DATE OF THE COMMISSION

75

introduced was, according to its preamble, aimed against "such as are enemies to our State and adherents of the Pope, yet as finally passed it expressly excluded Papists from its operation. The twelfth article of 35 Eliz. c. I runs-"Provided also that no Papist recusant or Femme coverte shall be compelled to abjure by reason of this act."2 It is clear then, from the very wording of the Act, not only that it does not intend to include Papists in its operation, but that it expressly and distinctly excludes them. How then can Mr. Carter ascribe to the operation of this Act "the Warwickshire Recusancy-returns, in which no denomination but those of Papists is named."

Thirdly, as regards its date, the Act in question, entitled, "An Act to retain the Queen's (Majesty) subjects to their due obedience," was the first act of the thirty-fifth year of Elizabeth. The Parliament which passed it only sat three months, from February 19, 1592, till April 10, 1593.3 On the other hand, the return of the Commissioners for Warwickshire is dated in the heading "25 September, in the thirtyfourth year of her Majesty's most happy reign," or 1592. We must therefore leave Mr. Carter to explain how the Warwickshire Commissioners were appointed by an Act of Parliament passed five months after they

1 D. Ewes, "Journal of Parliament," 500 (1682).

2 The statutes at large from Edward IV. to end of Elizabeth, ii. 671, ed. 1770.

3 Ibid., p. 671.

had sent in their return. He has failed to realise that as, according to the old style, the year 1592 began on 25th March, September 1592 was four months earlier than February of the same year, which ended March 24.1

What then was in reality the origin and purpose of the Warwickshire Commission?

In October 1591 Elizabeth, in reality alarmed at the conversions effected by the missionaries from abroad, but avowedly to frustrate another apprehended attack by Spain, issued a proclamation stating the traitorous intrigues on hand, and directing the appointment of Commissioners for each shire. These Commissioners were charged to inquire of all persons as to their attendance at church, their receiving of seminarists, priests, and Jesuits, their devotion to the Pope or King of Spain, and to give information as to suspicious change of residence.2

In accordance with this proclamation Commissioners were appointed, and we find notices of their appointment and documents relating to the Commission for the following counties: Durham,3 Oxford, Hampshire, Surrey and Dorsetshire, Kent, Middlesex, Surrey, Bucks, and Durham, " for adding to Commission," Notts, Salop, Norfolk, Cambridge,

1 The old style prevailed in English history up to September 2, 1752 (De Morgan, "Book of Almanacks," Introd., ix.).

2 Dom. Eliz., ccxl. 42, October 18, 1591.

3 Ibid., 66, November 1591.

5 Ibid., 82, December 1591.

4 Ibid., 70, November 1591.

6 Ibid., 84, December 1591.

7 Dom. Eliz., ccxli. 17, January 1592.

SEARCH FOR PAPISTS

77

Herts, and the Isle of Ely,1 East, West, and North Ridings of Yorkshire, Northumberland-renewed,2 Cheshire, Lancashire.3

The State Papers, Dom. Eliz. ccxl., ccxli., ccxliii., and the Hist. MS. Com. Salisbury, P. IV., show clearly that during the year November 1591-November 1592, the country was sifted and searched for the discovery of Papists. One list of names in nineteen counties* contains 570 names, entirely of laymen, and includes nearly all the old Catholic families of those counties. In some counties more than one Commission was held. This was the case in Warwickshire. The return before us is entitled "The second certificate of the Commissioners, &c." Of the first certificate no trace is as yet apparent. At the head of the second Commission are Sir Thomas Lucy and Sir Fulke Greville, both active persecutors of the Papists, and the lineal descendants of those very men whom we have seen in 1557 imprisoning Robert Cotton for defending the ancient faith.

The document, in modernised spelling, runs as follows:-" The second certificate of the Commissioners for the county of Warwickshire touching all persons . . . as either have been presented to them, or have been otherwise found out by the endeavour of the said Commissioners to be Jesuits,

1 Dom. Eliz., ccxli. 40, February 1592.

* Ibid., 89, March 1592.

3 Hist. MSS. Com. Salisbury, Part IV. p. 240, October 1592; Dom. Eliz., ccxliii. 52, November 1592.

Hist. MSS. Com. Salisbury, Part IV. p. 263–275, October 1592.

seminary priests, fugitives, or recusants, within the said County of Warwick, or vehemently suspected to be such, together with a true note of so many of them as are already indicted for their obstinate and wilful persisting in their recusancy. Set down at Warwick the 25th day of September in the 34th year of her Majesty's most happy reign, and sent up to the lordships of her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council."

It is divided into five lists. The first list contains the names of those who have been indicted for persisting in their recusancy. Among these obstinate recusants are Dinmock, a relation of the Catesbys, and champion of England, the whole family of Middlemore of Edgbaston (here we have the father, mother, two sons, and two daughters all indicted); Mountfort of Coleshall, the place frequented by the Martyr Monford Scott; Bolt and Gower of Tamworth; Thomas Bates, steward to Sir William Catesby of Bushwood Park in Stratford parish, who with his son John was afterwards compromised with Robert Catesby in the Gunpowder Plot; Richard Dibdale of Stratford, who had been formerly presented for a wilful recusant, and "continues still obstinate in his recusancy"-probably a relation of Richard Dibdale, the martyr, hanged for his priesthood in 1586. Other obstinate Papists of Stratford were Mrs. Jeffreys and Richard Jones. There is a long catalogue from Rowington. At Coughton, Mrs. Mary

LISTS OF RECUSANTS

79

Arden, the widow of the martyred squire of Parkhall, with her servants "continues obstinate." At Exhall we meet with one William Page, who had not been to church for three months past at least. A whole batch of Huddesfords and others from Solyhill are dismissed on submitting to the articles of the Commission and their declaration that they neither had been moved to give aid to the King of Spain or the Pope. In this list several persons are noted as having become recusants since the last presentment, a fact which shows the revival of the Faith in Warwickshire during the months immediately preceding this second Commission. The second list contains the names "C of such dangerous and seditious Papists and recusants as have been presented to us, or found out by our endeavour to have been at any time of, or in the county of Warwickshire, and are now either beyond the seas or vagrants within the realm." This list contains chiefly the names of priests: "William Brooks, thought to be a seditious seminary priest, sometime servant to Campion in the Tower. His friends give him out to be dead, but it is thought that he is lurking in England." "Barlow, an old priest and great persuader, who uses to travel in a blue coat with the eagle and child on his sleeve," as retainer to the Stanleys; another, "suspected to be a lewd seditious Papist, wanders about under colour of tricking out arms in churches." At Stratford there was George Cook, suspected to be