Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:35:25.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lieutenancy and Catholic Recusants in Elizabethan Kent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2016

J. J. N. McGurk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Unlike the Northern and South-Western counties, Kent has not attracted much recusant study, largely because there was nothing like the same degree of loyalty to the old religion as there was in those parts. Kent's proximity to the seat of government, the general absence of wealthy Catholic landowners, and especially the well-used ways to the Kent coast—all proved deterrents to overt ‘papistry’. The immediate danger of official disapproval appears to have been a greater reason for the comparative lack of recusancy than the alleged fact that the Marian persecution had caused a hatred of Catholicism in the shire of Kent. Whether or not the old religion was to flourish in the village communities depended, in Kent as elsewhere, on the encouragement of the local landed gentry.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , April 1973 , pp. 157 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1973

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 There appears to be no thorough study of recusancy in Elizabethan and Early Stuart Kent. What materials there are remain to be collated with the vast body of archives relating to the history of Catholicism in England. Some Kentish records have been noted by C. Buckingham in three typescript articles in the first issues of Cantium, a magazine of Kent local history. For this article, I have found the Leveson papers (Staffs R.O.) especially D.593/S/4/6 (x-xx), S/4/11/14, S/4/14/14, 20/20, 22/29, illustrative of recusancy in the county in the 1590's and the Fairhurst Manuscripts in Lambeth Palace Library, 2004-8, useful for the ecclesiastical adminstration of recusancy. For printed sources the Catholic Record Society and Recusant History, as well as the works cited under the following authors and editors, have greatly helped the subject: W. Trimble, P. McGrath, B. Magee, P.Caraman and F. X. Walker's unpublished thesis (London PhD., 1961).

2 For the distinctions between ‘recusant’, church Papist, schismatics, see Bowler, H., (ed.) C.R.S., 57,Google Scholar introd. and Caraman, P., The Other Face (1960) p. 34,Google Scholar which cites Robert Naunton's Fragmenta Regalia (the edition of E. Arber, 1870) on these terms. A. J. Loomie, ‘A Jacobean Crypto-Catholic, Lord Wotton’, Catholic Historical Review, 53, No. 3 (1967) p. 300, distinguishes four patterns of Catholic observance at the end of Elizabeth's reign: recusants, church Papists, schismatics (i.e. Catholics who outwardly conformed to the Establishment) and crypto-Catholics (i.e. such as were converted to Catholicism yet unwilling to relinquish public office and so sought indults from the Pope granting them absolution on their death beds). ‘Avowed Catholics’ constituted a minority in these troubled times, so the counting of Catholics as an approach to recusant history is one fraught with pitfalls.

3 V.C.H., Kent, 3, 82.

4 23 Eliz. c.1; 28 and 29 Eliz. c.6.

5 P.R.O., S.P., 12/184/35, 40, 45; A.P.C., 25, p. 12.

6 Lambeth Ms., 2008, f.40.

7 A.P.C. 25, Appendix p. 515, 31 December 1593; Records of the English Catholics 1, Donai Diaries, App. pp. 270-301; A.P.C., 13, p.41, 7 May 1581.

8 P.R.O., S.P. 12/240/42 (1591); A.P.C., 19, pp. 70-72, 20 April 1590.

9 P.R.O., S.P. 12/99/55, ‘List of Catholickes in Englonde’ (1574). It is of Catholic authorship since there are references to Protestants as ‘Heretikes’.

10 See supra.

11 Other well-known recusants such as the Hawkins of Boughton-under-Blean, the Guildfords of Rolvenden and the Whetenhalls of East Peckham are not listed.

12 Other companion supporters of Mary were Lord Abergavenny, Sir Robert Southwell, John Twyne (then Mayor of Canterbury), Christopher Roper, John Ticke, George Darrell, Sir Thomas Cheney (Lord Warden), Sir Thomas Moyle, Sir Thomas Finch and Sir John Fogge. (See Add. Ms. 5507, f. 303 r., which is E. Hasted's copy of Philipots’ Visitation of Kent.)

13 Ball, W. E., ‘The Stained-Glass Windows of Nettlestead Church’, Arch. Cant., 28, p. 222.Google Scholar

14 U.386/T 109/8 (Darrell MSS.) Kent County Archives; U. 498/Z 5 (Linsted MSS.) K.C.A.

15 A.P.C., 12, p. 82, 83, 124 (July 1580): S.P. 12/143/17 (16 October 1580).

16 C.R.S., 39 Letters of F. Persons 1578-88, (ed. L. Hicks), p. 58 (17 November 1580).

17 Buckingham, C. Catholic Dover (1968) p. 24.Google Scholar

18 P.R.O., S.P. 12/143/30, (24 October 1580).

19 P.R.O., S.P. 12/172/113; Foley, H., Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, 6.Google Scholar

20 A.P.C., 13, p. 196 (5 September 1581); ibid. pp. 158-9 (6 August 1581).

21 Ibid., p. 196 (5 September 1581).

22 V.C.H., Kent, 2, p. 88; C.R.S., 2, p. 226. In Kent recusant lists the Ropers recur repeatedly; as late as 1630 the Q.S. records at Maidstone show forty-one recusants convicted from Eltham, nine of which were servants to Anthony Roper of Well Hall, Eltham.

23 P.R.O., S.P. 12/149/33, 37 (1580); S.P. 12/183/15 (1584) and S.P. 12/200/61 (1587); all of these summarize both assessments and payments. £24 was the usual sum paid for furnishing a light horse.

24 D.593/S/4/11/14; U.1115/06/i; copy of the P.C. letter in the Leveson and Scott papers respectively; S.P. 12/157/57, ‘The Manner of Proceeding with Recusants’ (1585).

25 The dorse of D.593/S/4/11/14: ‘L.L's lettres for disarminge of recusantes together with a scedule of their names’.

26 S.P. 12/189/54, 55.

27 S.P. 12/181/69 (28 August 1585). Sir Alexander had been imprisoned in 1581. He lived under surveillance since his marriage into the Dacre family of the North, whose loyalty was suspect. The annual value of his lands in 1580 was recorded as £400 and in that year he was required to furnish four lances, which meant that he was not charged the full amount for which he might have been liable.

28 See Beales, A. C. F., Education under Penalty (1963) p. 83.Google Scholar

29 Woolett was presented again in 1593, when he made the excuse of sickness, ‘but hopeth to be ready when the next [communion] is’.

30 P.R.O., S.P. 12/183/40, 41 (22 October 1585).

31 P.R.O., S.P. 12/185/82.

32 A.P.C, 15, pp. 348, 400; 16, pp. 38-39; S.P. 12/206/15, 16, 19, 40.

33 The episcopal palace of Ely was also taken over for some of the more important recusants such as Sir Alexander. He demanded from Lord North, the Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk, his right to fight the Spaniards but was not allowed. He then contented himself with composing ‘A Note of all such troubles as I, Sir Alexander Colepepper of Bedgeburie, have had for the Catholicke Religion’. Tanner MS 118 ff. 128r.-129r., Bodleian Library.

34 A.P.C., 14, pp. 34, 35 and ibid. 17, pp. 351-353.

35 Lansdowne MSS. Burghley Papers, 55, f. 164, which is transcribed in CR.S. 22, ed. J. H. Pollen (1921).

36 P.R.O., S.P. 12/208/40 (Kent 31 January 1588). A.P.C. 17, p. 383.

37 Lambeth, MSS. Cartae Misc., 4, no. 40.Google Scholar He was allowed to return to his estates 6 October 1592 under the same conditions. See Montague's speech against the royal supremacy in religion in Strype, Annals of the Reformation, (Oxford, 1824), 1, 442.Google Scholar

38 U.115/07/9—11 September 1589.

39 P.R.O., S.P. 12/243/103.

40 Hughes, P. L. and Larkin, J. F., Proclamations, No. 738.Google Scholar

41 The Exchequer began a separate Recusant Roll in 1592, cf. H. Bowler, ed. CR.S. 57, ‘Recusant Roll No. 2’, 1592-3.

42 The passage of the Act through Parliament is fully described in Neale, J. E., op. cit., 2, 280.Google Scholar

43 A.P.C., 25, 513, 26 August 1593.

44 A.P.C., 25, p. 515, 31 December 1593.

45 P.R.O., S.P. 12/247/5, 7 January 1594. This information aided the Council to oust recusants from public office.

46 D.593/S/4/6 (10-20); 14/1-3; 20/20; 22; 29/7; 34/; these documents cover the years 1590-4.

47 D.593/S/4/6/15—a copy of the Council's letter. 19 December 1591; signed by ten Privy Councillors, including Lord Cobham, but his signature is crossed through.

48 D.593/S/3/6; the original of the Commission; the facsimile of the great seal is badly damaged.

49 Item 2 of the articles attached to the above Commission.

50 D.593/S/4/6.

51 Ibid., S/4/6/11, Thomas Scott to Sir John Leveson, 19 February 1591.

52 Ibid., S/4/6/12, ‘Notes on procedures to be adopted as agreed at Rochester’, 22 February 1591-2.

53 Ibid., S/4/10. The examination of Elizabeth Moninge, 19 January 1591.

54 D.593/S/4/6/20. Her husband Edward was also included in the certificate of recusants from the parish of Shoreham in the diocese of Rochester.

55 D.593/S/4/6/19, 20 January 1591-2.

56 D.593/S/4/6/13, 12 March 1591-2.

57 D.593/S/4/6/14, 22 March 1591-2—this letter has Burghley's signature.

58 D.593/S/4/34/1, ‘Certificate of arms taken from Thomas Wotton’, 23 July 1592.

59 For example the list of 10 August 1592. D.593/S/4/22/43v.

60 Kent County Archives, IQM/SB/Z5.

61 D.593/S/4/29/7. Circular letter from the Commissioners to the Constables. The copy of the commission is to be found in D.593/S/4/22/40 v., 23 July 1592.

62 Ibid., the commission; D.593/S/4/6/17, copy of the P.C. letter to the Commissioners.

63 The Leveson correspondence on recusancy for this year is unclassified, but much of it duplicates Privy Council letters as found in the A.P.C.

64 D.593/S/4/34/i, William, Lord Cobham to Sir John Leveson.

65 Ibid., S/4/34/ii, Sir John Leveson to William, Lord Cobham.

66 D.593/S/4/6/16, 11 April 1592.

67 Ibid., S/4/34/iii is a copy dated 23 July 1592.

68 D.593/S/4/34/iv, William, Lord Cobham, to Sir John Leveson, 26 July 1592.

69 D.593/S/4/34/vii, 25 August 1592.

70 Ibid., S/4/22/43r, 3 August 1592.

71 Ibid., S/4/22/43V, 10 August 1592.

72 Ibid., S/4/22/44.

73 Ibid., S/4/22/43v.

74 A.P.C., 23, 106, 108, 7 August 1592; Lambeth MS. 2004, f. 46.

75 A.P.C., 18, 415, 13 March 1590; Lambeth MS. 2008, f.l.

76 D.593/S/4/20/20, John, bishop of Rochester, to William, Lord Cobham.

77 D.593/S/4/34/vi, 24 August 1592, William, Lord Cobham, to Sir J. Leveson.

78 D.593/S/4/6/18, ‘Decrees sett downe by sondrye of the Commissioners for recusantes, touchinge divers recusantes of those partes’. Canterbury, 5 September 1592.

79 D.593/S/4/22/50r. ‘The Certificat of the Commission touchinge Jesuites, recusantes… and what hath ben done by them in the lathes of Sutton at Hone and Ailsford’, 11 September 1592.

80 Yet see 35 Eliz. c.1, where it is stated that no husband could evade the responsibility for the penalties of his recusant wife.

81 D. 593/S/4/22/48r. and v. Report on arms taken from various recusant houses in Kent, 11 September 1592.

82 D.593/S/4/22/48, r. and v., Report of 11 September 1592.

83 A.P.C., 25, p. 515; D.593/S/4/14/1 is a copy of the council's letter to Lord William Cobham, 3 December 1593, endorsed ‘copie of the letters of Her Majestie's most honourable Previe Councell… to certifie what gentlemens’ sons have gon oversea out of Kent under pretence to learne languages this seven yeares’. Another copy (probably made for the East of Kent) is found in U.1115/06/18 (Scott Papers) K.C.A.

84 D.593/S/4/14/1a. This group of letters remains uncatalogued so I have numbered them here a, b, c, etc.

85 Ibid., 4/14/1b. Sir Thomas Scott to Sir John Leveson advising him that copies of the justices’ instructions be also used in this inquiry.

86 Ibid., 4/14/1h, the same to the same.

87 Ibid., 4/14/1d, Thomas Willoughby to Sir John Leveson.

88 Ibid., 4/14/1e, Charles Scott to the same.

89 Ibid., 4/14/lf, George Rivers to the same.

90 D.593/S/4/14/2, William Crowmer to Sir Thomas Scott.

91 D.593/S/4/14/1g, Sir Thomas Scott to Sir John Leveson.

92 Ibid., 4/14/1h, the same to the same, 16 February 1594.

93 Ibid., 14/1 i and j; returns of the parish churches. Soldiers serving abroad are mentioned and some names are marked ‘This man is a good protestant and true subject’ and others ‘This man is said to bee dead’.

94 K.C.A., Scott Papers, U1115/06/17-21.

95 U1115/06/18—K.C.A.

96 Ibid., 06/20.

97 P.R.O. S.P. 12/260/92, 4 November 1596.

98 Sir Alexander Culpepper died on 18 January 1599-1600 and is buried in his parish church, where his son's magnificent monument to him can still be seen. QM/SB/75, 23 September 1595 (K.C.A.): Certificate of the Vicar and Churchwardens of Goudhurst parish church.

99 A.P.C., 28, 167.

100 Ibid., 30, 309-11.

101 Ibid., 29, 392; see also H. R. Trevor-Roper, ‘The Gentry, 1540-1640’, Economic Hist. R. Supplement, for further details on the rise and fall of the Tyrwhitts.

102 Loomie, A. J., ‘A Catholic Petition to the Earl of Essex’, Recusant Hist. 7, No. 1.Google Scholar

103 Cited in Trimble, W., The Catholic Laity in Elizabethan England (Camb. Massachusetts, 1964), 171, from the Cecil Papers, 80/41, 20 June 1600.Google Scholar

104 B.M. Harl. MS. 280, f. 165.

105 K.C.A., QM/SM/30 iii—viii.

106 Egerton, B.M. MS. 860, calendared with an introduction by the present writer in Archaeologia Cantiana, Vol. 82, (1967).Google Scholar

107 Loomie, A. J., ‘A Crypto-Catholic Jacobean, Lord Wotton’, in the Catholic Hist. Review (U.S.A.), Vol. 53, No. 3, 1967.Google Scholar