No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Other Exchequer (and Treasury) Records
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2016
Extract
Ancillary to the Pipe and Recusant Rolls, whose data they both amplify and modify, are two series of Exchequer Memoranda: those of the Lord Treasurer’s and of the King’s (or Queen’s) Remembrancers. These record multifarious financial matters of concern to the Crown, of which recusancy-penalties were but one category; Catholics mulcted on other grounds also occur in these documents, cross-referenced with various Exchequer records—some of them prior to the 1581 recusancy legislation—and continue to appear in them long after the Recusant Rolls come to an end. However, it is via cross-references from the latter that the bulk of Catholic material in the Memoranda Rolls is to be found—particularly in the L.T.R. series, the Communia sections of which contain important records, or Recorda, giving details of recusancy-convictions, seizures and settlements, total or partial, and the grounds for discharges (e.g. payment, conformity, erroneous assessment, legal flaws) as well as much personal information. The significance of these and related documents in building-up ‘Exchequer Dossiers’ of individuals has been expertly demonstrated in two articles by the late Dom Hugh Bowler and more recently they have been drawn on to illuminate Elizabethan and seventeenth-century Catholicism in the West Midlands. To a certain extent derivative from the Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s series are the Memoranda Rolls, just mentioned, of the King’s (or Queen’s) Remembrancer, which shed some light on recusancy cases—particularly ones initiated by Common Informers in the 1580s—though usually to a lesser degree than the former series.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1983
References
Notes
1 P.R.O., E.368 and E.159 (and E.16Ö) respectively. See Guide to the P.R.O., 1, pp. 49-50, 60-62, 75; also List and Index Soc. 4.
2 E.g. Pipe Rolls and Special Commissions of Enquiry; see respectively Warwick County Records, 7, p. lxxvi, note 2 (Thomas Throckmorton, 1680) and Lanes, and Cheshire R.S., 8, p. 335 (possessions of Gilbert Gerrard, 38 Eliz.); also next note.
3 Exchequer Special Commissions of Enquiry (P.R.O., E. 178, for which see also supra, p. 382), no. 1195 re possessions of Thomas Hoghton, 14 Eliz. (Lanes. and Cheshire R.S., 8, p. 342).
4 Ibid., p. 349; P.R.O., E.159/570, Addenda: Catholics’ possessions in London, Cumberland, Lanes, and Yorks., 11 Geo. I (not in Bristol, as stated in D.K. Rep. 38, pp. 145-6).
5 From the Index Nominorum to Jones, E., Index to Originalia and Memoranda on the Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancers Side of the Exchequer; 2 (1795)Google Scholar, one can occasionally follow-up known Catholics, occurring only incidentally within that work’s declared limitations. The associated Repertory Rolls and Agenda Books, particularly the former, provide leads, via counties, etc., to the contents of these Rolls. For fuller information, see typescript ‘Catalogue of Indexes: Chancery, Exchequer, King’s Bench’, at the P.R.O.; also List and Index Soc., 166, pp. 77-79.
6 See the Plowden and Arundell cases outlined respectively in C.R.S., 57, p, xxv, note 76, and A. L. Rowse, Tudor Cornwall (1969 edn), pp. 378-9.
7 In Biographical Studies (now R.H.) 2, pp. 4-22, 111-34 and (minor) Corrigenda, pp. 92, 183; also a supplementary article, ‘Further Notes on the Ven. John Bretton’, in R.H., 15, pp. 1-10. An abbreviated English version of one of these documents is contributed by Mgr D. Shanahan to Essex Recusant, 5, pp. 51-57, and a conformity-certificate incorporated in another is printed in vol. 13 of that journal, pp. 100-01.
8 T. S. Smith, art. cit.; V. Burke, art. cit., and in Worcs. Recusant, 21, pp. 1-7.
9 P.R.O. series E.159, E.160. Entries are traceable (by county, etc., not by personal name) through the associated Repertories and Agenda Books; see P.R.O. ‘Catalogue’ mentioned in note 5, above, and List and Index Soc., 166, pp. 68-70. See also the descriptions of those documents in Bryson, W. H.,The Equity Side of the Exchequer (1975), pp. 151–7Google Scholar.
10 See the case of Sir John Southworth, the record of which ‘is (for this class of document) exceptionally full’, in C.R.S., 57, pp. xvii-xix, and the cases of Shepley and Barneby (ibid., pp. 63, 213) in which reference is made to the Recognitiones sections of Rolls in this series (P.R.O., E. 159) which are more authoritative than in the L.T.R. series (P.R.O, Guide, I, p. 61). Origmals of informations enrolled on the Memoranda Rolls are P.R.O. class E.148.
11 P.R.O., E.363/9, on which see the helpful analysis in the P.R.O. Class List of ‘Records of the Exchequer: Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’ (reproduced in List and Index Soc., 82), pp. 224-30; also pp. 181-5 (general Introduction to Exannual Rolls) and p. 39, note, re recusants on other Exannual Rolls.
12 The Monmouthshire names are printed in S. Wales and Monmouth R.S., 4, pp. 70–73.Google Scholar
13 I.e. Receipt Rolls and Books, P.R.O. Class E.401. Some Durham extracts (1599-1611) are printed in Walton, J. (ed.), Calendar of Greenwell Deeds (Newcastle, 1927), pp. 153–4Google Scholar, 156, 159 (also issued as Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th series, 3, with same pagination).
14 P.R.O., E.401/2287-2348, chiefly, as a separate series, for James I’s and Charles I’s reigns, ending in 1642; see P.R.O. Class List of ‘Records of the Exchequer of Receipt’ (List and Index Soc., 31) and D.K. Rep. 3, pp. 156-73; Rep. 4, p. 165; Rep. 7, p. 213. For Abbreviates bound up with the full Receipt Books, see note 16, below.
15 See, respectively, List and Index Soc., 17 and 31; also D.K. Rep. 2, pp. 237-43; Rep. 3, p. 156.
16 Elizabethan and 1643-45 (P.R.O., E.401/1795-1869; 1871, 1872, 1928). Worcestershire recusants’ fines, 1595-1605, from P.R.O., E.401/1856-77, are printed by Mr Hodgetts in Trans. Worcs. Arch. Soc., 3rd series, 1, p. 78.
17 Including Exannual as well as Pipe Roll debts; see Gasquet, F. A., Hampshire Recusants (1895), p. 55.Google Scholar This paper, reprinted in The Old English Bible and Other Essays (1897), correlates certain Recusant Roll and Pells Receipt Book entries.
18 See Essex Recusant, 21, p. 25*—from the late Fr M. O’Dwyer’s thesis (London University M.A., 1960), ‘Catholic Recusants in Essex c. 1580- c. 1600’, of which pp. 193-9 embody interesting data from the Pells Receipt Books of the 1580s. See also Fr O’Dywer’s article in The Month, new series, 20, pp. 28-37. *For William Fitch, there mentioned (the Capucin Benet of Canfield), see also Professor T. A. Birrell’s edition of Brousse, J., Lives of Ange de Joyeuse and Benet Canfield (1959).Google Scholar
19 F. C. Dietz, ‘The Exchequer in Elizabeth’s Reign’ (Smith College Studies in History, 8, Northampton, Mass., U.S.A., 1923), pp. 85-89; Dietz, ‘Receipts and Issues of the Exchequer, James I and Charles I’ (ibid., 13, 1928), pp. 136-55; Cai T.B., Introductions (not covering every half-year) and, more correctly and fully, C. D. Chandaman, The English Public Revenue, 1660-88 (1975), pp. 348-9, 356-7, 360-1. See also Gasquet, Hants. Recusants, pp. 34-36; Magee, English Recusants, p. 73; C.R.S., 57, p. cxi.
20 P.R.O., E.401/1855 (both items).
21 E.g. £20 paid by the farmer of the estate of John Codrington of Sutton Mandeville, Wilts. (E-401/1881, Michaelmas to Easter 1607-08).
22 See Essex Recusant, 2, p. 112, for an example.
23 P.R.O., E.401/1966-74 (see also C.R.S. Monograph 1, pp. 30-35).
24 E.g. by Roger Kenyon (Lanes.) in E.401/1968, Mich. 1681.
25 In the eighteenth century also; thus, on 19 April 1717, a direct payment was entered from Ralph Crathorne and Robert Robinson in accordance with instructions from the Forfeited Estates Commissioners (E.401/2039, p. 134). For these Commissioners’ records, see p. 385 above.
26 P.R.O., E.401/1966, pp. 140-2: payments of 2s. 6d. each in respect of seven Hertfordshire absentees from church, at least three of whom were dissenters: (i) John Smart; (ii) John Barefoot, or Barfoot; (iii) Nicholas Lucas. For documentation, see (i) W. J. Hardy (ed.), Herts. County Records: Sessions Rolls, 1581-1698, p. 333; (ii) J. Besse, A Collection of the Sufferings of the People called Quakers (1753) 1, p. 241; (iii) ibid., pp. 241-50, passim: Hardy, p. 176; Penney, N., Extracts from State Papers Relating to Friends (1913), p. 346.Google Scholar
27 Cal. T.B., 7, p. 1189; they were, however, normally expected to pass on recusancy fines to Receivers ibid., p. 1024).
28 See C.R.S. Monograph 1, pp. 33-35.
29 An example is printed in Saunders, W. H. (ed.), The History Teachers’ Miscellany, 6 (Norwich, 1928), p. 117.Google Scholar
30 Chiefly in P.R.O., E.351/542, 543 (Declared Accounts, Pipe Office, Treasurer of the Chamber, 1579-1612), a good many cited in Anstruther, 1 (especially) and 2 and specimens printed in C.R.S., 5, pp. 385, 388. For these massive account-rolls and the Audit Office copies (P.R.O., A.O.1) and supplementary documentation (A.0.3), see P.R.O. Guide, 1, pp. 70-71; 2, pp. 117-19.
31 P.R.O., Order Books, Pells (E.403/2721-2801); also, with similar contents but for fewer years, E.403/2802-2830: Auditors’ Order Books, series 1. Corresponding to the Pells Order Books, which are in English, are the Issue Books and Issue Rolls, both of which contain shortened entries in Latin (E.403/1-2146). Also relevant are the post-1581 Tellers’ Views of Payments and Issues (E.403/2270-2291) recording allowances to, and outlining the duties of, Exchequer officials concerned with recusancy, and reflecting disbursements to the poor out of recusants’ Hnes (see also C.R.S., 57, Introduction, notes 81, 183, 199, 219, 223, 226, 233, 234, 248). Another Exchequer Issues series (E.404) includes Treasury Warrants, etc., authorising payments, e.g. to the notorious Thomas Felton (for whom see Norfolk Archaeology, 9, pp. 320-4; R.H., 4, p. 189; C.R.S., 53, p. 305; C.R.S, 57, p. lxxvi) for his services on discovering and reporting on recusants’ lands and goods (E.404/233: 1601-24).
32 F. Devon, Issues of the Exchequer… James I (but with an Appendix containing items of Charles I’s reign), stated to be based on Pells Order and Issue Books but in fact differing considerably from these, to the extent not only of amplifying traceable entries but of including material not traceable, possibly from Treasury Warrants, etc., which are now, however, very incomplete for this period (P.R.O., E.404/233). ‘Catholic interest’ items occur in Devon, op. cit., pp. ix, 43, 74, 80,102, 106, 207: this last a grant of £40 to the widow of Thomas Felton (see previous note) in final recognition of his ‘pretended service… in increasing his Majesty’s revenue by recusants’. For their son, Edmond, see A.P.C., May 1629-May 1630, pp. 265-7.
33 Devon, op. cit., p. 80 (18 March 1607-08), a fuller version than is given in the Pells Order Book (P.R.O., E.403/2727), which omits the names of those arrested. For the three priests, Harris (vere Newport), Low and Walker, see Anstruther, 1, pp. 247-8, 214, 369. A fourth, Francis Forster, or Foster, who became a Benedictine, used the alias of Henry Clark (ibid., pp. 122, 407; Birt, Obit Bk, pp. 12-13). For two rather unlikely laymen of that name, see C.R.S., 60, pp. 215, 239; C.R.S., 65, p. 16. In Anstruther, 2, p. 17, Richard Barret appears as the alias of Richard Fincham who actually occurs, however, in vol. 3, pp. 58-59, and is of too late a date to be the ‘suspected seminary’ mentioned above. An earlier Richard Fincham (Camden Soc., new series, 58, p. 215: C.R.S., 37, p. 113) seems to have had the alias of Cornwallis, not Barret. There was a prominent Richard Barret, D.D., but he died in 1599 as second president of Douai College (Anstruther, 1, p. 25, etc.).
34 Cal. T.B., 5, p. 794.
35 Ibid., p. 1383; vol. 6, pp. 426, 611; vol. 7, p. 296, 1189.
36 Cal. T.B., 6, p. 617.
37 Cal. T.B., 7, pp. 882, 993.
38 Ibid., p. 618.
39 Ed. J. Y. Akerman for the period 1679-88 (Camden Soc., 52).
40 Cal. T.B., 7, p. 577 (also Camden Soc., 52, passim).
41 See C.R.S. Monograph I, pp. 24-37.
42 … of Treasury Papers and … of Treasury Books and Papers.
43 P.R.O., E.362 (L.T.R. series), E. 137 (K.R. series). The P.R.O. class list covering the former is printed in List and Index Soc., 82; for the latter there is a handwritten list at the P.R.O. See also C.R.S., 53, pp. 8-14, for estreats among the Cecil papers. Gaps in the P.R.O. series can sometimes be made good by draft estreats preserved locally (see infra., p. 413).
44 C.R.S., 56, p. xii, note 1, citing P.R.O., E.137/133/1 (fines following the northern rebellion of 1569).
45 Warwick County Records, 9, p. liii, citing P.R.O., E.362/27/26.
46 These documents are clearly described in C.R.S., 57, pp. lxiv-lxv, but are more numerous than is there suggested (note 247): viz P.R.O., E. 370/117-22, 169, 170 (Elizabeth-Charles I). For shrievalty records, see also infra., pp. 403-04.
47 P.R.O. series E.379 (List and Index Soc., 82, pp. 99-105) and E.199 (List and Index Soc., 127: descriptive list) respectively.
48 P.R.O., E. 199/43/32; /51/27, respectively (the latter printed in R.H., 10, pp. 347-8).
49 There is no index to P.R.O. class E.379 and the descriptive list of class E. 199 seldom indicates recusant relevance in its contents.
50 P.R.O., E.351 and A.O.1, respectively, for both of which see P.R.O. Lists and Indexes, 2, pp. 14-15, 123 and Preface. For the two reigns here mentioned, the documents are E.351/413-452; A.0.1/359/5-/361/14. Other documents in these series include accounts of delinquents’ forfeitures in the 1650s and (A.O.1/362, 363) relating to eighteenth-century seizures for Jacobitism, as well as the Treasurer of the Chamber items mentioned in note 30 above.
51 George Feilding, or Fielding, held the southern Receivership, Thomas Wentworth, later Earl of Strafford, the northern; see Aylmer, G. E., The King’s Servants (1961), p. 139.Google Scholar
52 P.R.O., E. 351/415-425 (southern Receivership, 1627-39); E.351/432 (northern, 1629-40, with gaps). The former are cited by Lindley, K. J., ‘The Lay Catholics of England in the Reign of Charles I’, in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 22, pp. 213–14.Google Scholar
53 P.R.O., E.351/452: account of Lewis Trethewy, Receiver for Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset, re Somerset sheriffs’ arrears of recusancy-fines for three years to Michaelmas 1683.
54 E.351/420: account of G. Feilding, 29 Sept. 1632-29 Sept. 1633.
55 P.R.O., L.R. 7/87/1-9. See also List and Index Soc., 53, p. 39.
56 ‘Various Accounts’, P.R.O., A.O.3/366/1-3.
57 P.R.O., E. 101/522, 528, 547, 629, 630, 657, 676; see P.R.O. Lists and Indexes, 35, pp. 320 (misprinted ‘220’)—323, and P.R.O. Supplementary Lists and Indexes, 9 (1), pp. 35–38.Google Scholar
58 P.R.O., E. 101/527/9, /630/4 and 5, /676/49.
59 Also available on microfilm: M. Hawkins (ed.), Unpublished State Papers of the English Civil War and Interregnum, pt 5, reels 20 and 21.
60 P.R.O., E. 101/630/33 and 528/7, respectively. For further items, see the lists cited in note 57, above.
61 For these documents, in P.R.O. class E.135, see List and Index Soc., 2, especially (but not solely), pp. 30 and 73 for brief descriptions, though more areas and matters are covered than are there mentioned, e.g. Yorkshire cases involving members of the Meynell and Constable families in E. 135/13/1, which contains more than ‘documents relating to fines’ as stated in the list.
62 Cal. T.B., 8, passim; also C.S.P.D. Jan. 1686-May 1687, passim; H.M.C., 14th Rep., App. 9, pp. 274-5; Camden Soc., 32, p. 305; Bodleian Library, Oxford: MS. Rawlinson D, 372 (Devon returns). For similar refunds, of Interregnum penalties, at the start of Charles II’s reign, see Smith, art. cit., p. 344.
63 B.L., Harleian 7042, ff. 111-12, incompletely printed in Magee, op. cit., Appendix 4, omitting locations given in the original. There are a few misreadings of names, either in the MS. (‘Storer’ for Stonor) or in the printed version (‘Silvester ——’ for Silvester Huishe, for whom see C.R.S., 65, p. 9, note).
64 B.L., Lansdowne 153. For printed extracts, see Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, pp. 404-07. The Caesar papers are listed in the Catalogue of Lansdowne MSS., 1, pt 2, pp. 1-71, and recusancy items occur in other volumes than vol. 153 which, however, is devoted entirely to them and which contains much else besides financial data, e.g. informations by the spy William Udall, printed by Mr Harris, P. R. in R.H., 8, pp. 237–84.Google Scholar
65 E.g. Roger Kenyon (Lanes.) whose papers in the Lancashire Record Office are cited in this connection by Dr Miller, op. cit., pp. 167-8, 192-3. See also H.M.C., 14th Rep., App. 4, passim (p. 127 for a recusancy-payment to Kenyon, 7 April 1681).
66 See R.H., 4, pp. 185-6, 190, 194: judges’ resolution (no. 7) ‘To prevent the embezzling of the goods of a recusant…’.
67 E.g. Yorkshire recusancy revenue in the 1670s; see Miller, op. cit., p. 142.
68 For the Star Chamber prosecution of a Yorkshire official and the bringing-to-book of two ‘freelances’, see Aveling, Northern Catholics, pp. 211-12. The questionable activities of various officials and others under Elizabeth and the early Stuarts are touched on in R.H., 4, p. 189 (also C.R.S., 57, p. lxxvi: Thomas Felton), in Morris, Troubles, passim, and in Havran, op. cit., pp. 97-99. For Charles II’s reign, see C.R.S. Monograph 1, pp. 33-34; also pp. 19-20 for a long-standing Devon blackmail case, considered by the Privy Council and recorded in its Register (P.R.O., P.C. 2/65, p. 514). See also note 31 above (Thomas Felton).
69 3 Jas. I, c. 4 (1606); C.R.S., 57, pp. lxxxvi-lxxxvii (Draycote case). The Privy Council’s recommendations to James ‘by virtue of the last statute’ (i.e. 3 Ja. I, c. 4) are printed in C.S.P.D., Addenda, 1580-1625, p. 453, misdated ‘1604?’ and thrice referring to the alternative monetary fine as ‘2,600 l, yearly’ instead of £260.
70 Dietz, ‘Exchequer in Elizabeth’s reign’, p. 99. This was doubtless the Elizabethan soldier and coloniser, knighted in 1593, for whom see D.N.B., Dictionary of American Biography, etc.; also D. N. Durant, Ralegh’s Lost Colony (1981), passim.
71 Gardiner, S. R., History of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1, p. 230 Google Scholar and notes; C.S.P.D., 1603-10, p. 233 (17 June 1605). For later seventeenth-century examples, see Cal. T.B., passim.
72 P.R.O., E.112, for which see class list of ‘Records of the Exchequer, King’s Remembrancer’, pt 1, reproduced in List and Index Soc., 91. For indexes, etc., to these documents, see the P.R.O. typescript ‘Catalogue of Indexes: Chancery, Exchequer, King’S Bench’; also List and Index Soc., 166, pp. 62-63.
73 P.R.O., E.133: Exchequer Barons’ Depositions; E.134: Depositions taken by Commission, arranged by counties (for two of which see Lanes, and Cheshire R.S., 11) and calendared in D.K. Reps. 38 (Appendix 2) to 42— unindexed and containing (in Rep. 38 especially) items of recusant interest not so designated, though a good many are. See also Supplementary List at the P.R.O. For class E.I33 there are a handwritten Index and Calendar (mainly of Elizabethan items) at the P.R.O. For further information on these two classes, see Bryson, Equity Side of the Exchequer, pp. 135-43.
74 Decrees and Orders (original, Elizabeth I to Victoria) are P.R.O., E.128-31; Entry Books of Decrees and Orders, E. 123-7. All are listed in the P.R.O. class list of ‘Records of the Exchequer, K.R’., pt 2, reproduced in List and Index Soc., 108, supplemented by helpful information in vol. 166, pp. 64-66. B.L., Add. MS. 9780 is an index to Decrees and Orders, James I, giving counties, names and, sometimes, brief indications of subject-matter, as in a case concerning the recusant Gawens of Wiltshire (p. 9). A few recusancy cases occur in printed Reports—t.g, Lane, R., Reports in the Court of Exchequer, 3-9 James I (1657), pp. 91–93,Google Scholar 104-08—for which see Bryson, op. cit., pp. 199-200.
75 See respectively Ryan and Redstone, op. cit., pp. 53-56, and Northants. R.S., 19, section 4 (also Appendix 8, tabulating and documenting other law-suits of Sir Thomas Tresham). For other relevant extracts, see Norfolk Archaeology, 9, pp. 307-11.
76 P.R.O., E. 163/16/19, cited in Northants. R.S., 19, p. 88.
77 For this very mixed collection (P.R.O., E.163) see class list of ‘Records of the Exchequer, K.R.’, pt 1 (List and Index Soc., 91).
78 Bryson, op. cit., p. 139. These are P.R.O. class E.178 (see P.R.O. Lists and Indexes, 37, for details).
79 Walter Bagot of Staffordshire was decidedly averse to serving in such a capacity (Staffs. Hist. Coll., 4th series, 9, p. 84).
80 For printed examples, see Staffs. Hist. Coll., 1915, pp. 381-2, and, more briefly, Archaeologia Cantiana, 43, pp. 79-80; also C.R.S., 53, pp. 121-2.
81 P.R.O. Lists and Indexes, 37, superseding the calendar in D.K. Rep. 38, Appendix 1.
82 P.R.O. Lists and Indexes, 37, p. 85; the document is P.R.O., E.178/1940.
83 For all four, see C.R.S., 65, pp. 2-4, 21 and notes; also J. Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1541-1857: Bath and Wells Diocese (ed. J. M. Horn and D. S. Bailey, 1979), passim.
84 C.R.S., 60, pp. 1-2 (1577 list). The future Jesuits were Bosgrave (ibid., p. 22, note) and Good (C.R.S., 65, p. 3 and works there cited; also Knowles, M. D., The Religious Orders in England, 3, p. 484).Google Scholar
85 P.R.O. Lists and Indexes, 37, p. 106.
86 P.R.O., E. 178/2445. For the Maihew, or Mayhew, family, see C.R.S. Monograph 1, p. 206. On Edward, as on its subject-matter generally, DrLunn’s, David The English Benedictines, 1540-1688 (1980),Google Scholar is indispensable. In C.R.S. Monograph 3, pp. 137-9, there is a critical appraisal of Maihew’s Paradise of Prayers (on p. 137, his birthplace—Dinton, near Salisbury—is given as ‘Winton’).
87 E.g. P.R.O., E. 178/5296, 4653: Thomas Kightley (a priest) and Sir Thomas Leeds (recusant father of a priest), both identified in Anstruther, 2, pp. 177, 189, respectively. They occur, described merely as ‘outlaw’ and ‘fugitive’ in P.R.O. Lists and Indexes, 37, (pp. 27, 100)—a volume in which, nevertheless, much relevant material is made apparent: depositions as to ‘the possessions of fugitive and recusant massing priests’ (Staffordshire, p. 89); an enquiry, in James II’s reign, about money and goods taken from Worcestershire recusants during the past decade (p. 110); information about named recusants in most counties.
88 Ibid., pp. 47 (Hoghton; also Laurence Vaux and William Allen) and 12 (Tregian, as ‘Trugean’). For Hoghton, see C.R.S. 65, pp. 12-13 and works there cited. For Francis Tregian (the younger), once a member of Cardinal Allen’s household, who produced the Fitzwilliam Virginal Book and other collections of sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century keyboard music and who died a recusant-prisoner in the Fleet, see the biography of his father Francis Tregian, Cornish Recusant, by Boyan, P. A. and Lamb, G. R. (1955), passim; Boyan, ‘The Tregian Family: A Musician in the Fleet Prison’, in The Tablet, 20 Nov. 1955, pp. 525–6;Google Scholar Rowse, Tudor Cornwall, pp. 355, 374-5, and standard reference-works on music and musicians; also, recently, Price, D. C., Patrons and Musicians of the English Renaissance (1981), pp. 157–60.Google Scholar
89 Series E.179 (relevant class lists reproduced in List and Index Soc., 44, 54, 63, 75, plus file of Addenda and Corrigenda at P.R.O.); also B.L., Add. Charters and Rolls 28275-8 (covering part of Somerset, temp. Charles I). A few Monmouthshire recusants from the 1628 Roll are listed in C.R.S., 27, pp. 224-34, passim., and those in Bedfordshire at the same date occur in Beds. Hist. R.S., 20, pp. 164-5.
90 See infra., p. 414.
91 The words quoted are those of Sir Edward Coke, cited in Russell, C., Parliaments and English Politics, 1621-1629 (1979), p. 132.Google Scholar Coke was speaking in 1621 and a similar recommendation was made in 1624 (ibid., p. 189) but neither proposal was embodied in a Subsidy Act (18 Ja. I, c. 1 and 21 Ja. I, c. 33, respectively). The latter is printed in Statutes of the Realm, where it is remarked (vol. 4, pt 2, p. 1208) that no text of the 1621 Act appears to survive. It can, however, be found in the B.L. copy of the contemporary black-letter Public General Acts: James I (unpaginated), though not in the Bodleian (Law Library) copy of the same compilation. The statute first imposing double subsidies on Catholics was 1 Cha. I, c. 6 (1625).
92 15 Cha. II, c. 9; see Miller, op. cit., p. 55; Chandaman, op. cit., pp. 158-9; also Oxfordshire R.S., 21, pp. 244, 249 (non-communicants in 1663 Roll).
93 Double taxation was, however, reintroduced in the Land Tax Act of 1692, for which (and its associated documentation) see pp. 384-5, 414.
94 P.R.O., E. 179/132/338-41 (Lanes.).
95 A.P.C., July 1628-April 1629, pp. 369-70.
96 Johnson, G. W. (ed.) The Fairfax Correspondence (1848), 2, p. 206,Google Scholar cited in C.R.S., 53, p. 305, note 36, and in Cliffe, Yorks. Gentry, p. 221.
97 E.g. E.179/199/398 (Wilts.); Wilts. N. and Q., 8, pp. 342-4. For a vivid contemporary description of the levying of the Subsidy and Poll, mentioning recusants’ assessments, see Surtees Soc., 33, pp. 86-93, and, for further printed extracts, apart from those mentioned in other footnotes, Chetham Soc., new series, 99 and 104 (pp. 162-3, 102-05, respectively); Thoresby Soc., 2 and 22 (pp. 74-84, 116-17, respectively). Various Subsidy Rolls, for three counties (Cumberland, Lanes, and Staffs.), are cited by Magee, op. cit., pp. 99, 102-03.
98 E.g. E.179/132/340a; E. 179/269/18.
99 A case in point, perhaps, is Mary Byfleet of Bratton Seymour, Somerset: ‘no value was put on her goods, but she was charged the abnormal tax of £6. 135. 4d. compared with the next highest of £2 on goods valued at £50 paid by John Kinge’ (M. Whitfield in Somerset and Dorset N. and Q., 29, p. 219, citing P.R.O., E.179/172/408: Wincanton tything).
100 16 Cha. I, cc. 9, 32, respectively.
101 See Howard, A. J. and Stoate, T. L., Somerset Protestation Returns and Subsidy Rolls (Bristol, 1975), pp. 287,Google Scholar 290, 293, 295; also p. ix of the very useful Introduction.
102 Ibid., p. 273.
103 Firth and Rait, 1, pp. 88, 630.
104 Cannan, E., The History of Local Rates in England (1912), pp. 114–15;Google Scholar Aylmer, G. E. and Morrill, J. S., The Civil War and Interregnum: Sources for Local Historians (1979), pp. 8,Google Scholar 15; also infra., pp. 413-14.
105 With documentation in both P.R.O. class E. 179 and E. 182 (e.g. John Tettershall of Odstock, Wilts., assessed double for his ‘capitation’, mentioned in E. 182/1082) as well as locally-preserved sources, for which see infra., p. 414. See also Dowell, S., A History of Taxation and Taxes in England (3rd edn, 1965), pp. 3-4, 85.Google Scholar
106 See Ward, W. R., The English Land Tax in the Eighteenth Century (1953);Google Scholar Beckett, J. V. and Smith, C. K. in B.I.H.R., 54, pp. 54–61.Google Scholar
107 9 Will c. 10 (sec. 56 re strict double assessment). Evidence as to the working of the tax is contained in the printed House of Commons’ Report from the Select Committee on the Land Tax as affecting Roman Catholics, 1828 (in Commons’ Reps., 4, pp. 231-51).
108 See Aveling, Northern Catholics, pp. 372-3 (re 4th Viscount Fauconberg).
109 E.182/1-1203 (English counties).
110 By 9 Geo. I, c. 18. For county-quotas, see Journal of the House of Commons, 20, p. 432,Google Scholar and, for a study of this levy in one county, Rowlands, M., ‘Staffordshire Papists and the Levy of 1723’, in Staffs. Catholic History, 2, pp. 33–38.Google Scholar For Catholic family-paper evidence, see R.H., 9, p. 22 (Eyre of Hassop); Tyrer, F. (ed.), The Great Diurnal of Nicholas Blundell of Little Crosby, Lanes., 3 (Lanes, and Cheshire R.S., 1972), p. 118,Google Scholar note 1. This levy was referred-to as the ‘Great Tax’ or ‘Grand Tax’.
111 Exemplified in P.R.O., E.182/841, pt 1 (Somerset). Assessments for part of Westmorland are printed in Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Arch. Soc., 6, pp. 48-51.
112 The Wiltshire returns are merely in two columns: ‘Total Tax’ and ‘Double Tax’ for 1723, 1724 and 1725, 1729 (P.R.O., E.182/1085); those for Staffordshire are tabulated under four heads: ‘Ordinary Tax’, ‘Additional Tax’, ‘Total No.’ (of persons), ‘No. Paying Double’. For the latter, see another illuminating article by Dr Rowlands, ‘The Iron Age of Double Taxes’, in Staffs. Catholic History, 3, pp. 30-45 (p. 33 for table here mentioned).
113 P.R.O., E.369/125, pp. 134-47 (payments by counties or parts thereof); S.P. 35/75, no. 39 (difficulties of levying the tax, Nov. 1723); also, for collection in three Somerset hundreds, Hobhouse, E., Diary of a West Country Physician (1934), pp. 98,Google Scholar 102, 104-05, 114—twice referring to the total as £10,000 instead of £100,000. For Catholic apprehension, see C.R.S. Monograph 1, p. 61. This levy was in addition to double taxation, as the Act makes clear (9 Geo. I, c. 19); also Carteret’s letter printed in English Historical Documents, 1714-83 (ed. D. B. Horn and M. Ransome, 1957), pp. 398-400.
114 I.e. rather less than 60 per cent by February 1726 (Ward, op. cit., p. 70).
115 P.R.O., E.369/125, p. 147. See also Postlethwaite, J., History of the Public Revenue, 1688-1758 (1759), pp. 127,Google Scholar 131, 243, 284, 288 for further data, and Cal. Treasury Papers, 1720-28 (index under ‘Papists, Tax upon’, where the final reference should be 3, not ‘2’ as printed); Cal. Treas. Books and Papers to 1738, passim. Quotas laid upon each county, and discharges and payments as at 6 March 1725, are tabulated in Journal of the House of Commons, 20, pp. 431-2.
116 P.R.O., E.182 (portfolios and bundles nos 1300-1361); E.174/1/35-42 (‘Miscellaneous’). The latter are calendared at the end (pp. 48-49) of W. H. Hart’s handwritten Index Nominorum (misleadingly titled on spine, ‘Papists’ Estates’) mentioned in the penultimate footnote to this section.
117 For local sources, see infra., p. 414; for family-paper references, inter alia, C.R.S. Monograph 1, pp. 53-54; my article in The Dublin Review, 479, pp. 32-37 and my forthcoming contribution to Catholic Archives, 3; also Tyrer (ed.) Great Diurnal of Nicholas Blundell, passim.
118 Selections are printed in Estcourt and Payne, Appendix 1, and in Payne, Records of English Catholics of 1715, pp. 83-158. The Records of the Forfeited Estates Commission are listed in P.R.O. Handbook no. 12 (1968); with a valuable Introduction; however, the numbering of most of the items (those in class F.E.C. 1) has since been altered. Amended lists, giving both the old and new piece-numbers are available at the P.R.O. See also Cals. Treas. Papers and Books and Papers, 1714-45, passim, for a few other items (indexed variously under ‘recusants’, ‘papists’ and ‘popish…’).
119 Finberg, H. P. R., ‘The Catholic Historian and his Theme’, in The Downside Review (Summer-Autumn 1959), p. 263.Google Scholar
120 P.R.O., F.E.C. 1/1176 (formerly F.E.C. l/P.62/1).
121 F.E.C. 1/1121, 1132, 1301.
122 F.E.C. 1/1284/1 (Warwicks.). Note: another document, apparently an early eighteenth-century nationwide list of convicted recusants (F.E.C. 2/125) was unfit for inspection at the time of writing and so cannot be discussed here.
123 For abstracts, see Estcourt and Payne, pp. 1-336, largely superseding Cosin, J., A List of the Names of the Roman Catholics, Nonjurors and Others, Who Refused to Take the Oaths to his Late Majesty King George (1745; 2nd edn, ed. C. Cosin, 1746)Google Scholar. MS. versions of this compilation, differing slightly from it and from one another, are B.L. Add. MSS. 15,629 and 30,211. All contain misleading renderings of personal and place-names, mostly made good by Estcourt and Payne, nor is the reference to ‘Nonjurors and Others’ correct; these lists contain papists only, though some nonjurors’ estates were registered later (see final paragraph of this section). Like Cosin’s work itself, locally-published data therefrom (as in The East Anglian, new series, 7, pp. 285-8, and Essex Recusant, 21, pp. 73-74) are best ignored in favour of Estcourt and Payne and the original documents.
124 Lancashire examples of both categories are mentioned in the Introductions to Lanes, and Cheshire R.S., 98, 108 and 117. For Northumberland and Durham (P.R.O. versions only for 1717), see Surtees Soc., 131, pp. 127-31; 173, p. xi. For properties described but not valued and for owner-occupied estates not registered, see infra., p. 415.
125 P.R.O., F.E.C. 2/68 and 69 (supplemented by F.E.C. 2/126). Other relevant material is to be found in P.R.O., T. 1/277 (6); /252(31) mentioned in Cal. Treas. Papers, 1720-28, pp. 2, 337; the former described briefly in C.R.S. Monograph I, pp. 56-57. Further estate-enrolments are in another P.R.O. class: E. 174/1/1-34, all of which except a Roll for the Lindsey division of Lincolnshire (E. 174/1/17) are in a box of returns, not exclusively of papists’ estates, to which a handwritten Index Nominum was compiled by W. H. Hart, ‘To be perpetually preserved in the Search Room of the Public Record Office for the use of Searchers’. For E. 174/1/17 a separate index exists, also on the open shelves at the P.R.O. Not every county had its own returns; e.g. Devon and Wiltshire entries occur among those for Somerset (E. 174/1/24).
126 P.R.O., F.E.C.1/1218 (Newcastle-upon-Tyne); Trans. Cumberland and Westmorland Antiq. and Arch. Soc., n.s., 59, pp. 116, 126; Abercrombie, N. J. in Studies in Sussex Church History (ed. M. J. Kitch, 1981), p. 140;Google Scholar Hart, Index Nominorum, passim and his Register of the Lands held by Catholics and Nonjurors in the County of Kent in the Reign of King George I (1870), pp. 7-10, 17-21,29-33, 37-40; ‘G.E.C.’, Complete Peerage, 12, pt 2, pp. 780-1; Evans, J., A History of the Society of Antiquaries (1956),Google Scholar passim. The estate-enrolments by non-Catholic oath-refusers—a consequence of the mainly Anglican conspiracy of 1722—were demanded by Acts of that and the following year (9 Geo. I, c. 24; 10 Geo. I, c. 4).