ABSTRACT
Thisarticlearguesevenmorestronglyfortheinterpenetrationof thelocalandnationalinurbanpolitics.LikeNewcastle,Bristol hadamercantileoligarchyatoddswithawidermiddlinggroup, but,unlikeHowell,DavidSackslookschieflyattheregularroutine oftown-staterelations,emphasizingthefusionofeconomicand politicalinterests,aboveallthroughthelegalframeworkof franchisesandurbangovernment.These,Sacksinsists,render meaninglessanyattempttoidentifyalocalistperspective,andhe illustrateshowtheconstitutionalcontroversiesofearlyStuart Englandbecameembeddedinlocalpoliticswellbeforethecrisis of1640.Anobviousgapinthisaccountisanyconsiderationof religion,where,asClarkandHowellbothshow,thelocalandthe nationaloftenfoundtheirmostexplosiveconnections.ButSacksis notseekingtoofferaroundedaccountofurbanpoliticsleadingto CivilWar,butchallengingthelocalistinterpretationonitsstrongest ground,thesupposedprimacyoflocalisminthepettyaffairsofthe economyandadministration.Recentworkonthemid-Tudor periodandsuchtopicsaspovertyandmarketregulationsuggests thatthismodelisapplicabletosmallertowns.
