A HISTORY OF HAMPSHIRE 



penalty of 20 a month was to be imposed on all absenting themselves 

 from church, and such as could not pay the fine within three months of 

 the judgment were to be imprisoned till they conformed. The Crown, 

 by further legislation, had also the power of seizing two-thirds of the 

 offender's land and all his goods in default of payment, nor were the 

 penalties of these acts mere paper enactments. In Hampshire at all 

 events they were from time to time most rigidly enforced. The Recu- 

 sant Rolls at the Public Record Office begin in 1590; the roll for that 

 year shows that the tenants of various properties in the county had paid 

 two-thirds of their rents to Crown collectors because their owners were 

 recusants and had not paid their fines. The case of Richard Warnford 

 is an example. He was in arrears for his non-churchgoing fines to the 

 extent of jf 1,540. The property of Gilbert Wells of Bambridge, near 

 Twyford, had been farmed for a like reason to a Crown-appointed tenant 

 as far back as 1571. Other instances of the loss of two-thirds of their 

 rental are Thomas Poundes (who spent nearly three years of his life in 

 prison) of Beaumont, Farlington ; Anthony Uvedale (the hereditary 

 keeper of Winchester gaol) of Woodcote, near Alresford ; Edward 

 Bannister of the manors of Idsworth and Bannisters Court ; and Stephen 

 Vachell of Heath House, Buriton. 



The record of the same year (1590) of those who paid the 20 a 

 month fine is a long one. The first is George Cotton of Warblington, 

 who paid 260, at the rate it will be noted of lunar months. A 

 large number paid 140 f r seven months' recusancy, and another 

 group 80 for four months. When it is recollected what the pur- 

 chasing power of a penny was at the end of Elizabeth's reign, it is 

 marvellous that so many gentlemen and yeomen were able to pay it. 

 The fines it is true, save in the two-third cases imposed on all big 

 estates, were not collected regularly year by year, but somewhat fitfully. 

 The recusant roll of the second year of James I. yields the names of 500 

 Hampshire offenders who owed 120 f r not appearing at church for 

 six months. The list includes not only yeomen, but millers, tailors, 

 husbandmen, shoemakers, blacksmiths, fishermen and labourers, as well 

 as widows and spinsters. It is absolutely impossible that more than a 

 small percentage of these could have paid so great a sum, but their 

 being entered on the roll made them convicted recusants. The next 

 step was for the Crown officials to distrain on their goods and chattels 

 for the amount of their fines. These poor folk were then often sold up : 

 farm or trade implements, hayricks, furniture, and their very houses. 

 Even in cases where pity prevailed to some extent they had to continue 

 their work or business under the depressing weight of knowing that 

 their goods could be seized at any moment by the Crown officials or by 

 the authorized farmers of the recusant fines. Sometimes the more 

 wealthy managed to pay the enormous fine regularly year by year. Thus 

 Abbot Gasquet, who has thoroughly analysed the Hampshire rolls, has 

 shown that George Cotton of Warblington actually paid 20 a year 

 from 1587 to 1607, handing over therefore to the Crown in twenty 



86 



