No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2016
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Introduction
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1983
References
Notes
1 Pugh, R. B., How to Write a Parish History (1954), p. 86.Google Scholar See above, pp. 336-41 for an outline of relevant legislation.
2 W. B. Stephens, Sources for English Local History (2nd edn, 1981)—a clear and comprehensive general guide (more informative on Catholicism than any comparable publication) whose valuable Introduction on basic printed material, including finding-aids to manuscript collections, is fuller than is feasible here.
3 For Subsidy Rolls, see infra., pp. 382-4, 414. The post-Restoration Rolls also contain particulars of the benevolence or ‘Voluntary Present’ granted to Charles II in 1663 and of the Hearth Tax, to both of which Catholics contributed and for which corresponding local records exist.
4 See infra., pp. 362-3
5 Pym, John, quoted by Russell, C. in The English Commonwealth, 1547-1640 (ed. Clark, Smith and Tyacke, 1979), p. 152.Google Scholar See also Newman, P. R., ‘Roman Catholics in pre-Civil War England; the Problem of Definition’ in R.H., 15, pp. 148–52Google Scholar (also pp. 370-1).
6 Jenkinson, H., Guide to Archives and other Collections relating to Surrey: General Introduction and Scheme (Surrey Record Soc., 1925), p. 21.Google Scholar
7 Wood, A. C., History of Nottinghamshire (Thoroton Soc., 1947), p. 206.Google Scholar
8 Dr John Sherwood, variously described as ‘a Catholic physician’, as ‘one… of those who would on no consideration bow the knee to Baal’, as a ‘devout Catholic physician’ and as a ‘recusant’—but see C.R.S., 65, pp. 24-26 for a cooler estimate.
9 Allison, A. F. and Rogers, D. M. in R.H., 6, p. 10.Google Scholar
10 Conveniently listed in Sectional List 17 (H.M.S.O., periodically). There are two sets of indexes to persons and places: (i) in H.M.C. Reports issued between 1870 and 1911; (ii) in those issued from 1911 to 1957. See also Upton, E. S., Guide to Sources of English History, 1603-1660, in Early Reports of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts (2nd edn, 1964)Google Scholar for leads under ‘Recusants’, ‘Roman Catholics’, etc. (see Introduction for terms of reference).
11 Quality House, Quality Court, Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1HP, where, inter alia, indexes under ‘Government, Local’, provide leads to Lieutenancy papers, those of sheriffs and those relating to Quarter Sessions, etc. In addition to its own compilations, the N.R.A. holds a copy of the catalogue of the archives at Ushaw College, Co. Durham.
12 The first 65 are listed in a descriptive catalogue issued by the Society in 1972, of which an updated version is projected. Secondary sources, some freer from error than others, for information on Catholic clergy associated with the English mission during our period are: for the seculars, Anstruther; for the regulars, Foley (Jesuits); Birt, Obit Bk. (Benedictines); Fr Thaddeus, The Franciscansin England (1898); W. Gumbley, Obituary Notices of English Dominicans (1955); B. Zimmerman, Carmel in England (1899). Biographical particulars in Foley are about to be supplemented by Fr Geoffrey Holt’s forthcoming volume (C.R.S., 70) and the sketchy data in Birt are massively amplified in the microficheset, A History of the English Benedictine Congregation (with introductory booklet by P. Spearritt and B. Green, 1978).
13 E.g. those of the Constables of Everingham, the Langdales of Holme-on-Spalding Moor and Houghton Hall and the Stapletons of Carlton, all discussed in my contribution to Catholic Archives, 3 (forthcoming) which will also contain, in Fr Justin McLoughlin’s account of the English Franciscan archives, mention of further family papers (Penderell, Eyston and others).
14 For much of this material, see Stephens, op. cit., passim. Poll Books (mainly printed) are, however, noticed here (infra., p. 404) because of the light they may occasionally shed on the implementation of certain measures affecting Catholics. County- and town-entries in the B.L. Catalogue of Printed Books can provide a variety of ‘leads’, including items on Catholics, e.g. under ‘Middlesex: Roman Catholics’.
15 See his series of articles in R.H., 11-16, passim; also Trans. Worcs. Arch. Soc., 39, pp. 1-15; 41, pp. 11-13; Country Life, 22 March 1962; Worcs. Recusant, 37, pp. 3-25. A photographic record of recusant houses, chapels, etc., is being assembled by Mr Leslie Brooks and others for deposit with the Catholic Record Society.
16 See, for example, the catalogues of the Challoner Bicentennial Exhibition at Westminster Cathedral, 1 July to 30 Sept. 1981, and of the exhibition Church Art of Catholic Yorkshire held at Leeds City Art Gallery in February 1979. On the library at Naworth, see Archbishop David Mathew in On Hilaire Belloc (ed. D. Woodruff, 1942), pp. 117-30. For recusant bibliography the essential starting-point is A. F. Allison and Rogers, D.M., A Catalogue of Catholic Books in English printed abroad or secretly in England, 1558-1640 (Biographical Studies, 3, nos 3 and 4, 1956),Google Scholar supplemented by Clancy, T., English Catholic Books, 1641-1700 (Chicago, 1974).Google Scholar Helpful guides to the literature of theological controversy in the early recusant period are Milward, P., Religious Controversies of the Elizabethan Age (1977)Google Scholar and… of the Jacobean Age (1978). A collection of Elizabethan cases of conscience is printed in C.R.S., 67, and the post-Tridentine English primer and other devotional works are studied in C.R.S. Monograph 3, of which see the review, with additional bibliographical references, by Sister M. Norman in The Catholic Historical Review, 68, pp. 519-21.
17 The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 (1975) and p. 6.
18 Haigh, C. in The Historical Journal, 21, p. 185.Google Scholar
19 Baker, J. H. in Crime in England, 1550-1800 (ed. J. S. Cockburn, 1977), p. 15 Google Scholar; also for not dissimilar remarks, Cockburn in Legal Records and the Historian (ed. Baker; Royal Historical Society, ‘Studies in History’, no. 7, 1978), p. 60.
20 Baker in Cockburn, loc. cit.
21 The remarks quoted are by Haugaard, W. P., Elizabeth and the English Reformation (1968), p. 317 Google Scholar, and by S. Gilley in E.H.R., 96, pp. 220-1, respectively.
22 See Sir F. M. Powicke and Fryde, E. B., Handbook of British Chronology (Royal Historical Society, 2nd edn, 1961), pp. 202–66.Google Scholar
23 See Wright, A. D., ‘Catholic History, North and South’, in Northern History, 14, pp. 126–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Bossy, op. cit.; Aveling, J. C. H., The Handle and the Axe (1976)Google Scholar, with a comprehensive bibliography. Earlier surveys are D. Mathew, Catholicism in England (3rd edn, 1955); Watkin, E. I., Roman Catholicism in England (1957)Google Scholar; Leys, M. D. R., Catholics in England (1961)Google Scholar, preceded by Mr Brian Magee’s often-valuable pioneer work, The English Recusants (1958).
25 ‘The Continuity of Catholicism in the English Reformation’ (in Past and Present, no. 93, pp. 37-69); ‘From Monopoly to Minority: Catholicism in Early Modern England’ (in T.R.H.S., 5th series, 31, pp. 129-47).
26 Peter and Jack: Roman Catholics and Dissent in eighteenth-century England (Friends of Dr Williams’s Library, 36th Lecture, 1982).
27 Starting as nine numbers of A Newsletter for Students of Recusant History (ed. T. A. Birrell, Nijmegen, The Netherlands, 1958-70) these are continued in the Spring issues of R.H., which very little escapes. Illuminating bibliographical/historiographical surveys have been contributed by Dr A. Davidson to The Local Historian, 9, pp. 283-9 and by the Rev. F. Edwards, S.J., to The Clergy Review, 57, pp. 610-23 (plus, recently, J. Marmion in vol. 67 of that journal, pp. 193-8, and Professor Birrell in The Tablet, 2 June 1982, pp. 650-1). There are noteworthy editorials by A. F. Allison and D. M. Rogers in R.H., 6, pp. 2-11; 13, pp. 153-6 and valuable papers by Professors Finberg and McGrath in The Downside Review (Summer-Autumn 1959), pp. 254-65, and Blackfriars (March and April 1963), pp. 108-15 and 156-63, respectively. Mr John Aveling discusses published works on seventeenth-century English Catholicism in Aveling, Loades and McAdoo, Rome and the Anglicans (ed. W. Haase, Berlin and New York, 1982), pp. 111-12, and Professor W. B. Patterson considers ‘The Recusant View of the English Past’ in Studiesin Church History, 11 (ed. D. Baker, 1975), pp. 249-62.
28 Relevant volumes of the former are Conyers Read (Tudor Period); M. F. Keeler’s revision of G. Davies (Stuart Period); S. Pargellis and D. J. Medley (Eighteenth Century, 1714-89); in the latter category come M. Levine, Tudor England and W. L. Sachse, Restoration England (Conference on British Studies’ Bibliographical Handbooks, 1968 and 1971, respectively) and J. S. Morrill’s stimulating Seventeenth-century Britain, 1603-1714 (1980) supplemented by his contribution to History Today, 32, pp. 51-52.
29 See Martin, G. H. and Mclntyre, S., Bibliography of British and Irish Municipal History (in progress), 1, pp. 21–32,Google Scholar covering counties as well as other units.
30 Essex Recusant, London Recusant, Staffordshire Catholic History, Worcestershire Recusant, Kent Recusant History, North-West Catholic History, Northern Catholic History (north-east), the first-named with a helpful Cumulative Index, 1959-79. A journal for south-west England is about to be launched.
31 Lists of relevant contributions to the two last-named appeared in the Newsletter mentioned in note 27, above (9th and 8th issues, respectively). The Dublin (later Wiseman) Review, now defunct, also printed items of recusant interest, as did earlier publications such as The Rambler (of which see list in R.H., 6, pp. 80-89). In The Dublin Review, 198, pp. 284-310, is ‘Early Catholic Periodicals in England’ by J. R. Fletcher and for one area there is a handy Bibliography of Periodical Literature relating to the post-Reformation Catholic History of North-East England (compiled by L. Gooch, 1977). Four of the Rambler contributions were reprinted in R. Simpson, Under the Penal Laws (1930).
32 See Hepworth, P., Archives and Manuscripts in Libraries (Library Association, 1964 edn)Google Scholar; also, for libraries with original MSS., Record Repositories in Great Britain (H.M.S.O., periodically) and—more comprehensive, though not fully so— Foster, J. and Sheppard, J., British Archives (1982)Google Scholar with a ‘Key Subject Word List’ at the end (p. 531 for ‘Catholicism’). Libraries may also possess unpublished research on recusant history such as that by Langston, J. N. in Gloucester City Library, referred-to in Worcs. Recusant, 40, p. 21.Google Scholar
33 His comprehensive priest-index is also held by the Society, and is now being put on computer at Downside Abbey.
34 Chester, vol. 3; Leics., 2; Oxford, 4; Staffs., 3; Wilts., 3.
35 Supplementary to this, and with somewhat wider terms of reference, is J. Youings, Local Record Sources in Print and in Progress, 1972-76 (Historical Association, ‘Helps for Students of History’, no. 85, 1977).
36 A Bibliography of Parliamentary Debates of Great Britain (House of Commons Document, no. 2, H.M.S.O., 1956).
37 E.g. inter alia, The Parliamentary Diary of Narcissus Luttrell, 1691-93 (ed. H. Horwitz, 1972); The Diaries and Papers of Sir Edward Dering, 1644-84 (ed. M. Bond, 1976); Proceedings in the Parliaments of Elizabeth I (ed. T. E. Hartley—so far, vol. 1, 1558-81, Leicester, 1981); Private Journals of the Long Parliament (ed. W. H. Coates et al., 1982); Camden Soc., 4th series, 19 (the Short Parliament, 1640).
38 Some of them (not all as yet published) kindly drawn to my attention by Dr Alan Davidson.
39 Guides, etc., to other repositories are mentioned in the appropriate sections. I am very grateful to Dr C. J. Kitching of the Public Record Office for reading and commenting on the first four sections.
40 Where amendments to the Guide are also filed. Attention should here be drawn to the ambitious microfilm programme of the Harvester Press Ltd, covering the complete State Papers (Domestic) of Elizabeth I and James I and of George I, II and III (to 1782), State Papers and Exchequer documents of the Civil War and Interregnum, Star Chamber material (James I) and ‘State Papers’ and other items in the manuscript collections of the British Library and the Bodleian Library, Oxford.
41 Notably Bartholomew’s.
42 By F. A. Youngs: vol. 1, Southern England (1979), to be followed by a second volume on the northern counties.
43 2nd edn, 1910; reprinted Dorking, 1976.
44 The full and Concise D.N.B, contain some slips and errors, e.g. re Dr George Oliver, the Exeter priest-antiquary, concerning whom the concise edition wrongly summarises the full entry, giving the impression that he was a Jesuit. On the Catholic bishop Thomas Williams the full D.N.B., entry is corrected in Yorks. Arch. Soc. Record Series, 77, p. 189. A card-index of corrections, etc., is kept at the London University Institute of Historical Research; those up to 1963 are embodied in Corrections and Additions to the Dictionary of National Biography (Boston, Mass., 1966).
45 Gillow, ; Oliver, G., Collections Illustrating the History of the Catholic Religion in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Somerset, Wilts, and Gloucester (1857);Google Scholar Kelly, B. W., Historical Notes on English Catholic Missions (1907);Google Scholar J. Kirk, Biographies of English Catholics, 1700-1800 (ed. J. H. Pollen and E. Burton, 1909). For compilations concerned with Catholic clergy, see note 12, above.
46 So far 1485-1603, ed. K. Powell and C. Cook (1977); 1603-88, ed. C. Cook and J. Wroughton (1980); 1760-1830, ed. C. Cook and J. Stevenson (1980).
47 For an excellent chronological outline, see the New Catholic Encyclopaedia, 11, pp. 62-65, and, for other recent résumés, slanted towards particular periods, C.R.S. Monograph 1, ch. 1; C.R.S., 53, pp. 291-307; Havran, M. J., Catholics in Caroline England (1962)Google Scholar, ch. 1; Miller, J., Popery and Politics in England, 1660-88 (1973)Google Scholar, ch. 3; R. C. Jarvis, J., Collected Papers on the Jacobite Risings, 2 (Manchester, 1972)Google Scholar, ch. 24.
48 5 Eliz. I, c. 23 (re writs de excommunicato capiendo, 1563); 3 Ja. I, c. 4 (1606) and the short-lived Interregnum Act of 1657 mentioned supra, p. 338 (both affecting negligent officials). On excommunication, see also infra., pp. 362, 404, 430 and, on the 1563 Act, N. L. Jones, Faith by Statute (Royal Historical Society, ‘Studies in History’, no. 32, 1982), pp. 180-1.
49 Holydays are listed in C. S. Meyer, Elizabeth I and the Religious Settlement of 1559 (Saint Louis, U.S.A., 1960), pp. 71-72. Additionally, by 3 Ja. I, c. 1, attendance every fifth of November, in thanksgiving for the failure of Gunpowder Plot, was made compulsory; the statute does not impose the penalties attaching to recusancy but offenders might be in trouble with the ecclesiastical courts (see infra., p 430 for example). Non-observance of 30 January—the ‘martyrdom’ of Charles I—could lead to similar proceedings (ibid); solemn commemoration of this anniversary was introduced in 1660 (12 Cha. II, c. 30) as was the annual celebration of Charles II’s return from exile, 29 May (12 Cha. II, c. 14).
50 To 1610 (7 Ja. I, c. 3). The Uniformity Act was 1 Eliz. I, c. 2 (1559). Regnal years and chapters of all statutes are here cited as given in the official Chronological Table of the Statutes (H.M.S.O.). Texts of most of the relevant Acts will be found in Statutes of the Realm, 4-9 (to the end of Anne’s reign); the few subsequent enactments, including those for Catholic Relief, are printed in Statutes at Large (Ruffhead, ed. Runnington), 5-12. For anti-Catholic measures of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, see Firth and Rait. See also infra., p. 389, note 91.
51 Documents illustrating both points are printed in F, Peck, Desiderata Curiosa (1799 ed.), 1, Bk 3, pp. 88-89; see aiso Rose, E., Cases of Conscience (1975), p. 46 Google Scholar; A.P.C., 1580-81, pp. 103-04; Chetham Soc., new series, 110, p. 72 (which does not indicate that the fines on Lancashire recusants may have been for Mass-going rather than for absence from church). See also Tyler, P., The Ecclesiastical Commission and Catholicism in the North, 1562-1577 (Leeds, 1960)Google Scholar, passim (pp. 70-71 for £200 fine imposed on John Swinburne for sponsoring Masses in the early 1560s).
52 C.R.S., 53, p. 292.
53 23 Eliz. I, c. 1. However, the twelvepenny fine for each absence was not abolished and continued to be levied spasmodically until the 1780s. Butler, C., Historical Memoirs of English, Irish and Scottish Catholics (1822 edn), 3, pp. 276–7Google Scholar, provides a 1782 example from Yorkshire and similar action was threatened in the same county five years later (City of Bristol Record Office: Clifton diocesan archives, 35721/1, no. 69).
54 29 Eliz. I, c. 6. An important and wide-ranging study of the ‘implementation of the Elizabethan statutes against recusants, 1581-1603’, is the London University Ph.D. thesis of that title by the Rev. F. X. Walker, S.J. (1961).
55 3 Ja. I, c. 4.
56 C.R.S., 57, pp. xxxix-xl, re the relevant section of 29 Eliz. I, c. 6.
57 35 Eliz. I, cc. 1 and 2.
58 35 Eliz. I, c. 2; 3 Ja. I, c. 5.
59 Not widely enforced, but convicted recusants earmarked ‘to be adjured the Realm according to the Statute in that behalf provided’ (35 Eliz. I, c. 2) are listed in one of the York House Books in 1599; see Morris, Troubles, 3, pp. 284-5; C.R.S. Monograph 2, pp. 224-5.
60 Statutes already cited, plus 23 Eliz. I, c. 1; 7 Ja. I, c. 6; 12 Cha. II, c. 24 (debarring ‘Popish Recusants’, as distinct from popish recusants convict, from exercising ‘the custody and tuition’ of minors). ‘Knowne recusants’ (again not necessarily convicted) were also forbidden the ‘lawfull recreation’ permitted on Sundays by James I’s Declaration of Sports (1618): see T. H. Clancy in R.H., 13, p. 230; Kenyon, J. P., The Stuart Constitution (1966), p. 131 Google Scholar. For the antecedent Declaration (1617) affecting Lancashire only and containing a similar ban, see Lanes, and Cheshire Record Soc., 42, pp. xxiv-xxvi, and J. Tait in E.H.R., 32, pp. 561-8.
61 And under the 1663 Subsidy Act of Charles II; see infra., pp. 382-3.
62 Firth and Rait, 1, p. 255.
63 3 Ja. I, c. 5. This Act (sec. 10) affected marriages of convicted recusants only, but its provisions as to baptism and burial touched popish recusants in general. Later legislation, in the 1690s, attempted to tighten-up the registering of baptisms (and births), marriages and burials and called for the separate recording of children not christened with Anglican rites, at a charge of sixpence payable by the parents (6 and 7 Will. III, c. 6; 7 and 8 Will. III, c. 35).
64 The latter also denied to ‘all those who do professe the Popish Religion’—but without practical consequences—by the final Act of the Interregnum (Firth and Rait, 2, p. 1472), on either side of which the policy of excluding Catholics (not entirely successful until the 1678 Test Act, 30 Cha. II, st. 2) was reinforced by orders of the House as to the receiving of Communion by members: E. and Porritt, A., The Unreformed House of Commons (1903), 1, pp. 131–3.Google Scholar
65 1 Eliz. I, c. 1; 5 Eliz. I, c. 1; 27 Eliz. I, c. 2. On oaths, etc., see The New Catholic Encyclopaedia, 10, pp. 596-9; also A. M. C. Forster, ‘The Oath Tendered’ in R.H., 14, pp. 86-96. The 1563 Act imposed the death-penalty for second refusal of the oath but Elizabeth circumvented this by ordering that it should not be tendered a second time; see Sir Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559-1581 (1953), p. 121 Google Scholar; Jones, Faith by Statute, pp. 170-6; also p. 98, note 56.
66 3 Ja. I, c. 4; 7 Ja. I, c. 6.
67 Firth and Rait, 1, pp. 255-6.
68 ibid., pp. 106-17 (27 March); 254-60 (18 Aug.), reinforced by later Acts for their better regulating, etc. (ibid., pp. 1179-83, 1186-8, both Aug. 1648). See also Firth and Rait, 3, p. 116: ‘Roman Catholics: Penalties imposed on’, section C.
69 Ibid., 1, pp. 258, 769; 2, p. 333.
70 See Hardacre, P. H., The Royalists during the Puritan Revolution (The Hague, 1956), pp. 57, 92-93, 116-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This work contains a good deal on the position of Catholics, on which see also Aveling, The Handle and the Axe, ch. 7, and the same author’s Northern Catholics (1966), pp. 301-18 for much salutary information.
71 Firth and Rait, 1, pp. 88-89. See also infra., pp. 384, 413-14.
72 Original in Society of Antiquaries of London: Proclamations, vol. 12, no. 17 (26 April 1655). For other copies, see R. R. Steele (ed.), Bibliography of Royal Proclamations… and of Others…, 1485-1714 (1910), p. 368, no. 3047 (also pp. cv-cvi, for remarks on proclamations of the Interregnum period).
73 See also p. 339 above (re ‘constructive recusancy’).
74 Firth and Rait, 2, pp. 423-6.
75 Ibid., pp. 1170-80 (Act ‘for convicting, discovering and repressing of Popish Recusants’—an odd sequence); H. H. Copnall, Nottinghamshire County Records: Seventeenth Century (Nottingham, 1915), p. 135: instruction to sheriff that ‘The proceedings against Recusants… are different from what the proceedings formerly were in cases of this nature, and are grounded solely upon the refusing or neglecting to take the Oath’.
76 14 Cha. II, c. 4.
77 25 Cha. II, c. 2; 30 Cha. II, st. 2.
78 7 and 8 Will. III, c. 16; 9 Will. III, c. 31; 10 Will. III, c. 18.
79 1 Will, and Mar., sess. 2, cc. 1, 5; 2 Will, and III., c. 2; 3 Will, and III., c. 6; 9 Will. III, c. 38.
80 4 Will, and Mar., c. 1, and subsequent Land Tax Acts, with a reminder in 9 Will. III, c. 10, sec. 56, about strict application of double assessment, its wording suggestive of past negligence by local assessors.
81 9 Geo. I, c. 18, making Catholics the chief scapegoats of the Anglican/Jacobite plotting—genuine in the case of Bishop Atterbury, ‘almost wholly imaginary’ in that of Christopher Layer—of 1721-22, which ‘served Walpole well’. On this, see G. V. Bennet, ‘Jacobitism and the Rise of Walpole’ in Historical Perspectives: Studies in English Thought and Society (ed. N. McKendrick, 1974), ch. 4 (pp. 90 and 91 for words cited).
82 1 Geo. I, c. 55; 3 Geo I, c. 18; 9 Geo, I, c. 24; 10 Geo. I, c. 4 and subsequent related Acts.
83 See infra., pp. 414-15 (also pp. 385-6 for P.R.O. versions).
84 Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, p. 456. This work has a section (ch. 13) on the Catholic problem in seventeenth-century England. The Act was 1 Will, and Mar., c. 9 (corrected by c. 17).
85 1 Will, and Mar., c. 18.
86 Such disfranchisement was foreshadowed in the 1650s in the Instrument of Government and the Petition and Advice, 1653 and 1657 (Firth and Rait, 2, pp. 817, 1049). See also next note.
87 1 Will, and Mar., cc. 8, 15, 26; 7 and 8 Will. III, cc. 24, 27; 11 Will. III, c. 4. In parliamentary elections the oaths, etc., did not have to be tendered to voters unless a candidate so requested (7 and 8 Will. III, c. 27, sec. 18); this Act, confirmed and made perpetual by 1 Geo. 1, st. 2, c. 6, was amended in 1794 (34 Geo. III, c. 73) by the provision that when candidates insisted on the tendering of the oaths, this duty should be delegated to commissioners appointed by the returning officer and not, as hitherto, be carried out personally by the latter.
88 See C.R.S. Monograph 1, p. 51 and notes 371, 372; also infra., p. 340 re dependence of Catholics’ inheritance upon their enrolment of wills and property-deeds.
89 Smith, D. M., Guide to the Archive Collections in the Borthwick Institute of Historical Research (University of York, 1973), p. 20.Google Scholar
90 Firth and Rait, 1, p. 255; also 3, pp. 116-17 for references to other Interregnum sanctions, some of them very short-lived, against papists and priests. Stringent measures against the latter and their ‘Harbourers, Receivers and Maintainers’ were called-for in the 1655 proclamation mentioned supra., p. 338.
91 1 Eliz. I, cc. 1,2; 13 Eliz. I, cc. 1, 2; 23 Eliz. I, c. 1; 27 Eliz. I, c. 2; 29 Eliz. I,c. 6; 1 Ja. I, c. 4. There is much discussion of treason-legislation as it affected Catholics in J. Bellamy, The Tudor Law of Treason (1979). See also Youngs, F. A., Proclamations of the Tudor Queens (1976)Google Scholar and his article in The Historical Journal, 14, pp. 682-9, on the proclamation of 1 April 1582 anticipating the capital-punishment provisions of 27 Eliz. I, c. 2 and ‘apparently unique in the history of sixteenth-century law… in essence… creating a new law’ (Bellamy, op. cit., p. 72). The Act of Indemnity and Oblivion passed at the Restoration of Charles II (12 Cha. II, c. 11) withheld pardon from Jesuits and other priests sentenced under 27 Eliz. I, c. 2 (if there were any in that category then).
92 13 Eliz. I, c. 1; 14 Eliz. I, c. 6; 27 Eliz. I, c. 2; 1 Ja. I, c. 4; 3 Ja. I, c. 5; 3 Cha. I, c. 3.
93 Statutes affecting Catholic schooling in England or overseas are listed in Beales, A. C. F., Education under Penalty (1963), pp. 272–3Google Scholar. In addition, the short-lived Schism Act (13 Anne, c. 7), repealed after five years by 5 Geo. I, c. 4, mentions in its preamble ‘sundry papists’ as well as the ‘other persons, dissenters from the Church of England’, whose educational activities were its main target.
94 11 Will. III, c. 4. The comments are, respectively, by Sir Keir, D. L., Constitutional History of Modern Britain (1964 edn), p. 278 Google Scholar, note 1, and by Thomson, M. A., Constitutional History of England, 1642-1801 (1938), p. 278.Google Scholar
95 Earlier, more severe legislation against priests was not repealed, but was no longer enforced. Only one priest actually suffered life-imprisonment; for him see McDonagh, H., Paul Atkinson, Franciscan Prisoner in Hurst Castle (1960)Google Scholar and my review of this work in The Dublin Review, no. 486, pp. 383-4.
96 13 Anne, c. 13.
97 1 Geo. I, st. 2, c. 47 (see also Statutes at Large, 5, pp. 84-85).
98 3 Geo. I, c. 18.
99 This Act (20 Geo. III, c. 33) is discussed by Professor Bossy in Challoner and hts Church: a Catholic Bishop in Georgian England (ed. E. Duffy, 1981), pp. 126-36.
100 For their instructions, some specifically anti-Catholic, see Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, pp. 348-50. See also E.H.R., 10, p. 490 and, for the vehemently anti-Catholic William Boteler, in command of Bedfordshire, Huntingdon, Rutland and Northants., P. H. Hardacre in Huntingdon Library Quarterly, 11, pp. 1-11.
101 Particularly as embodied in the Royal Injunctions of 1559 (and repeated in numerous subsequent visitation articles and injunctions) and in the Canons of 1604, the latter printed in E. Cardwell, Synodolia (2 vols, Oxford, 1842) and the Royal Injunctions in, inter alia, Gee, H. and Hardy, W. J., Documents IIIustrative of English Church History (1896), pp. 417–42.Google Scholar For visitation records, see infra., pp. 428-31.
102 For relevant data, and reference to underlying central (chiefly State Paper) documentation, see Trimble, W. R., The Catholic Laity in Elizabethan England (Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A., 1964), pp. 180–93, 248-52Google Scholar (with a discrepancy in the totals given on p. 187) and, for additional information on one county, Manning, R. B., Religion and Society in Elizabethan Sussex (Leicester, 1969), pp. 141–2Google Scholar.
103 See Aveling, The Handle and the Axe, pp. 138-9,166; P. J. Doyle in London Recusant, 1, pp. 85-90.
104 On this contribution (1639) see C. Hibbard in R.H., 16, pp. 42-60.
105 See C.R.S. Monograph 2, p. 110 for York examples.
106 For these two types of discrimination, see infra., p. 410.
107 They have sections to themselves in two volumes of illustrative extracts, ed. Caraman, P.: The Other Face (1960)Google Scholar; The Years of Siege (1966), chs 23 and 7 respectively, and they figure prominently in an interestingly documented chapter of Havran, op. cit. (ch. 7). Pursuivant activity at Cheam., Surrey, is studied by B. Nurse in London Recusant, 3, pp. 102-14.
108 To the effect that a man clad in the appropriate vestments and going through the motions of the Mass could not be assumed to be a Catholic priest; henceforth, evidence of ordination (unavailable in England) was required. See Burton, E., The Life and Times of Bishop Challoner (1909), 2, pp. 93–96Google Scholar.
109 18 Geo. III, c. 60. See also N. Abercrombie in Duffy (ed.), op. cit., pp. 174-93.
110 31 Geo. III, c. 32.
111 But not the obligation to attend some place of Sunday worship (ibid., sec. 9).