Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
Current historical opinion inclines to the view that the reign of Charles i was a time of increased stringency for the English Catholic community. There may have been a relaxation for upper-class Catholics with court connexions, but there was also a great increase in the number of those sequestered for recusancy and a higher level of recusancy fining. Dr K. J. Lindley suggests that this policy of increased severity in fining may even have been an important factor in inclining the recusant population towards neutrality during the English Civil War. The significance of financial persecution is seen in a rather different light in analyses of the Interregnum, however. Here, despite the fact that pecuniary mulcts were higher than they had ever been before or were to be again, the treatment of Catholics has been portrayed as a continuous movement towards greater toleration only brought to an end with the fall of the Protectorate.
1 Havran, M. J., The Catholics in Caroline England, London 1962, 91Google Scholar; Aylmer, G. E., The Struggle for the Constitution, London 1965, 89Google Scholar.
2 Lindley, K. J., ‘The Lay Catholics of England in the reign of Charles I’, in this Journal, xxii (1971), 220.Google Scholar
3 Hardacre, P., Royalists in the Puritan Revolution, The Hague 1956, viCrossRefGoogle Scholar, passim; The Interregnum: the Questfor Settlement 1646-1660, ed. Aylmer, G. E., London 1974, 115Google Scholar.
4 Hardacre, P., op. cit., 118Google Scholar; C[alendar of] S[tate] P[apers] Ven[eian], xxix, 233–4Google Scholar.
5 This was the case of an Irish Dominican friar accused of speaking treasonable words:Havran, M. J., op. cit., 114Google Scholar.
6 [Public Record Office,] S[tate] P[apers], 16/169/82; SP. 12/255/93; henceforth all manuscript references are Public Record Office unless otherwise specified;Caraman, P., Henry Morse: Priest of the Plague, London 1957, 140Google Scholar.
7 35 Eliz. 1 cap. 2.
8 Trimble, W. R., ‘The Embassy Chapel Question, 1625-1660’, Journal of Modem History, xviii (1946).Google Scholar
9 Aylmer, G. E., The King's Servants: the Civil Service of Charles I, 1625-1642, London 1961, 144.Google Scholar
10 Statutes of the Realm; few recusants ever paid the £260 p.a., only the richest could afford to do so. In Staffordshire John Draycotte of Paynesley compounded with a servant of the Crown for his £260 fine: Clatholic] R[ecord] S[ociety, Recusant Roll] 2, 57. lxxxvi-lxxxvii.
11 CRS, 57. Ixxxi.
12 Catholics would enter into recognizances with die sheriffs to pay die sums estimated by Inquisition as the value of their goods. See Exchequer Miscellanea: Recusant Box, Bundle 3.
13 CRS, 57.IXXV.
14 SP, 16/485/238;Magee, B., The English Recusants, London 1938, 62Google Scholar.
15 E[xchequer], 377/23; CRS Miscellanea, 53. 334.
16 See case of Gregory Havard, E, 134/14 James 1. Mich. 6. Hereford;Cliffe, J. T., The Yorkshire Gentry: from the Reformation to the Civil War, London 1969, 215Google Scholar; CRS, Misc., 53. 294.
17 E. 377/32.
18 The patronage was mainly to benefit Draycott as the lessees were also the trustees of his lands settled in a marriage agreement: C[alendar of] S[tate] P[apers] D[omestic], 1629-31, 259; SP, 16/166/151.
19 E, 377/32.
20 E, 377/33; some of these were extensions of existing sequestrations.
21 M.J. Havran, (above note 1), 35; E, 377/34.
22 E, 377/33-56; the debts pile up year after year.
23 The best discussion of the Commissions is contained in H. Aveling's article in CRS Misc., 53. 291-303.
24 Ibid., 411.
25 Wentworth was the more effective in that he combined the role of Receiver of Recusant Revenues in the north parts with the Presidency of the Council in the North.
26 See above, 331.
27 E, 351/414.
28 E, 368/605/Communia, 398; CRS Misc., 53. CSPD 1635, 543-4. For similar errors see also E, 368/605/Communia, 395; E, 368/645/Communia, 381.
29 E, 351/432.
30 S[taffbrdshire] C[atholic] H[istory], v, 1-37, contains the names of over a thousand recusants convicted in 1641 in County Stafford.
31 E, 351/432. A few found the demands too much. Two men who compounded at £2 p.a. never appear to have paid a thing and against both their names in the 1633-4 account the scribe noted ‘very poore man’: E, 101/527/9.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Walter, ist Lord Aston, died in 1639 and his wife Gertrude arid son Walter, snd Lord Aston, were later sequestered: The Committee at Stafford 1643-45, D. H. Pennington and I. A. Roots, eds., Manchester 1957, 211, 307.
35 Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660, ed. Firth, C. H. and Rait, R. S., 1911.Google Scholar
36 Exchequer Miscellanea: Army, Navy, Castles, sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Bundle 20.
37 S[taffordshire] R[ecord] O[ffice], D. 260/M/F/4./18, 71. Whilst these reseizures were painful they did effectively terminate the practise of recusants having to compound regularly for their goods. No parliamentary Act or Ordinance ever specified that such compositions be made and as a result Catholics without lands, apart from the continuing double taxation, were to all intents and purposes ignored from the point of view of their recusancy. The Act of 26 June 1657 ordering the seizure of two thirds of recusants’ goods does not appear ever to have been enforced. Two or three of those recusants who had compounded with Charles I'S commissioners for their goods found their, presumably concealed or recently acquired, real estate sequestered between 1642 and 1653.
31 Ibid., 69-70, 3.
30 See below, 338.
40 D. H. Pennington and I. A. Roots (above note 34), 290.
41 Ibid., 282, 58; C[hancery], 7/125/58.
42 E, 377/53.
43 E, 377/54.
44 E, 377/56; see Berkshire, Cumberland and Leicestershire. A few Crown tenants also appear to have hung on. Thomas Meisey and Thomas Purcell who had a lease on the Oxfordshire lands of Francis Plowden were still paying the pre-Civil War rent in 1647-8: E, 377/55 Oxon.
45 E, 368/671 Michaelmas 1648. Praecepta, unfoliated.
46 E, 368/667 Hilary 1647. Praecepta, 13.
47 E. 377/55.
48 British Library, Additional MS 35098/111.
49 C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait (above note 35), ii. 334.
50 SP, 23/7/85; the names of those convicted of recusancy in various drives during the Interregnum were still enrolled o n the Recusant Rolls and cases of pre-Civil War sequestrations were still recorded perhaps in the hop e of a policy change. See E, 377/61. Several Catholics under parliamentary sequestration had their old Exchequer sequestrations discharged in 1649 probably to protect themselves from any such reverse in case arrears were demanded. See E, 368/670/Cornmunia, 53, 40, 8.
51 Mrs Joan Thirsk argues that the sales were primarily to raise money and not to destroy the royalists, Economic History Review, 2nd Ser., v (1953), igsn. Dr P. G. Holiday emphasises the punitive nature of the sales rather more, but agrees that the reason for them was ultimately financial:‘Royalist Composition Fines and Land Sales in Yorkshire, 1645-1655’ (University of Leeds, unpublished Ph.D. thesis 1966), 170–1Google Scholar.
52 C. H. Firth an d R. S. Rait, op. cit., ii. 520-45, 591-8, 623-52.
53 Edward Stamford compounded on die Articles of Ashby-de-la-Zouche but diough his father, uncle, wife and younger brother were all convicted recusants diere is no firm evidence that he was ever so convicted and he did take the Oath of Abjuration: C[alendar of the] C[ommittee of] C[ompounding], 2, 1192; SP, 23/119/498.
54 Pickles, J. T., ‘Studies in Royalism in the English Civil War 1642-1646 widi special reference to Staffordshire’, (University of Manchester, unpublished M.A. thesis 1968), 176–177Google Scholar; SP, 19/138/307; 22/283.
55 J.T. Pickles, op. cit., 178.
56 Clifford, A., Tixall Letters; or the Correspondence of the Aston Family, London 1815, 118Google Scholar; SP, 19/138/308; 22/283.
57 D. H. Pennington and I. A. Roots (above note 34), 307.
58 BL, Add. MS 36452/123; SP, 23/235/136.
59 D. H. Pennington and I. A. Roots, op. cit., 73; BL, Add. MS 36452/115.
60 The manor of Colton, Lady Gertrude's jointure, was firmly under sequestration.
61 BL, Add. MS 36452/162-4; Common Pleas, 25(2)/596, Michaelmas 1653; 597, Michaelmas 1656.
62 Slain at Hopton Heath and his estate included in diat of his son, Francis Biddulph.
63 Three John Giffords are cited in the Acts of Sale but they are clearly die same person.
64 E, 101/629/14.
65 SP, 23/64/701, 727;23/1598.
66 C. 7/492/91.
67 SP, 23/89/500; 100/42; 19/1137.
68 SP, 23/81/185, 219, 187; 23/1631.
69 Habakkuk, H. J., ‘Landowners and the Civil War,’ Economic History Review, and Ser., xviii (1965), 133.Google Scholar
70 J. Thirsk (above note 51), 193.
71 P. G. Holiday (above note 51), 183. There was a proviso in the Acts of Sale that if a Catholic re-purchased his estates he was to be allowed a period of 12 months grace after which the estates once more became liable to re-sequestration. Dr Holiday suggests that in two such cases in Yorkshire further action was taken but in fact the entries on the Recusant Rolls that he refers to are simply continuations of entries dating from the 1640s and no money was ever paid, E, 377/61; in one of the cited cases, that of Charles Thimelby, the estate had in fact been re-conveyed, presumably in trust, to one Robert Bateman, E, 372/501.
72 J.Thirsk, art. cit., 193; SP. 23/17/286.
73 C. 54/4086/41; The Victoria County History of Staffordshire, v. 100.
74 J. Thirsk, art. cit., 194n.;SP. 23/17/272; C.P. 25(2)/576. Hilary 1652.
75 Treasury 51/7/134; Collections for a History of Staffordshire, (henceforth S.H.C.), v (newSer.). 138-9.
76 S.H.C., 4thSer. ii. 14.
77 C, 54/4219; C, 54/4292/14; S.H.C.,4th Ser. ii. 7.
78 C, 54/4383/8; C, 54/4379/6.
79 C, 54/3857/14; S.H.C, 4th Ser. ii. 17.
80 D. H. Pennington and I. A. Roots (above note 34), lviii.
81 CCC, 1. xiii; J. T. Pickles (above note 54), 182.
82 SP, 23/251/122.
83 J. T. Pickles, op. cit., 182-3.
14 John Bradley of Sedgeley, Audrey Attwood and Richard Collier.
15 SP, 28/214: ‘The Accompts of the Committee for Seqcons for the County of Stafford for foure years ending die 25th March 1654’.
86 E, 101/630/14.
87 Ibid.
88 SP, 28/348: ‘Staffordshire Account Book: March 25th 1654 to Michael 1655’, fo. 7; SP, 23/130/593.551; 27/320.
89 SP, 23/129/685.
90 C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait (above note 35), ii. 839-42.
91 CCC, 1. xxi.
92 SP, 23/211/681; 6/64: 217/148; 216/74; 215/662: 198/567, 564, 571; 212/345: 216/77, 84; 211/214; 217/220.
93 See above, 338.
94 SP, 23/85/420; 17/72; 217/202; this was not fully confirmed until 1654, SP, 23/27]210; 27/98.
95 SP, 28/218: ‘Accompts of Thomas Whitby Receivor General in Chester, Stafford and Salop for 1659 an d 1660’.
96 Aston, Pearsall, Hill, Hall, Erdeswick, Petre, Dorothy Gifford an d Katherine Gifford.
97 Margaret Coleman: E, 101/630/4.
98 Fleetwood, Roper and Weedon. Roper's estate was back under sequestration in 1658: E, 101/629/13.
99 John Bradley of Sedgeley: Land Revenue 2/82/79.
100 SP, 23/25/36; 69/345; 234/185.189.
101 SP, 18/99/72; E, 377/61; CSPD 1655, 314.
102 C. H. Firth and R. S. Rait (above note 35), 1170-80.
105 E, 377/61.
104 E, 365/2.
105 E, 101/629/13: ‘Account for Cheshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire for 1658’, 30. The Protector permitted Backhouse to retain the rent due to the State in compensation for his losses during the Civil Wars.
106 E, 101/629/15; SP, 28/242, section 2. See also Exchequer Miscellanea: Recusant Box, Bundle 6, for discharges of recusants estates in divers counties.
107 Miller, J., Popery and Politics in England 1660-1688, Cambridge 1973, 63–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
101 See also, SP, 16/148/91; 303/175, 184; CSPD 1635 543, 545-6.
109 CRS Misc., 53, 296.
110 Gardiner, S. R., History of England from the accession of James I to the outbreak of the Civil War, 1603-41, London 1883-1884, viii. 130.Google Scholar
111 See above, 331.
112 E, 368/604/Communia, 276.
113 E, 368/606/Communia, 358; E, 377/47; SCH, No. 5, 5.
114 E, 368/649/Communia, 54; SRO, D 260/M/F/4/18/4; SP, 28/218, ‘Accompt Book for Salopp, Stafford and Chester, Lady Day 1655 to Michaelmas 1657’, fo. 5.
115 E, 368/652/Communia, 102.
116 See note to Appendix, below.
117 Ibid.
118 SHC, 4th Ser. ii. 14.
119 Ibid., 16, 17
120 Ibid., 25.
121 See Appendix.
122 E, 351/432; SP, 28/214, ‘The Accompts of the Committee for Seqcons for the County of Stafford for foure years ending the 25th March 1654’.
125 Aveling, J. C. H., The Handle and the Axe, London 1976, 177.Google Scholar
124 Francis Leigh Jun. succeeded in 1658, and had the estate discharged in 1660: SP, 28/218, ‘Accompt Book of Co. Stafford’ fo. 6; E, 101/629/14. His father Francis Sen. had succeeded Oliver Leigh in 1652 in similar circumstances. Thomas Maxfield succeeded in 1658: E, 101/630/25.
125 SP, 28/348: ‘Staffordshire Accounts, 25th March 1654 to Michaelmas 1655’, fo. 6.
126 See above, 341.
127 See above, 345; SHC, 1925, 39-42, 139: SHC, 1914, 1, 29, 97. This does not mean either that they were not in debt or that they did not suffer to some extent. Rather, they probably used existing debts as a means of cover but they still had to pay the composition fines demanded by the State.
128 D. H. Pennington and I. A. Roots (above note 34), xviii; SP, 28/347/302.
129 See above, 346, 339.
130 Walter Fowler's tenants found him rather too enthusiastic about more efficient management in 1652: SP, 23/85/864.
131 There is no evidence in the Compounding Papers that they were in debt and they do not appear to have been selling land in the 1630s.
132 BL, Add. MS 36452/164; S.H.C., New Ser., v. 134-5.
133 BL, Add. MS 36452/169.
134 S.H.C., NewSer., v. 154.
135 G.E.C., The Complete Peerage, i. 285, probably a substantial over-estimate; S.H.C., 4th Ser., ii. 38; See also BL, Add. MS 36452/162.
136 C, 54/3135/15; C, 54/3174/13.
137 CCC, 3. 2283-9; C, 54/4379/22.
138 S.H.C, 4th ser., ii. 15.
139 Ibid., 18; S.H.C, NewSer., xii. 168.
140 SHC, 1914, 135.
141 The development in the decades before the Civil War of the debtor's equity of redemption provided the landed classes with great economic staying power. H.J. Habakkuk, ‘Landowners and the Civil War’, Economic History Review, 2nd Ser., xviii (1965), 148.
142 Ibid.
145 E, 368/670/Communia, 48; his mother was still being convicted for recusancy in 1647; E, 377/53.
144 Richard Astley was convicted as late as 1650: E, 377/56; see above, 340.
145 E, 368/672/Communia, 16.
146 See above, 346.
147 Aveling, J. C. H., The Handle and the Axe, 178.Google Scholar
