, arrival in England and his coronation and birthday on the next year, there were outpourings of loyalist sentiment in public and private, secular and sacred. Serious opposition was limited.

Chapter 2 brings the reader to the more turbulent period of late summer and early autumn, roughly from 1 August to 6 October 1715. Following news that there was to be an attempt at a Jacobite restoration, preparations were made by government and its supporters to deal with what could be a very dangerous situation. Civil officials, clergy and others took steps to defend their interests and fears arose as to what would happen next.

Chapter 3 discusses responses to the actuality of armed and potentially revolutionary insurrection in England, for the first time in three decades, during 6 October to 14 November 1715. Following an English uprising in Northumberland, there was a rather larger Jacobite army of English and Scotsmen marching through the north-western counties, picking up support but initially attracting no effective opposition. This was the time of crisis where all was at stake, calling for action from those in the front line and support from those elsewhere.

Chapter 4 relates to the aftermath of the Jacobite campaign in England and then Scotland, from 14 November to the next year. It shows how the victories over the Jacobite armies were marked by public celebrations, in sermons and in private reflection. There will also be some consideration of responses to George II’s coronation in 1727, in contrast to that of his father in 1714 in order to indicate the shifting allegiances that had taken place by then.

Chapter 5 shifts the scene forward to 1745 and another challenge posed by the Stuart claimant. At first, the campaign was limited to Scotland, but was viewed as being increasingly significant after the Jacobite victory at Prestonpans. During August to October 1745, and increasingly in the latter month, civil defensive preparations were made and demonstrations of loyalty were equally evident throughout England.

Chapter 6 discusses the impact of the high tide of the Jacobite campaign of 8 November to 5 December, when a Jacobite army marched through England, reaching Derby with minimal opposition. This was the time when all the much-vaunted preparations of the previous months were needed. But it was not only on the front line that such actions were noted. The chapter will note the weaknesses and limitations of civil loyalty, whilst not wholly diminishing their worth and significance.

Chapter 7 examines what happened when the Jacobite army was in retreat through England in December 1745 and when it was at bay but undefeated in Scotland in the first few months of 1746. At first, there was a harrying of retreating Jacobites and then attacks on their alleged supporters.

Chapter 8 explores the manifestations of applause for the victory at Culloden on 16 April 1746, responses to the prisoners and trials of those from the defeated army and to those leaders of the victorious one and during the day of official celebration.

Although four chapters cover events in 1715–1716 and four those of 30 years later, this coverage is uneven. A little more than two-thirds of the book focusses on the events around the Forty Five and its aftermath. This is because the creation and survival of primary material for the latter is so much greater. For example, there was virtually no surviving regional press in 1715–1716; very few copies of The Newcastle Courant survive, for instance. State Papers Domestic 35 for the reign of George I are very sketchy and this is a great loss. Whereas 30 years later there was a strong regional press, much of which survives, State Papers Domestic 36 for George II’s reign contains a great many letters to and from the provinces to the Secretaries of State. The Cumberland Papers, part of the Royal Archives, are also comprehensive in their coverage of the campaign and many concern local activity in England. Finally, we could add that the campaign in England in 1715 lasted a mere 38 days and although that of 1745 was only a few more, preparations for it had been made weeks before. The whole length of the ‘Fifteen’ in Britain was but five months (September 1715–February 1716); that of the Forty Five was eight (August 1745–April 1746)

Although this is a study of ‘winners’ and not ‘losers’, it should be remembered that this is to judge in the light of hindsight when the outcome is known to the reader but not to the contemporary. The actions and words are of those who did not know what would happen. It is also hoped that this is not a book that aims to be uncritical of these ‘winners’. There were times when at least some of them were vicious or fearful, guided by self-interest and/or prejudice. They were also often ineffectual in their actions.

Before we begin it is worth briefly considering state, church and society in eighteenth-century England as we will be examining these in this book. England was one of three kingdoms with the same monarch, the others being Scotland and Ireland, which made up Great Britain. Each kingdom had its own legislature until 1707 when Scotland and England came together in union. Although the Parliaments made laws, they were mostly implemented by what would now be called ‘local government’ and it is these institutions, which feature throughout this book, which must now be examined.

Britain was made up of counties, of varying sizes; in England Yorkshire was the greatest in extent and Rutland the smallest. These were the units of local government. Each had as its titular head the Lord Lieutenant, a nobleman appointed for his political loyalty (often for life) who was an important landed figure in his own right. He represented the county in its dealings with central government and in times of emergency, would, with his deputy lord lieutenants, lead and raise the county militia. The militia could be made up of both infantry and cavalry and was meant to be armed locally and trained, but in neither were the standards laid out in theory achieved. Below the Lieutenant was the Sheriff, an annual appointment which was often avoided due to the time and expense its role entailed. By the eighteenth century, his role was minimal, confined to overseeing the county gaol and the assizes, but in times of crisis he could call out the county posse, a force of able-bodied men who were to be armed. This role overlapped with that of the Lords Lieutenant and had almost, but not quite, as we shall see, fallen into disuse.

The real governors of the shires were neither the Lords Lieutenant nor the Sheriffs, but the justices of the peace (JPs). They were landed gentlemen who formed the county quarter sessions. Formally, they met four times a year but one or two could deal with lesser matters when necessary. Their role was both judicial, in trying petty offenders, and administrative, in implementing legislation from Parliament. They also supervised the lowest rung on the administrative tree, the parishes, which were the units of which each county was made up. Each parish had at least one churchwarden (usually two) and at least one petty constable, responsible for law and order. The former authorised bell ringing, or not, on loyalist occasions.

There were also the corporations, towns and cities which had been given charters, some from the Middle Ages and some as recently as the seventeenth century. These were ruled by a corporation made up of elected common councillors, appointed aldermen and an executive mayor, annually appointed. They regulated matters within their town or city. Many towns, such as Manchester and Halifax, were, despite their growing populations and increasing industrial and commercial prosperity, still ruled by the parish, having not been given a charter of incorporation. Corporations had the same powers as the county quarter sessions.

Turning to Christianity, England was not entirely Anglican, even in theory. Since 1689 Protestant nonconformist churches had been allowed to open legally for worship, by licence. To practice Catholicism was illegal and punishable by fines under anti-Catholic laws dating back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, though these were ordinarily laxly upheld. Even so the authority of the Anglican Church, of which the monarch was Head, was immense. Every man who held an office under the Crown in whatever branch of government or the armed forces, had to swear the oath of allegiance recognising the monarch as the Head of both Church and State, thus ensuring an Anglican monopoly of places. England was divided into two unevenly sized archbishoprics and 26 bishoprics of differing sizes and wealth, sub-divided into archdeaconries and then parishes (the lowest secular and religious rung being the same).

Anti-Catholicism was a strong force throughout English society. This was partly based on past experiences during the reigns of the Catholic Mary I and James II. It was also due to the persecution of Protestants in the Catholic states of Europe, past and present. Catholicism was linked to spiritual and political tyranny and had played a part in the overthrow of both Charles I and James II. 26

Socially, England was very diverse, with a small number of wealthy noblemen at the top of the hierarchy, dominating senior posts in government, the Church and armed forces. Then there was the gentry, landholders whose income derived predominantly from their rents but many of whose families were employed by Church and State. They made up the bulk of the JPs. The middling people included merchants, professionals and clergymen; many of whom lived in towns and cities and tended to monopolise membership of the corporations. Beneath them was the mass of society, most of whom lived in small villages and worked on the land as yeomen, freeholders and small holders or as craftsmen and tradesmen. Then there were labourers and servants, common soldiers and sailors. Last and certainly least were those who lived on the margins of society; vagrants, thieves, gypsies and prostitutes. It was a predominantly rural society, yet it was not a static society of rigid orders. The common people were usually illiterate and few could participate in formal politics, but they were not without political influence as was noted by collective actions taken throughout the century which was more often than not conservative in its goals.

This book, then, aims to discuss responses throughout England in 1715–1716 and 1745–1746 of those who opposed, in whatever way, the Jacobite rebellions. Although it focusses on the north of England and parts of the Midlands as that is where responses were most immediate, it does not neglect activity happening elsewhere. However, it does not pretend to be comprehensive and there is still a need for systematic research in county record offices for some of southern England and the Midlands for the phenomena of Jacobitism and anti-Jacobitism, which could well yield a crop of noteworthy articles in local history journals or theses.


1. Daniel Szechi, The Jacobites: Britain and Europe (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994, rev. 2018).

2. Eveline Cruickshanks, Political Untouchables: the Tories and the Forty Five (London: Duckworth, 1979).

3. P.K. Monod, Jacobitism and the English People, 1689–1788 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

4. Szechi, The Jacobites.

5. M. G. H. Pittock, Jacobitism (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998).

6. Jonathan Oates, ‘The Manchester Regiment of 1745’, Journal of the Society for Army History Research, 88 (2010).

7. Frank McLynn, The Jacobite Army in England: The Final Campaign (Edinburgh: Donald, 1983) and Charles Edward Stuart: A Tragedy in many Acts (London: Routledge, 1988); Jeremy Black, Culloden and the Forty Five (Stroud: Sutton, 1997), Christopher Duffy, Fight for a Throne: The Jacobite Forty Five Reconsidered (Solihull: Helion, 2015).

8. Daniel Szechi, 1715: The Great Jacobite Rising (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006); Margaret Sankey, Jacobite Prisoners of the 1715 Rebellion: Preventing and Punishing Insurrection in early Hanoverian England (Farnham: Ashgate, 2006); Jonathan Oates, Preston: The Last Battle on English Soil (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015); and Crucible of the Fifteen: The Battle of Sheriffmuir (Solihull: Helion, 2017).

9. Jonathan Worton, The Battle of Glenshiel: The Jacobite Rising in 1719 (Solihull: Helion, 2018); Oates, The Last Spanish Armada: Britain and The War of the Quadruple Alliance, 1718–1720, (Solihull: Helion, 2019).

10. W.A. Speck, The Butcher: The Duke of Cumberland and the Suppression of the ’45 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981).

11. N.J. Arch, ‘To stop this dangerous mischief: York and the Forty Five’, York Historian, 1 (1980); Francis Stuart Banner, ‘The Going out of Prince Charles in 1745’, Lancashire and Cheshire History Society NS, 2, (1905); William Beamont, ‘Some Occurrences during the Rebellion of 1745 principally in Warrington and the neighbourhood’, Lancashire and Cheshire History Society, (1849); J.H.E. Bennett, ‘Cheshire and the Fifteen’, Journal of the Cheshire and North Wales Historical Society (1915); C. Collyer, ‘Yorkshire and the Forty Five’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 37 (1952); C. Ferguson, ‘The Retreat of the Highlanders through Westmorland in 1745’, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 10 (1889); D. Hepburn and C. Richardson, ‘Documentation relating to the transportation of cannon from Whitehaven to Carlisle during the Jacobite Rising of 1745’, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, series II, LXXXIV (1984); Rupert Jarvis, ‘Whitehaven Port records and the Forty Five’, Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, series II, 45, (1945); A. Nicholson, ‘Lancashire in the Rebellion of 1715’, Lancashire and Cheshire Historical Society, III (1885); F.J. McLynn, ‘Hull and the Forty Five’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 52 (1980); ‘Newcastle and the Forty Five’, Journal of Local Studies, II, 1 (1982); Oates, ‘The defence of Berwick upon Tweed during the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745’, Tyne and Tweed, 55 (2001), ‘Halifax and the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745’, Transactions of the Halifax Antiquarian Society, new ser. 9 (2001);‘ ‘Berwick and the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715, Tyne and Tweed, 56 (2002);‘ Yorkshire and the Fifteen’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 75 (2003); ‘Durham and the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715’, Durham County Local History Society, 66 (2003); ‘Responses in Newcastle upon Tyne to the Jacobite Rebellions of 1715 and 1745’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 5th ser., XXXII (2003); ‘Leeds and the Jacobite Rebellions of 1715 and 1745’, Thoresby Society, 2nd ser., 14 (2004); ‘York and the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745’, Borthwick Paper, 107 (2005); ‘Responses in the North of England to the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715’, Northern History, XLIII:I (2006); ‘Cumberland and Westmorland and the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715’, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, new ser., VI (2006); ‘The East Riding and the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745’, East Yorkshire Historian, 8 (2007), York and the Jacobite rebellion of 1715’, York Historian, 24 (2007); G.R. Potter, ‘A government spy in Derbyshire during the “45”’, Derbyshire Archaeological Journal, 89 (1969); P. Purcell, ‘The Jacobite Rising of 1715 and the English Catholics’, English Historical Review, XLIV (1929); R. Turner, ‘Manchester in 1745’, Royal Stuart Society, XLIX (1997); A.C. Wardle, ‘Sir Thomas Johnson and the Jacobite Rebels’, Lancashire and Cheshire Historical Society, 91 (1939); B. Whitehead, York and the Jacobite rebels: Some events and people in the York of 1745–1747’, York Historian, 6 (1985).

12. Donald Higham, Liverpool and the ’45 (Liverpool, 1995); Oates, Responses in North East England to the Jacobite Rebellions of 1715 and 1745 (Reading University, PhD 2001); Oates, The North West of England and the Jacobite Invasion of 1745 (Lancaster, 2006); P.J.C. Smith, The Invasion of 1745: The drama in Lancashire and Cheshire (1993); Brian Stone, Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Highland Army in Derby (Cromford: Scarthin Books, 2015); J. Stirling, The Jacobites in Lancashire (Dalesman, 1971).

13. A.A. Mitchell, ‘London and the “45”’, History Today 15/10 (1965); Oates, ‘Deptford and Lewisham during the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745’, Archeaologia Cantiana (2001); ‘The Rise and Fall of Jacobitism in Oxford’, Oxoniensia, LXVIII (2003), ‘Hertfordshire and the Jacobite Rebellions of 1715 and 1745’, Herts Past and Present, 3/3 (2004); ‘Cambridge and the Jacobite Rebellions of 1715 and 1745’, Cambridgeshire Local History Society, new ser., 13 (2004); ‘Berkshire and Jacobitism’, Berkshire Old and New, 24 (2007), ‘Responses in London and the Home Counties to the Jacobite rebellion of 1745’, Southern History, 28 (2006); ‘Seditious words and loyal oaths: Hampshire and the Jacobite threat’, Hampshire Paper (2007); N. Rogers, ‘Popular Disaffection in London during the “45”’, London Journal, 1 (1975).

14. Robert Harris, A Patriot Press: National Politics and the London Press During the War of Austrian Succession (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990).

15. Francoise Deconnick-Brossard, ‘The Churches and the Forty Five’ in W.J. Shiels, ed., Church and War, Studies in Church History, 20 (1983); Susannah Abbott, ‘Clerical Responses to the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715’, Historical Research, 73 (2003); Stephen Taylor, Church and State in the Mid Eighteenth Century, 17421761, (Cambridge PhD, 1988). P.G. Green, ‘Samuel Peploe and the ideology of anti-Catholicism among the Anglican clergy in early Hanoverian England’, Lancashire and Cheshire Historical Society, 145 (1996); S.W. Baskerville, ‘The political behaviour of the Cheshire clergy, 1705–1752’, Northern History, XXIII (1987); R.T. Holtby, ‘Thomas Herring as Archbishop of York’, Northern History, 30 (1994); C. Smyth, ‘Archbishop Herring and the’45’, Church Quarterly Review, 142, no. 283 (1946); Oates, ‘Bishop Chandler and the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745’, Durham County Local History Society, 63 (2001).

16. C.I.A. Ritchie, ‘The Durham Association Regiment of 1745’, Journal of the Society for Army History Research, 34 (1956); Oates, ‘Civil defence in North East England during the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715’, Journal of the Society for Army History Research, 80/322 (2002); Oates, ‘Independent Volunteer Forces in Yorkshire in 1745’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 73 (2001); Andrew Bamford, ed., Rebellious Scots to Crush: The Military Response to the Jacobite ’45 (Solihull: Helion, 2020).

17. Linda Colley, Britons: Forging the Nation, 17071837 (Yale: Yale University Press, 1992).

18. Hannah Smith, Georgian Monarchy: Politics and Culture, 17141760 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

19. F.J. McLynn, The Jacobites (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985), p. 106.

20. McLynn, Charles, p. 192.

21. Black, Culloden, pp. 132–133.

22. Speck, Butcher, p. 195.

23. Colley, Britons, p. 77.

24. Cruickshanks, Ideology and Conspiracy, p. 4.

25. Monod, Jacobitism, p. 6.

26. Colin Haydon, Anti-Catholicism in Eighteenth Century England, c.171417805, ed, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993).



If you find an error or have any questions, please email us at Thank you!