The English Revolution was responsible for major changes in the way that sequestration and compounding were administered, and how these processes were reported in the media through print. Although ordinances, newsbooks and pamphlets provided a way for petitioners to glean how to lobby for their estates, what was not as clear-cut to sequestered petitioners was how to gather the various certificates and evidence that were required to ensure a successful discharge from sequestration. This was particularly true for Catholic petitioners who were not accustomed to compounding for delinquency or papist delinquency, rather than for recusancy. Successful petitions were dependent on factors, including the smooth cohesion between the central committee and the county sequestration committees, which relied on good communication and liaison with the local officials and commissioners. Effective petitions also depended on the strength of the petitioner's evidence for claiming that he had not been in arms against Parliament. The Committee for Compounding's approval was determined by how well the petitioner in question completed the necessary tasks to attest their repentance to Parliament for having previously supported the Royalist cause.

The impact of compounding has previously featured in county studies during this period. It has been established that in Warwickshire, the majority of the gentry sequestered in the county in the 1640s and 1650s managed to hold on to their estates; even the gentry who had suffered financial difficulties before the war had managed to cling on to their sequestered estates by the Restoration. A similar picture has been painted for Sussex. Here, most of the Royalist and recusant gentry secured their estates before 1660, despite the collective huge losses that delinquents in that county suffered because of the war. Yet, despite county studies charting the general impact of sequestration and compounding, little analysis has been done of whether the central committees in London and the county committees deliberately deterred Catholics from compounding for their estates because of religious prejudices on the part of the commissioners. Furthermore, while Catholic case studies have provided a good overview on how recusants – for instance, that of Sir Philip Constable of Everingham – compounded for their estates across the seventeenth-century, these studies have not fully described the way in which Catholics constructed their compounding petitions.