Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:55:41.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Commission for Superstitious Lands of the 1690s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2016

P. A. Hopkins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The lesson of the Popish Plot, that the law was almost powerless against perjury, was widely applied in political accusations, administrative disputes and criminal prosecutions, particularly in the 1690s when so many former Exclusionists were in office or Parliament. MPs such as John Arnold, who had employed suborned evidence against the Monmouthshire Jesuits in attempting to overthrow the pro-Catholic Marcher magnate, the Duke of Beaufort, found it too good a weapon not to use in every-day politics. The Catholics, however, were not the main sufferers; the destruction of their Court party at the Revolution made them comparatively insignificant. Oates's successors, remembering the impunity with which he had attacked the Queen, James and Danby, laid their charges of treason against ministers or opposition leaders. However, one late offshoot of the Plot has caused some difficulties in Catholic history; it is another reminder that the compilers of the official records combined ignorance with their anti-Catholicism, holding with one judge during the Plot, that ‘They have such secret contrivances among themselves … that where there are two men that positively tell you a thing that lies within their knowledge and swear it is true, it is scarce any improbability that should weigh against such an evidence’. Land or money given to ‘superstitious’ uses was legally forfeit to the Crown under the Chantries Act (1 Edw. VI, c.14), extended (by implication) to the support of foundations abroad under 27 Eliz., c.2, sect. 4 The official findings in this decade are so odd that usually they have wisely been ignored; yet local historians can be deceived or confused. This investigation provides a full explanation and a glimpse of the Catholic underworld on which anti-Catholicism largely depended.

Type
Articles
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , May 1980 , pp. 265 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Cobbett's Complete Collection of State Trials, vol. 7 (London, 1810), col. 1041.Google Scholar

2 Neither statute was well adapted for a late seventeenth-century prosecution. One ambiguity, encouraged by the wording of the Chantries Act, was the tradition that the King received the forfeitures only as a trustee, and must apply them to some genuinely pious use: Lords I, p. 7.

3 Holdsworth, W. S., History of English Law, vol. 6 (London, 1924), pp. 284–95.Google Scholar

4 Foley 7, part I, p. cl; Rosamond, Meredith ‘The Eyres of Hassop’, in Recusant History, vol. 9, pp. 10–15;Google Scholar Galgano, M. J., ‘Iron-Mining in Restoration Furness: The Case of Sir Thomas Preston’, Recusant History, 13, pp. 216–17;Google Scholar CTB, vol. 9, p. 1465.

5 It was alleged in a Lords Appeal of 1689 that a priest in the 1680s used false witnesses to have a property condemned, then persuaded James to grant it to a genuinely ‘superstitious’ use. During the harsh treatment of Dissenters at the start of his reign, the Act was stretched to allow two inquisitions into property belonging to them; one, on a chapel at Yarmouth, was apparently at his personal instigation because he wanted it as a guard-room for troops quartered there. HMC Lords, 1689-90, p. 104; Davies, G. ‘Letters on the Administration of James IPs Army’, Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, 29 (1951), pp. 71–72;Google Scholar PRO C.205/19/6 A & B.

6 CTB, vol. 12, pp. 63-66, 70, for an inquisition into ‘derelict’ lands held ‘privately at an alehouse by surprise’; the commissioners held most of the proceedings in Latin, gave a false account of the law, and plied an ignorant jury with drink while it voted. The findings were quashed, but only because the projector imprudently chose a Lord of the Treasury as one victim.

7 CSPD January-June 1683, pp. 13-14, 17-18, 27-30, 34, 178; LJ, vol. 15, p. 592; HMC 7th Report, pp. 339-40; Autobiography of Sir John Bramston (Camden Society, 1845), pp. 16–20.Google Scholar

8 CSPD 1673-75, pp. 96, 99; July-September 1683, pp. 91, 94; 1686-87, p. 326; CTB, vol. 8, p. 1546; Luttrell 1, pp. 326, 328; HMC Kenyon, pp. 340, 365; R. Ferguson, Letter to Sir John Holt (2nd ed., 1694), p. 15; Browning, A., Thomas Osborne, Earl of Dan by (Glasgow, 1944), vol. 2, pp. 375–80;Google Scholar BL Harleian MS. 6845, f. 282.

9 HMC Kenyon, pp. 317, 333-4, 338, 342, 367-8; Lords 1, pp. 444-5; Finch, vol. 2, pp. 196-7; vol. 4, pp.107-10; Burnet, p. 255; PRO E.133/151/50 1st. interrog. f. 4, 6th interrog. (date established by mention of James's Declaration); BL Harleian MS. 6845, ff. 297-8; Add. 29,587, f. 73; Add. 34,095, f. 161; Add. 36,913, f. 177; Lambeth Palace MS. 1029, Nos 4, 5, 10, 13-18.

10 CSPD 1689-90, p. 229; 1693, p. 13; CJ, vol. 9, pp. 466-70; CTP, 1720-28, p. 152; CTB, vol. 9, pp. 469-74; Foley, vol. 1, part 1, pp. cl, civ, clvi, clx; ‘Records relating to Catholicism in the South Wales Marches’, ed. Matthews, J. H., CPS 2, pp. 299–303 Google Scholar (this is PRO FEC 1/791, and must date from 1693); Rev. E. H. Willson ‘The Catholic Registers of Abergavenny; Introduction’, CPS 27, pp. 103-04; PRO Tl/27, f. 246./250, no. 25; FEC 1/1527/4, 1528/2, 1529/3. Details on some property can be obtained from Sir Joseph, Bradney, History of Monmouthshire, 1, part 1 (London, 1904).Google Scholar

11 CSPD 1689-90, pp. 436, 447, 492-3, 503; 1690-91, p. 30; CTB, vol. 9, pp. 328-9, 344, 380, 515, 571,622. 732.

12 PRO E.134, 6 W & M, Easter 28, ff. 3, 5.

13 CTB, vol. 9, p. 2015; vol. 13, p. 398; Lords 1, pp. 5-8; VCH Bedfordshire, vol. 3, pp. 206, 297, 441; FEC 1/1539, f. 7.

14 CTB, vol. 10, pp. 415, 590-2, 1450; Complete Peerage, vol. 12, part 1, p. 192; VCH Staffordshire, vol. 5, pp. 5, 87;Google Scholar Hodgetts, M., ‘Priests at Harvington, 1660-90’, Worcestershire Recusant, 16, p. 14;Google Scholar t. Holt, S.J., ‘The Residence of St George’, Ibid., 20, p. 67.

15 CTB, vol. 9, p. 1392; PRO FEC 1/1539, ff. 11-12; T1/27, f. 246, /240, no. 25; E. 133/151/50, 1st interrog. f. 5; BL Lansdowne MS. 446, ff. 113v-120, for returns into Chancery up to April 1691.

16 CSPD 1679-80, p. 97; 1691-92, p. 499; CTP 1557-1696, pp. 138-9, 256; CTB, vol. 9, pp. 57, 74, 353, 363, 365, 1019-20, 1143, 1446, 1546, 1797, 1829-30, 1859, 1865, 1877, 1886; Luttrell, vol. 2, pp. 505, 614; vol. 3, p. 215; HMC Le Fleming, p. 334, Kenyon, p. 340; R. North, Lives of the Norths, ed. A. Jessop (London, 1890), vol. 2, pp. 190-2 (the dramatic finale not confirmed by other sources); Ferguson, Letter to Holt, p. 16; PRO, PC 2/74, pp. 443, 477; T1/13, ff. 163, 205/31, f. 223; E.126/16, f. 140; BL Harleian 1494, ff. 69v, 71; Add. 28,094, f. 105.

17 CSPD 1693, p. 13; CTB, vol. 9, p. 1909; FEC 1/1539, f. 12v, 2/71, pp. 56-61.

18 HMC, Downshire 1, pp. 645-6; Matthews, CRS 2, p. 299n; Letters of James II to Abbé Raneé, ed. Lord, Acton (Miscellany of the Philobiblon Society, vol. 14, 1877), pp. 41–42;Google Scholar BL Catalogue of Printed Books, ‘Bérault’; E.133/151/50, 1st interrog., ff. 3-4, 7th & 8th interrogs.; T1/31, f. 228.

19 HMC Lords 1692-93, p. 278; The English Reports, ed. Wood Renton, A. (London, 1900–30), vols 21, p. 906;Google Scholar 88, pp. 1144-5; 91, pp. 151, 856-7.

20 CSPD 1690-91, pp. 30-31; CTB, vol. 9, p. 897; HMC Kenyon, pp. 328-9, 338-9, 344; Jac. Trials, pp. 1-2, 9;T1/27, ff. 182, 246; E.133/151/50, 1st interrog., questions 6 & 7, ff. 1,6, 8-10; Add. 34, 729, f. 262. In no known testimony did Taaffe claim to be the former general receiver of Catholic rents; histotal lack of receipts and discharges made it obviously incredible.

21 Miller, J. L., Popery and Politics in England, 1660-88 (C.V.P. 1973), pp. 192–3;Google Scholar Browning, Danby, vol. 1, p. 8; VCH Lanes, vols. 3, pp. 364-5; 7, pp. 115-16; DNB, ‘Eccleston, Thomas’; Briggs, M., ‘The Walmesleys of Dunkenhalgh’, Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, vols. 75-76, pp. 93–94,Google Scholar 101; E.133/151/50, 6th and 7th interrogs; Add. 36, 913, ff. 177-181; Bodleian MS.Carte 181, ff. 561-2, for an authentic list of Jacobites involved in the Lancashire Plot.

22 22 Jac. Trials, p. 7; PRO E. 178/6798; E. 133/150/50, 1st interrog., f. 8; E.134, 6 W & M Trin. 9, f. 2;FEC 2/118, p. 16.

23 CSPD 1693, p. 229; CTP 1557-1696, pp. 372-3; CTB, vol. 9, p. 265; Lords 1, p. 444; CompletePeerage, vol. 4, pp. 513-14; Aveling, Northern Catholics, p. 357; PRO E. 178/6867; E.133/151/50, 1stinterrog., ff. 3, 5, 10; T1/27, f. 246; P.C. 2/75, p. 144.

24 In this he was unlike Warrington, as had appeared when they were both Treasury Commissioners in1689: Burnet, pp. 6-7.

25 Jac. Trials, p. 9; Lords 1, pp. 4-8; HMC Kenyon, p. 339, Tl/26, f. 157, /27, ff. 182, 246, /31, f. 288; E.133/151/50, 1st interrog., ff. 2-3, 5, 8-14.

26 Do. 6th interrog., ff. 4-5; FEC 1/61, /1539, f. 15.

27 Jac. Trials, pp. 83-84; HMC Kenyon, pp. 327, 334; E.133/151/50, 8th interrog., f. 14.

28 CSPD 1694-5, p. III; CTB, vol. 10, pp. 557-8, 590-2, 1450; HMC Kenyon, pp. 328, 388.

29 Jac. Trials, pp. 4-9; PRO E.133/151/50, 2nd interrog. (Papist perjury), 3rd interrog. (Eccleston'stravels), document between 4th & 5th interrogs, 8th interrog. (alteration of dates); E.134, 6 W & M, Easter 28 (Settlements, alibis for 1686); 6 W & M, Trin, 9, f. 2.

30 Lords I, pp. 436, 444, 446; Jac. Trials, pp. 10-11, 35-39; HMC Kenyon, pp. 318, 389; E.133/151/50,2nd interrog. f. 1, 8th interrog. ff. 29-33; P.C. 2/75, p. 440; FEC 1/61.

31 Lords 1, pp. 437-8, 452.

32 Adding as an afterthough Sir Henry Tichbourne of Hampshire in retaliation for testifying that Ec-cleston had been abroad in 1686: HMC Kenyon, p. 301.

33 Do. pp. 293-7, 324, 348; HMC Buccleuch 2, p. 91; Jac. Trials, pp. 22, 71; The Trials at Manchester, ed. Rev. W. Goss (Chetham Society, 1865), p. 29. He developed the story about Walmesley during June; in his first version he merely cleared the ground for it, promising further details when his ‘papers’ arrived: Northamptonshire RO, Buccleuch MSS., vol. 63, no. 75, p. 16.

34 Lords 1, pp. 443-4, 446; HMC Kenyon, pp. 337-8, 343, 390; Jac. Trials, pp. 43, 125-6; Trials, ed. Goss, pp. 34-35.

35 CSPD 1695 & Addenda, p. 331; 1696, p. 243; 1699-1700, p. 61; HMC Downshire 1, pp. 645-6, 707, Kenyon, p. 394; FEC 1/61; Add. 28,882, f. 124; Add. 28,924, f. 237. Taaffe apparently retained creditwith some Catholics in 1703: CSPD 1703-04, p. 324.

36 CSPD 1697, pp. 51-52; CTB, vol. 11, pp. 53, 60, 284, 413; vol. 20, p. 748; vol. 32, p. 550; P.C. 2/76, f. 204.

37 CTP 1697-1702, p. 37; CTB, vol. 12, pp. 262-3; PRO T1/44, f. 258; AO1/2315/24, f. 6. Possibly Gerard was now reversing the verdict.

38 Where the last attempt was a proviso in a bill in April 1696; HMC Lords (NS), vol. 2. p. 249.Google Scholar

39 CJ, vol. 12, pp. 61-62, 124, 247, 301, 318; vol. 13, pp. 229, 247, 314, 383-4, 559, 602, 768, 773, 886. Northhants RO, Buccleuch MSS., vol. 48, no. 36.

40 CJ, vol. 12, p. 136; CTP 1697-1702, pp. 224, 359; CTB, vol. 13, pp. 109, 435; vol. 14, pp. 99, 397; vol.15, pp. 21, 199; Estcourt & Payne, pp. 358-9; VCH Essex, vol. 4, pp. 3, 66, 70, 211-12, 218; Complete Peerage, vol. 12, part 1, pp. 682-3; E. Hasted, History of Kent (Wakefield, 1972), vol. 6, pp. 270, 290,300, 311; vol. 10, p. 380; Tl/66, f. 157; FEC 1/1534.

41 CJ, vol. 13, pp. 383-4, 559, 589, 591, 596, 815; CTB, vol. 15, pp. 425, 439; Luttrell, vol. 4, p. 704; vol. 5, p. 80; VCH Oxfordshire, vol. 6, pp. 290, 293, 299; Escourt & Payne, pp. 212, 214-15, 217; FEC 1/282.

42 Barlow, D., The Records of the Forfeited Estates Commission; PRO Handbook No. 12; (HMSO 1968), pp. 5–6;Google Scholar Estcourt & Payne, pp. 360-3; FEC 1/423, Nos 7, 26.

43 FEC 1/330, no. 2, /790, /1539, ff. 1, 15; 2/3, minute 15.2.17/8; 2/7, minute 14.8.16; 2/71, pp. 45,47-48, 61, 73-74, 86-87, 93; 2/73, p. 45; 2/118 no. 33; Burnet, p. 257n; Add. 34,729, ff. 310-11, 314v-5,320, 322.

44 Seymour was corrupt, and hated Catholics; he had planned to gain income by indicting recusants andgetting the forfeitures. In contrast Chancellor of the Exchequer Hampden, one of the leading ‘Court’ Whigs, apparently refused to sign the grant, although present at the Board. Jac. Trials, p. 1; Add. 34,729, f. 262; Add. 51,511, f. 42.

45 Burnet, pp. 420-2.

46 Of course, many Government supporters strongly approved of the Act, such as Secretary Vernon, who criticised the Opposition for not making it effective enough; he also thought that Catholic activity ‘will set the people a-madding if care be not taken in time’ and that the Commons realised this. Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William III… by James Vernon, ed. James, G. P. R. (London, 1841), vol. 2, p. 431;Google Scholar Northants RO, Buccleuch MSS., vol. 48, no. 44.