No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Wentworth and the Northern Recusancy Commission
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 September 2015
Extract
In June 1629 Thomas, Viscount Wentworth was given control of the Northern Commission for Compounding with Recusants and appointed Receiver-General of northern recusant revenues. He was already Lord President of the Council of the North and Lord Lieutenant of Yorkshire, but this new appointment was to extend his power geographically far outside the Council’s jurisdiction. It gave Wentworth the opportunity to demonstrate further his administrative abilities and brought him personal financial advantages. Wentworth’s biographers have customarily given this aspect of his work only cursory attention, but in 1961 Clare Talbot edited a Catholic Record Society volume (n. 53) containing a selection of texts relating to Wentworth’s management of the commission, prefaced by a very informative introduction by the late J. C. H. Aveling which has added much to our knowledge of this part of Wentworth’s administrative work. The texts include over eighty documents, in whole or in part, from the Strafford Papers held in Sheffield Archives which shed much light on the work of the northern commission. There are, however, a number of other important letters, accounts and texts of speeches, both in the Strafford Papers and elsewhere, which deserve attention as they usefully supplement, and occasionally correct, Aveling’s introductory comments.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1973
References
Notes
I wish to thank Olive, Countess Fitzwilliam’s Wentworth Settlement Trustees and the Director of Leisure Services, Sheffield Libraries and Information Services. I wish to thank Liverpool Hope University College for financial assistance towards the cost of research.
1 The Council of the North had jurisdiction over Yorkshire, Durham, Cumberland, Westmorland and Northumberland; the Northern Commission also extended to Lancashire, Cheshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire.
2 Wedgwood, C.V., Thomas Wentworth, First Earl of Strajford 1593–1641 (1961), p. 120 Google Scholar; Lady Burghclere, Strafford 2 vols. (1931), vol. 1, pp. 112, 122–5, 157, 311; Cooper, Elizabeth, The Life of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford and Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland 2 vols. (1874), vol. 1, pp. 73–4 Google Scholar. Rachel R. Reid’s account of Wentworth’s northern administration refers only occasionally to his reçusancy work: The King’s Council in the North (1921), pp. 418, 426; Miscellanea, ed. Talbot.
3 They make it possible to say much more about Wentworth’s management of recusant revenues and about the attitude of his court contacts to the commission and its work. His comments in parliament about Savile’s commission are also worth examining.
4 Ibidem, pp. 295–6.
5 Commons Debates 1628: vol. II, ed. Robert C. Johnson and Maija Jansson Cole (New Haven, 1977), pp. 61, 85, 215, 593; Commons Debates 1628: vol, TV, ed. Mary Frear Keeler et al. (New Haven, 1978), pp. 61, 116, 125, 143–5, 151, 156–7, 163, 166–7, 169, 252, 269, 274–5, 312–3, 325, 340; Lords Proceedings in 1628, ed. Mary Frear Keeler et al. (New Haven, 1983), pp. 95–6.
6 Of the five versions of Wentworth’s speech printed, three have him demanding the recall of the commission[s], one that it be ‘brought into the House’, Commons Debates 1628: vol TV, ed. Mary Frear Keeler et al. (New Haven, 1978), pp. 144, 157, 163, 167, 169. Not all Wentworth’s connections would have agreed with this: see Str. P. 12/11, Sir Thomas Vavasour to Wentworth, 10 Sept. 1627.
7 He was appointed receiver-general on 8 June 1629: P.R.O., C. 66/2504; P.R.O., S.P. 39/27 unfol.
8 Richard Cust, ‘Wentworth’s “change of sides” in the 1620s’, The Political World of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford 1621–1641 ed. J. F. Merritt (Cambridge, 1996), pp. 63–80.
9 Commons Debates: vol TV, ed. Mary Frear Keeler et al. (New Haven, 1978), p. 143.
10 Ibidem, pp. 144, 157, 163, 167, 169.
11 Quintrell, B. W., ‘The Practice and Problems of Recusant Disarming, 1585–1641’, Recusant History, 17 (1895), pp. 209–10 Google Scholar. See also Questier, M. C., ‘Sir Henry Spiller, Recusancy and the Efficiency of the Jacobean Exchequer’, Historical Research, 66 (1993), pp. 251–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Aveling, Hugh, ‘The Catholic Recusancy of the Yorkshire Fairfaxes, Part I’, Biographical Studies, 3 (1955–6), p. 88.Google Scholar
13 Miscellanea, ed. Talbot, p. 307.
14 Str. P. 10a/215–6.
15 P.R.O., S.P. 16/178/40, undated, but inclusion of George Waite of Laborne (i.e. Leyburn), Yorkshire, suggests 1629–30 (see Miscellanea, ed. Talbot, p. 310). 19 rents were set at less than 10% and 3 at 10%. It is not clear from this document how accurate the estimates of wealth are, but it is worth noting that they are all round figures and not lower than £150.
16 Str. P. 12/86.
17 P.R.O., E. 401/2328–2343 (abbreviates of receipts): ibidem, 2448–2462 (auditors’ books); ibidem, 1916–1926 (receipt books); Str. P. 21/82; ibidem, 21/99; ibidem, 14/251.
18 P.R.O., E. 401/1917, 2328, 2448; ibidem, 1918, 2330, 2331, 2450, 2451; ibidem, 1919, 2452, 2453; ibidem, 1920, 2332, 2333.
19 Str. P. 13/161; ibidem, 3/2.
20 Str. P. 13/209, Philip Darrell’s estimate of the commission’s income, [late 1633]; ibidem, 15/263, Treasury commissioners to Wentworth, 18 Nov. 1635; P.R.O., E. 401/1921, 2334, 2454, 2455;
21 P.R.O., E. 401/1922, 2335, 2336, 2456; ibidem, 1923, 2337. The figure of £100 is given in the receipt book, but the same amount is crossed out in the abbreviate of receipts.
22 P.R.O., E. 401/1924, 2339, 2458, 2459; ibidem, 1925, 2340, 2341, 2460. See also P.R.O., S.P. 16/390/96.
23 P.R.O., E. 401/1926, 2342, 2343, 2461, 2462.
24 For example: £2,000 in 1631–2; £3,000 in 1632–3; £3,000 in 1634–5; £3,939 19s 11d in 1637–8; £4,877 in 1638–9. In 1639–40 the exchequer received £8,600 5s 6d from the southern commission, compared to Wentworth’s payment of over £32,000. For sources see above.
25 Str. P. 12/61, Philip Mainwaring to Wentworth, 6 Nov. 1630.
26 Ibidem, 12/114; ibidem, 12/205; ibidem, 15/69; ibidem, 15/262.
27 Miscellanea, ed. Talbot, p. 297; Michael James Tillbrook, ‘Aspects of the Government and Society of County Durham, 1558–1642’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Liverpool (1981), p. 173; National Art Library, Forster MS 48 G. 23, no. 4.
28 P.R.O., S.P. 16/170/20.
29 P.R.O., C. 66/2615 (1633); Thomas Rymer, Foedera (1743), vol. 9, part 1, pp. 57–8 (1636) and part 2, pp. 161–2 (1638). The commission was also renewed in 1634: P.R.O., C. 66/2677. Rockley took over the management of Wentworth’s estates following the death of his steward in 1635 and Pennyman’s wife cared for Wentworth’s children following the death of Lady Wentworth in 1631.
30 Staff. R.O., D. 1287/18/2, 22 July 1629.
31 Ibidem, 23 Dec. 1629.
32 Ibidem, 24 March 1630; ibidem, 16 July 1630.
33 Ibidem, 24 March 1630; ibidem. 18 Aug. 1630; P.R.O., S.P. 16/163/28, Charles I to Bridgeman, 21 March 1630.
34 Wentworth hoped that the death of Archbishop Harsnet in the summer of 1631 might bring promotion for Bridgeman, but the death of his own wife in October meant that he was not in a position to further the bishop’s case: Staff. R.O., D 1287/18/2, 28 July 1631; ibidem, 30 Nov. 1631. On Bridgeman’s troubles in 1633 see Quintrell, B. W., ‘Lancashire ills, the king’s will and the troubling of Bishop Bridgeman’,Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 132 (1983), pp. 67–95 Google Scholar and ibidem. ‘Laud, Wentworth and the Bridgeman Case’, ibidem, 137 (1987), pp. 155–9.
35 Quintrell, B. W., ‘Lancashire ills, the king’s will and the troubling of Bishop Bridgeman’, Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 132 (1983), p. 69.Google Scholar
36 Fiona Pogson, ‘Wentworth as president of the council of the North’, Government, Religion and Society in Northern England 1000–1700, ed. John C. Appleby and Paul Dalton (Stroud, 1997), pp. 185–198.
37 The vice-president’s letters to Wentworth can be found in chronological order in Str. P. 12–19 and 10a. Str. P. 13/198 is catalogued as 21 Feb. [1633/4], but should be dated 1632/3. See also ibidem, 13/41, 14/25, 14/247, Melton to Wentworth, 10 Sept. 1633, 14 April 1634, 7 Jan. 1635.
38 Ibidem, 13/43.
39 Ibidem, 13/231.
40 Ibidem, 15/262.
41 Ibidem, 15/123; ibidem, 21/168.
42 Ibidem, 10a/5.
43 Miscellanea, ed. Talbot, pp. 298, 305–6.
44 See, for example, Str. P. 12/205.
45 Ibidem, 8/299–300.
46 Ibidem, 12/72; Stephens, Edgar, The Clerks of the Counties, 1360–1960 (1961), p. 190.Google Scholar
47 Str. P. 12/68; ibidem, 12/72; ibidem, 12/76.
48 Ibidem, 12/231.
49 See, for example, ibidem, 21/73.
50 Ibidem, 20/41; ibidem, 3/135–6; ibidem, 21/102, 128 and 167.
51 £1,000 p.a. was assigned to the trustees of the Earl of Mulgrave in July 1635: ibidem, 15/135.
52 Ibidem, 12/154.
53 Ibidem, 12/205.
54 See, for example, ibidem, 21/108, Wentworth to Little, 23 Dec. 1633 and ibidem, 21/109, 110 and 116, all to Raylton, Feb., 22 March, 1 June 1634; ibidem, 21/133, to Marris, 2 May 1635.
55 Miscellanea, ed. Talbot, p. 298.
56 Kerridge, Eric, Trade and banking in early modem England (Manchester, 1988), p. 55.Google Scholar
57 Str. P. 21/64; ibidem, 21/69; ibidem, 21/71; ibidem, 21/74; ibidem, 21/192. Cooper, J. P., ‘The Fortune of Thomas Wentworth, Eari of Strafford’, Economic History Review, second series, 11 (1958), pp. 233–4 Google Scholar, discusses this benefit.
58 Str. P. 17/75; ibidem, 10a/66–7.
59 Ibidem, 21/71; ibidem, 13/161. Mr Chambers’ loan was probably paid into the Exchequer on 31 Dec. 1632. See ibidem, 21/109.
60 P.R.O., S.P. 16/148/47.
61 Str. P. 12/82.
62 Miscellanea, ed. Talbot, p. 299; Str. P. 12/261.
63 Str. P. 12/99.
64 Ibidem, 13/56.
65 Ibidem, 6/8; ibidem, 6/3.
66 Ibidem, 14/30.
67 Borthwick Institute, York High Commission Act Books, vol. 18, f. 293.
68 Aveling, Hugh, ‘The Marriages of Catholic Recusants, 1559–1642’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 14 (1963), pp. 80–82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In August 1633 Wentworth complained to the secretary of state, Sir John Coke, that Archbishop Neile of York had simply dismissed ‘factious’ recusants from the High Commission rather than secure an undertaking from them to appear before the recusancy commission for compounding: Str. P. 5/13. Neile insisted that his actions had been misrepresented: ibidem, 13/83. There is no evidence from Osborne’s later letters to Wentworth that Neile continued to obstruct the Commission’s work.
69 Borthwick Institute, Cause Papers, bundles H. 2168 and 2184.
70 Aveling, Hugh, ‘The Catholic Recusants of the West Riding of Yorkshire 1558–1790’, Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, 10 (1962–3), p. 252.Google Scholar
71 Str. P. 12/154.
72 Ibidem, 6/3.
73 Ibidem, 6/27.
74 Ibidem, 6/8.
75 Staff. R.O., D. 1287/18/2, 22 July 1629; see also ibidem, 23 Dec. 1629.
76 Str. P. 13/56.
77 Ibidem, 3/64.
78 Ibidem, 3/98–9.
79 Ibidem, 13/192.
80 Ibidem, 13/83.
81 P.R.O., S.P. 16/435/13 and 14, order of the commissioners for recusancy, 2 Dec. 1639; Str. P. 10a/362 and 364.
82 Str. P. 3/22–3.
83 Baddeley, Richard and Naylor, Joseph, The Life of Dr Thomas Morton, Late Bishop of Duresme (York, 1669), pp. 21–4, 36–40, 58–9, 105–6.Google Scholar
84 Str. P. 7/79v–80.
85 Ibidem, 7/83v.
86 Ibidem, 7/99v.
87 Ibidem, 7/104v; ibidem, 7/121.
88 Ibidem, 18/35.
89 Public Record Office, Privy Council 2/48, pp. 423–4, 1 December 1637.
90 Ibidem, 8/196–8, 3 March 1635, in which Wentworth complains to Coventry of the latter’s refusal to support his demand that a ‘factious and perverse’ justice be removed from the commission of the peace. See Reeve, L. J., Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule (Cambridge, 1989), p. 135 Google Scholar: ‘Coventry was a thorough lawyer, concerned for legal propriety’.
91 Upton, Anthony F., Sir Arthur Ingram (Oxford, 1961), pp. 215–33 Google Scholar; Miscellanea, ed. Talbot, p. 300.
92 Str. P. 8/23 and 24.
93 Leeds Archives, Temple Newsam MSS, Local Affairs 8, f. 4.
94 Str. P. 13/217.
95 Ibidem, 14/8.
96 Ibidem, 15/79; ibidem, 15/184.
97 Ibidem, 21/116.
98 Ibidem, 14/148; ibidem, 8/136–9.
99 Temple Newsam MSS, P07/II (Irish customs correspondence), ff. 17–18.
100 Regarding Wentworth’s claim for allowances see his letters to his agent William Raylton in Str. P. 21.
101 Ibidem, 3/84–5.
102 Ibidem, 3/86–9; ibidem, 21/118.
103 Ibidem, 21/138. The key to this cipher has apparently not survived.
104 Ibidem, 12/71.
105 Ibidem, 15/116; ibidem, 15/263.
106 His response to these requests varied. The Earl of Newcastle was pleased to hear that his suit on behalf of Mr Eltofts had been granted, whereas the Earl of Arundel was no doubt less pleased to learn that Wentworth had not done likewise for Sir John Thimbleby, but had written to the king for direction: Str. P. 12/79 and 87, both Newcastle to Wentworth, 3 Sept. and 28 Oct. 1629; ibidem, 15/171, Thimbleby to Wentworth, 30 July; ibidem, 15/173, Arundel to Wentworth, 31 July; ibidem, 40/12, Charles I to Wentworth 27 Oct. 1635; ibidem, 16/21, Charles I to Osborne and commissioners, 30 April 1636. See also P.R.O., S.P. 16/170/49, Lord Dunbar to Secretary Dorchester, 11 July 1630.
107 Str. P. 12/114, Hotham to Wentworth, 6 May 1630; ibidem, 15/98, Osborne to Wentworth, 8 June 1635; ibidem, 16/21, Charles I to northern recusancy commissioners, 30 April 1636; ibidem, 19/81, Sir John Winter (Queen’s secretary) to Wentworth, 15 July 1639.
108 Miscellanea, ed. Talbot, p. 300. The view that the ‘troubles of the Commission mounted steadily after 1634’ depends on accepting Wentworth’s characteristic complaints and dire warnings, expressed in his correspondence on this matter (as on many others), at face value. But it is important to note that the revenue from compositions does not appear to have declined during the second half of the decade.
109 Wedgwood, C.V., Thomas Wentworth, First Earl of Strafford 1593–1641 (1961), pp. 106–12.Google Scholar
110 Sheffield Archives, Miscellaneous Documents, no. 3198, royal letters patent, 16 April 1641.