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: 11 October 2016
A familiar theme in Parliamentary agitation from the 1580s onwards was the demand that, in the interests of national security, those Catholics owning weapons and armour should be dispossessed of all but a few of them until they conformed in religion. They were to be left only with sufficient swords, daggers, brown bills and pike-staves to defend their homes and families. Confiscated arms not already sold to an approved buyer had still to be shown at musters; but one of the marks of gentility was no longer assured to recusants accustomed, in Sir Thomas Tresham’s words, ‘daily [to] go armed with weapons as a badge of… vocation.’
1 I am grateful to Dr. Gerald Aylmer for his helpful comments on a draft of this paper.
2 H.M.C. Various Collections 3, p 56.
3 SP 12/185/82 (undated, but of 27 April 1585), 179/46; H.M.C. Fourth Report, p. 330; B.L., Harleian 6035, f. 57; Roman Catholicism in Elizabethan and Jacobean Staffordshire, ed. A. G. Petti (1979), p. 15. The inconsistencies likely to result may be seen by comparing the treatment of Sir George Shirley in 1613 with that of his son, then high sheriff, in 1625: SP 78/61, f. 103; SP 16/10/ 54; T. Birch, The Court and Times of James I I(2v., 1849) 2, p. 256. See also Acts of the Privy Council [hereafter APQ 1589–90, p. 406.
4 King and Council thought disarming inappropriate on the eve of the first Bishops’ War; the recusant peers were among those summoned, armed, to the King at York: SP 16/407/26. See also Caroline Hibbard, Charles I and the Popish Plot (1983), chaps 5 and 6; Western, J. R., The English Militia in the Eighteenth Century (1968), pp. 69, 71, 81.Google Scholar
5 APC 1588, p. 38; APC 1588–9, p. 406; APC 1592, p. 40; APC 1592–3, p. 12; H.M.C., Rutland MSS 1, pp. 300–3; H.M.C. Calendar of Talbot Papers 2, pp. 171, 314, 315; Petti, Staffs, pp. 56–8. Disarming could nevertheless be prompted by a warrant from Quarter Sessions or from four J.P.s: Dalton, M., Countrey Justice (1619), p. 94 Google Scholar.
6 SP 12/60/92, 107; Lodge, E., Illustrations of British History (3v., 1791) 3, p. 85 Google Scholar; APC 1596–7, p. 294; B.L. Add. MS 11402, ff. 72–73v.
7 By 3 James I c. 5, ss. 16 and 17.
8 Proceedings in Parliament 1610 ed. E. R. Foster (2v., 1966) 1, p. 91; 2, p. 118; Stuart Royal Proclamations 1, ed. J. L. Larkin and P. L. Hughes (1973), p. 245, no. 111.
9 Bodleian Library [hereafter Bodl.] MS Firth c. 4, pp. 551, 553, 555; SP 14/77/85, 78/4.
10 SP 14/119/101–3, 132/84, 171/22, 27, 28, 42, 68; The Fortescue Papers ed. S. R. Gardiner (Camden Society, 1871), pp. 155–6; Commons Journal 2, p. 674; Lords Journal 3, pp. 298, 317; Dodd’s Church History of England, ed. M. A. Tierney [hereafter Tierney], (5v., 1839–43) 5, p. cccxlv; Earl of Strafford’s Letters and Despatches, ed. W. Knowler, (2v., 1739) 1, pp. 222–3
11 See e.g. the seventeen-point resolutions of the bench of judges early in James I’s reign in B.L. Add. 61481, f. 41.
12 H.M.C. Hastings MSS 4, p. 230.
13 Recusant Roll No. 2 (1593–4) ed. H. Bowler (C.R.S., 1965), pp. xxiii, xxviii; 29 Elizabeth I. c 6. 2 (1587). See also SP 16/478/78.
14 H.M.C. Hastings 4, pp. 322–4; Commons Debates 1621, ed. W. Notestein et al (7v., 1935) 7, pp. 55–61; Debates in the House of Commons in 1625, ed. S. R. Gardiner (Camden Society, 1873), p. 26; P.R.O., SP 16/478/78.
15 James I made no secret of his dependence on fines for his ‘needy servants’; SP 14/67/71; Rose, E., Cases of Conscience (1977), p. 68 Google Scholar; Hibbard, C., ‘Early Stuart Catholicism: Revisions and Re-Revisions’, Journal of Modern History 52 (1980), pp. 20–21 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a list of potential financial benefits from recusancy laws, see B.L. Add. 61481, f. 31, and for a book of forfeitures 1606–11, B.L. Add. 34765.
16 This Commons bill had enjoyed enthusiastic backing in the Lords: H.M.C. House of Lords MSS: Addenda 1514–1714, pp. 21–22. The description of informers is by George Heneage in a letter to Sir Thomas Brudenell in 1625: B.L. Add. 61481, f. 28.
17 Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and her Parliaments 1584–1601 (1957), p. 99 Google Scholar; APC 1586–7, p. 8; SP 12/186/81–3; and for compositions see e.g. SP 12/187/45, 48. Presented to Catholic gentry as a reward for loyally providing horse for service against Spain in the Low Countries. Replaced in 1587 by a new statute (29 Eliz. I c. 6), bolstering that of 1581 (23 Eliz. I c. 1) and providing for the forfeitures of two-thirds of obstinate recusants’ estates.
18 APC 1592, pp. 40–42; ‘The Hastings Journal of the Parliament of 1621,’ ed. de Villiers, E. in Camden Miscellany 20 (1953), p. 18 Google Scholar. John Whistler claimed in the Commons on 9 November 1640 that ‘all such recusants as had compounded with the King had an exemplification under the Great Seal to be free from excommunication and search’: The Journal of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, ed. W Notestein (1923), p. 17n; see also p. 468.
19 Gardiner, S. R., History of England 1603–1642 (10v., 1890 edn) 3, pp. 346–7 Google Scholar; SP 14/132/84, 177/ 11, 37, 39; B.L. Add. 35832, f. 149. Early in his reign James had written firmly in defence of the legislation of 1606; but the presence on both sides of English volunteers during the Dutch defence of Bergen-op-Zoom against Spinola in 1622 seemed, perhaps unfairly, to symbolise his later indecision. See The Political Works of James I ed. C. H. McIlwain (1965 edn), pp. 71–168; Zaller, R., The Parliament of 1621 (1971), p. 166 Google Scholar; Anstruther, G., Vaux of Harrowden (1953), pp. 432–6.Google Scholar
20 H.M.C. Downshire MSS 4, pp. 14, 23; Tierney 5, p 146n quoting in extenso from Stonyhurst MS Anglia A. 3, no. 119. The Oath was introduced by 3 James I c. 4, ss. 8, 9 and extended by 7 James Ic. 6. Parliament in 1610 wanted the Oath to be put to all suspects, and James himself charged the judges with enforcing it, Hilary 1612. The laity, unlike priests, were often able to accept it as an act of civil obedience. See Larkin, and Hughes, , Stuart Royal Proclamations 1, p. 264, Google Scholar no. 118; Foster, Parliament of 1610, 1, p. 119; Bodl. MS Firth c. 4, p. 550; SP 14/68/67; Hibbard, ‘Catholicism’, pp. 28–9.
21 Spain and the Jacobean Catholics, ed. A. J. Loomie (2v., C.R.S. 1973, 1978), 1, p. 115; 2, pp. 10–11; H.M.C. Downshire 4, pp. 14–39; SP 14/70/52; Tierney 4, p. 146n; Larkin, and Hughes, , Stuart Royal Proclamations 1, p. 284 Google Scholar, no. 126; Bodl. MS Firth c. 4, p. 39; H.M.C. Buccleuch (Montagu House) MSS 1, pp. 115–8, 125; 3, p. 159.
22 Coke was riding the Midland circuit for the first time. H.M.C. Buccleuch 1, p. 224, 3, pp. 156, 159; Cope, E. S., The Life of a Public Man (1981), pp. 42, 60–1 Google Scholar; The Montagu Musters Book 1602–1623, ed. Joan Wake (1935), pp. 227, 228; Shiels, W. J., The Puritans in the Diocese of Peterborough 1558–1610 (1979), p. 104.Google Scholar
23 Bodl. MS Firth c. 4, p. 553; Petti, Staffs, p. 58; Sir Henry Whithed’s Letter Bok ed. E. Cottrill (1976), 1, pp. 101–2.
24 APC 1625–6, pp.188–226. According to 3 James I c. 4 s. 1, communion should have been taken at least once a year.
25 As e.g. on the Western circuit, 1 March 1613: Cottrill, , Whithed Letter Book 1, pp. 103–6.Google Scholar
26 As e.g. in 1621: Notestein, , Commons Debates 1621, 2, pp. 276, 458–60 Google Scholar; Zaller, Parliament of 1621, pp. 131–3.
27 H.M.C. Hastings 4, p. 14; Notes of the Debates in the House of Lords, 1624 and 1626, ed. S. R. Gardiner (Camden Society 1879), p. 56; Ruigh, R. E., The Parliament of 1624 (1971), pp. 238–50, esp. p. 244Google Scholar.
28 Lords Journal 3, pp. 394–6 for 1624; John, Rushworth, Historical Collections (1659) 1, pp. 391–6 Google Scholar, for 1626; H.M.C. Portland MSS 1, pp. 1–2, for 1628.
29 Gardiner, , Debates in the Lords 1624 and 1626, pp. 99, 100.Google Scholar
30 Commons Journal 1, pp. 691, 703; H.M.C. Hodgkin, p. 42.
31 Stuart Royal Proclamations 2, ed. J. L. Larkin (1983), p. 736, no. 315; Commons Journal 2, pp. 153, 162, 165, 171, 216, 261, 267, 277; Lords Journal 4, pp. 299, 302, 306, 316, 369, 370, 384–7; B.L. Harl. 163, f. 47; ‘Sir Roger Twysden’s Journal, Archaeologia Cantiana 1 (1858), pp. 188–91; The Private Journals of the Long Parliament, ed. W. H. Coates et al (1982), pp. 282–9; Anthony, Fletcher, The Outbreak of the English Civil War (1981), pp. 60, 74, 76–7, 211, 247–8, 410.Google Scholar
32 e.g. Petti, Staffs p. 15.
33 The Council’s letter to all lords lieutenants of 21 July 1592 is instructive in this respect: APC 1592, p. 40.
34 Cottrill, , Whithed Letter Book 1, pp. 98–99 Google Scholar; Wake, Montagu Musters Book, pp. 224–6; APC 1619–21, p. 11. See also H.M.C. Downshire 4, pp. 27, 28, 31.
35 Petti, Staffs, p. 31; APC 1626, pp. 73–4; H.M.C. Tenth Report Appx 6 (Braye MSS) p. 113.
36 As Buckingham also maintained: SP 94/33, f. 164; cf. P.R.O. 31/4/9, f. 65. For the English govnerment’s changing attitude towards France, see Cogswell, T., ‘Foreign Policy and Parliament: the Case of La Rochelle 1625–6’, English Historical Review 99 (1984), pp. 241–67, esp. pp. 244–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 APC 1625–6, pp. 122–3, 172; SP 16/4/92, 126, 131; 7/43, 65, 72; 8/31, 32, 34; SP 84/129, f. 137; Roger, Lockyer, Buckingham (1981), pp. 255–75 Google Scholar. So busy were the deputy lieutenants that those in Suffolk left disarming to the JPs, when it came: B.L. Add. 39245, f. 92v.
38 After a series of reports from Warwick, who urged disarming as part of the defensive preparations, Conway assured him on 13 September 1625 that it would be put ‘presently’ in hand: SP 16/14/214, p. 229; SP 16/6/41, 44, 57, 60, 88. See also Havran, M. J., The Catholics in Caroline England (1962), p. 29.Google Scholar
39 SP 16/7/3 (c. 1 October), 7/2 (2 October). Conway, in passing the 2 October letter to his Hants deputies, nevertheless referred to these ‘so particular directions’, perhaps out of habit: B.L. Add. 21922, f. 35. See also Collins, A., Letters and Memorials of State (2v., 1746) 2, p. 362.Google Scholar
40 APC 1625–6, p. 188; SP 84/129, f. 137; SP 16/7/20.
41 SP 16/8/45; APC 1625–6,, p. 226.
42 SP 16/8/11.
43 APC 1625–6, pp. 227, 228.
44 SP 16/522/51 and 5li, undated but c. 15 November 1625.
45 Knightley was shaken to be pricked sheriff the same day: B.L. Harl. 1580, ff. 342–3; H.M.C. Buccleuch 1, pp. 261–2; H.M.C. Cowper MSS 2, p. 235; B.L. Harl. 389, f. 498; SP 16/9/18; Calendar of State Papers Venetian 1625–6, p. 231. For Charles’s earlier disapproval of Vaux, see Loomie, A. J., ‘Gondomar’s selection of English officers, 1622’, EHR 88 (1973), p. 578.Google Scholar
46 SP 16/10/7; SP 14/214, p. 236.
47 The first recipient was the Bishop of Rochester on 30 November; Teynham, whom he was to disarm, lived outside his diocese, but he acted nevertheless: SP 16/11/56.
48 Brian, Magee, The English Recusants (1938), pp. 124–33 Google Scholar; G. E. C [ockayne], The Complete Peerage (12v., 1910–40) 11, p. 717; H.M.C. Var. Coll. 2, p. 312,
49 SP 14/161/36, SP 16/10/23, 11/35, 33/37. The Marquess’s arms were taken to the Bishop’s Wolvesey Hall nearby; they were mostly antiquated brown bills and calivers: B.L. Add. 21922, ff. 40V–41; SP 16/23/104.In 1627 his son hoped to sell them, now rusting, to help with the forced loan; either he or his father got them back, or acquired others, in time for further confiscation in 1641: SP 16/59/9; The Journal of Sir Simonds D’Ewes, ed. W. H. Coates (1942), pp. 68, 102.
50 SP 16/11/60, 61; 12/40.
51 Letters and Papers of the Verney Family, ed. J. Bruce (Camden Society 1853), p. 120; SP 16/9/ 20, 10/4i. The Bucks deputies were primarily searching for a priest, rumoured to be at Robert Throckmorton’s house at Weston Underwood.
52 SP 16/11/52, 12/71; H.M.C. Cowper 1, p. 242.
53 SP 16/8/75, 12/30. In 1626 the Council recommended deputies to buy confiscated arms for use by untrained men; in Norfolk they preferred their recusants to continue to maintain such arms and have sound Protestants show them at musters: APC 1626, pp. 73–4; State Papers relating to Musters, ed. W. Rye (1907), p. 29.
54 SP 16/10/21.
55 SP 16/9/51, SP 39/18/87.
56 Reports may be found in SP 16/7–12 and 18, passim. Those for Lanes are in SP 16/8/92 and Lancashire Record Office, DDN 1/64, ff. 9v–10v, 13v–14; Northumberland in SP 16/10/4i, 64; Hants in SP 16/7/59, 12/30; Monmouth and Glamorgan in SP 16/12/74, 18/51. Morton’s comment is in SP 16/18/74. For indications of activity elsewhere, see Bodl. MS Firth c. 4, pp. 200–1; B.L. Harl. 6850, f. 130; H.M.C., Cowper 1, 227.
57 SP 16/11/57. Clifford too was acting out of his own jurisdiction here. Eure’s arms at Scarborough, strategically more important, were overlooked: H.M.C. Fourth Report, p. 6. For arms missed in Notts, see H.M.C. Portland 2, p. 120; SP 16/57/34, 91/26. Salvetti took the view that ‘The Catholics gave no arms of any importance;… the disarmament does not proceed from any real alarm but from a desire to gratify the populace’: H.M.C. Skrine (Salvetti) MSS, p. 37.
58 B.L. Add. 12496, f. 41; SP 16/25/59. He went with the King to greet Henrietta Maria at Canterbury: SP 16/59/9.
59 Essex Record Office, D/Y 2/7, pp. 271, 275, 277, 281, 283; SP 16/12/34. Darcy established his conformity at Essex’s Midsummer sessions 1626, and before the year was out had been created Earl Rivers and acted as one of the Council’s surveyors of Warwick’s incomplete coastal refortifications; he did not get his arms back until 1633: E.R.O. Q/SR 254/75; SP 39/19/14; P.R.O. PC 2/43, p. 337; Bodl. MS Firth c. 4, pp. 251–2. On Savage, SP 16/8/1.
60 He was also created a baron, in February 1628. See B.L. Add. 61481, ff. 18, 19; Joan, Wake, The Brudenells of Deene (1953), p. 120.Google Scholar
61 SP 16/12/5; Rushworth, , Historical Collections 1, p. 394.Google Scholar Covell was named in the 1626 list.
62 Tillbrook, M. J., ‘Aspects of the Government and Society of County Durham, 1558–1642’ (unpub. Liverpool Ph.D. thesis, 1981), p. 208n.Google Scholar Conyers was named in the 1624 list. Neilc was doubtless influenced by the King’s close interest in this disarming.
63 SP 16/521/103. Tichborne was the uncle of Weston, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
64 Only 14 of the 58 listed in 1624 appear to have been disarmed, seven of them peers. The others were drawn from Lanes (3), Hants and Northumberland (2 each); in addition Conyers surrendered his own arms. In that list Eure alone is categorically described as a convicted recusant; cf. Magee, English Recusants, pp. 138–149.
65 H.M.C. Skrine, p. 37; SP 16/412/141. See also SP 16/412/117, 129; 413/25.
66 For bishops’ pleas to the Council on arms care, see SP 16/75/18, 389/77. See also SP 16/11/26, 294/69, 296/20, 361/12, 368/42, 413/17; P.R.O. PC 2/44, p. 537, 2/48, pp. 244–5, 307; 2/50, pp. 104–5.
67 P.R.O. PC 2/49, p. 607: Council meeting, with King present, 16 December 1638. See also the Council’s request to the Earl of Exeter, March 1636, for a report on his county’s confiscated arms, held by the borough of Northampton, allegedly ‘spoiled or embezzled to the loss not only of the owners… but to the prejudice… of this kingdom’: P.R.O. PC 2/46, p. 64.