No CrossRef data available.
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.
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: 16 September 2015
Chaplains in penal times were on occasion employed as stewards, though perhaps not as frequently as is sometimes supposed; from the point of view of their employers this is not entirely surprising; on the one hand chaplains might reasonably be expected to be literate, numerate and honest; on the other hand the restrictions under which Catholic priests worked might well leave them a sufficiency of spare time for secular affairs. The interest of the letter which follows lies not in the mere fact of such a stewardship, but in the extraordinarily vivid picture it gives of what it was like for a professed Religious to be involved in running an estate—particularly when his employer was of questionable sanity. Some light is incidentally thrown on the history of Catholicism in Linton-on-Ouse.
1 This use of priests as bailiffs and agents was not unknown in earlier times, cf. H. Bennett, S., The Pastons and their England (2nd ed, CUP, 1932) pp. 214–8Google ScholarPubMed. For its comparative rarity in penal times, cf. Aveling, Hugh, Northern Catholics (London, 1966), p. 384–5 Google Scholar.
2 Foley 7, p. 62; cf. also C.R.S. 74, p. 122.
3 F.B.’s successor as Chaplain at Linton was probably Francis Gascoigne, for whom cf. n. 33. Thereafter Hugh A., the last of the line, who died in 1701, left funds for the maintenance of a priest at Linton, cf. H.Aveling, op. cit., p. 390. These funds appear to have been controlled by Rev John Johnson (1657–1739, cf. Anstruther, 3, p. 118), a brother of the second Mrs T.A.; in 1708 he wrote (Nidd MSS) to his niece by marriage, Mrs Ryther, ‘I am sensible were there a convenience built for ye people at Linton it would be some ease to my brother &c but till I can get money this can not be done.’ The fund may have continued to be inadequate; Johnson himself left E200 in 1739 to augment Hugh A.’s bequest; it is perhaps no coincidence that Rev. Thomas Daniel, the first known resident priest after the death of Hugh A., did not go there until 1740. The ‘convenience’, whenever it was built, is presumably the chapel registered in 1791 by the then priest as ‘a certain part of my dwelling house at Linton’, cf. Aveling loc. cit.
4 C.R.S. 10 and 11.
5 List of Boys at St Gregory’s, ed. D.M.H.D. (Downside, 1972)Google Scholar.
6 Presumably Long Marston Hall; the ‘breach’ is too late to be connected with the battle of 1644, and some domestic trouble or misfortune seems the most likely explanation.
7 Parlington, near Aberford, was a seat of the Gascoignes along with Barnbow and Lasingcroft, cf. Burke’s Complete Baronetage, 2, p. 407.
8 Presumably the Lancastrian Stephen Sager, born 1601, ordained 1625, cf. Bellenger; he too cannot be found in the Douai Diaries, and may have been at St Gregory’s before going on to train at Paris.
9 Probably not Thomas Thompson SJ whose career as described in Foley (8, p. 772) does not seem compatible with his spending the requisite time in Yorkshire; instead he could be Richard Thompson SJ (Foley 8, p. 771), who was born 1601, entered the Society 1621, and went on the Mission 1631; Foley deduces that he died c. 1644 as his name disappears from the Catalogues after that date; however it is not impossible that he went to Linton, as F.B.’s career shows that the chaplain there might leave no mark in the records. That T.A. and his wife each had their own Spiritual Director at this time may be a symptom of the clerical overmanning in much of the 17th century, for which cf. Bossy, John, The English Catholic Community (London, 1975) pp. 220–1Google Scholar.
10 The Crumps of Bradforton are mentioned by Nash, T., The History and Antiquities of Worcestershire (London, 1779) p. 119 Google Scholar; ‘friends’ of course means relatives.
11 ‘ This appears to refer to his offspring by his second wife; he had of course two daughters by his first wife; however as he had not married again at this date, there appears to be some confusions.
12 ‘broads’, i.e. broad pieces, are hammered rather than milled sovereigns.
13 The same terms are of course regularly used for blood relations and for relations by marriage.
14 It should be noted that Sir Thomas Gascoigne appears in this letter in a much less amiable light than he does in Gillow 2, pp. 400–5; despite his Catholicism, he plainly exercised considerable local influence.
15 ‘Mrs Caverley’ is probably of the family of Calverley of Calverley, which ‘suffered in person and estate during the civil wars’, cf. Burke’s Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies, s.v. Calverley, so marriage to the squire of Linton would no doubt have been welcome; ‘Mrs Calverley vid’ is listed along with Sir Thomas Gascoigne as one of the recusants of Parlington in 1667, cf. Hugh Aveling, ‘The Catholic Recusants of the West Riding of Yorkshire’, Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, 10, p. 287.
16 ‘disgust’ here means ‘(cause of) estrangement’.
17 mrs Lassells was very likely one of the recusant family of Lascelles of Brakenborough, which was in grave financial difficulty, cf. C.R.S. 56, p. xix; hence one of its members might be glad of the position of housekeeper at Linton.
18 Sir Myles Stapleton Bt was nephew of Sir Thomas Gascoigne by his sister Helen, cf. Burke’s Peerage s.v. Beaumont.
19 John Errington was very likely a member of the Catholic family of that name, but ‘the published pedigrees of the Erringtons are very imperfect’ (Gillow 2, p. 177) and it seems impossible to identify him further.
20 The expression ‘my daughter’ presumably refers to a child of Taylor’s.
21 Madam Ravenscroft was T.A.’s younger daughter by his first marriage.
22 The absence of any record of T.A.’s alleged lunacy in the PRO (C 211) confirms that the verdict was kept in reserve but not enrolled.
23 Sir Salomon Swale Bt had been admitted to Gray’s Inn in 1630, cf. Burke’s, Complete Baronetage 3, p. 46 Google Scholar; Turner is unidentifiable.
24 This episode would be even more obscure if Richard Gascoigne and Edward Meynell had not had brothers both of whom were priests. William Gascoigne (c. 1631–90, cf. Anstruther, 2, p. 126) was the son of William G. of Hilton and when at Douai had to be supported at the College’s expense (C.R.S. 11, p. 510); he had a half-brother uterine (C.R.S. 72, pp. 58–9) by the name of Robert Meynell (1608–?, cf. Anstruther, 2, p. 220). From the latter’s Responsa at the Venerable English College in 1635 (C.R.S. 55, p. 447) we learn that his father was seated at Hawnby co. York; C.R.S. 55, followed by Anstruther, gives Harmby not Hawnby, but this must be a misreading;— a) Harmby is considerably further than the specified 18 miles from York b) VCH, North Yorks 2, pp. 33 and 238, makes it clear that the Meynells were landowners at Hilton and Hawnby; there was no Meynell connection with Harmby, cf. op. cit. 1, pp. 257–8. The father married twice, and lived and died a Protestant. By his father’s first marriage Robert Meynell had a brother and two sisters, all Protestants; the brother had inherited the entire property, worth £1000 p.a., and squandered it. VCH shows that the squanderer was Charles M., who succeeded in 1616, but had to sell up in 1623/4. By his father’s second marriage Robert M. had two brothers and four sisters, all Catholics. This would identify Captain Edward M., who laid claim to Linton, as a son of the second marriage, whose prospects would have been gravely damaged by the financial ruin of the eldest son; this would at least provide an explanation for his need for ready cash. There is no traceable connection with the Gs of Barnbow or the Ms of North Kilvington.
25 Ambrose A., father of T.A., bought Linton in 1626 from Sir Richard Cecil (VCH North Yorks, 2, pp. 160–3). Elizabeth Manners, (16th) Baroness De Ros in her own right, married William Cecil; the Barony was inherited by their son William, 17th Baron De Ros, who d.s.p. in 1618; from him it passed to Katherine Manners, (18th) Baroness De Ros in her own right; when she died in 1649, it passed to her eldest son George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham (1627–87), 19th Baron De Ros, whose right jure matris was not confirmed till 1667. It is therefore not impossible that some real or pretended cousin may have pursued an opportunistic claim in around 1650, but there seems to be no clue to the precise identity of ‘the lineal heir female’ and her father and brother, nor to the grounds of their claim; enlightenment would be welcome. Of course F.B. may have misremembered these events 30 or so years on. Linton was originally held in demesne by the Lords of Helmsley but appears to have been detached and retained by the Cecils. Sir Richard Cecil’s sale was by fine, and the legal consequences make it likely that he had an estate for his life, and would thus have the power to alienate the land by fine, with the risk of forfeiting it to the remainder-man, if the latter put in a claim within 5 years; if no such claim was put in, the remainder-man lost his right, and the land was assured to the purchaser, cf. Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, (7th ed, Oxford, 1775) 2, p. 356 Google Scholar.
26 Sic; presumably error for ‘father’.
27 ‘Bishopbridge’ is presumably a coded reference to Paris; the Trappes inheritance from the Applebys was invested in the French Funds.
28 ‘drapes’ (a north-eastern expression) were sheep marked off to be fattened up for slaughter.
29 ‘The Committees’ were appointed county by county to deal with the estates of recusants and royalists.
30 ‘friends’ of course means relatives.
31 The Nidd MSS show that on 1 June 1663 T.A. settled £10 p.a. for life on Henry Hunt of Linton (who had married T.A.’s cousin Margery Bordman c. 1661) in consideration of Hunt’s managing T.A.’s’s affairs as required; this presumably indicates a breach with F.B.
32 Apart from Sir Thomas Gascoigne’s second son, George, these four are unidentifiable.
33 This is presumably Rev Francis Gascoigne (1605–76, cf. Anstruther, 2, p. 126), younger brother of Sir Thomas G., who was the first chaplain at Linton known to C.R.S. 17, p. 424; his presence at Linton is asserted by the informer Boldron, Robert, Narrative (London, 1680) p. 24 Google Scholar. However Francis G. cannot have arrived at Linton in the 1650s as is implied in C.R.S; he may well have taken over in or soon after 1663 at the time of the breach between F.B. and the Applebys.
34 Francis, elder brother of T.A., married Mary, daughter of Gerard Salvin of Croxdale, co Durham; he bought Lartington co Durham and died in 1663. His eldest son, also Francis, was living aged 7 in 1666. The eventual heiress was a daughter Mary, who carried the Lartington estate to her husband Thomas Maire.
35 For ‘serve’ meaning to treat badly, cf. OED s.v. ‘serve’, 8.
36 ‘thirds’ were of course what was left to the owner after the standard sequestration of two thirds of real estate by 3 Jac I, c.4.
37 To ‘beg’ someone was to petition the Court of Wards for his custody as a lunatic or idiot. The distinction between lunatics and idiots is of some importance, as the former were regarded as having lucid intervals during which they could manage their own affairs, whereas the latter were regarded as being incapable from birth to death.
38 It appears from the Nidd MSS that the Walkingtons were tenant farmers of Linton.
39 Charles Fairfax, 5th Viscount Fairfax of Emley, succeeded 1651, died 1711,
40 The Nidd MSS confirm that T.A. was resident with F.T. at Nidd during the 1680s.