A HISTORY OF SURREY 



the number of those who were Catholics by birth and habit was greater 

 at the beginning of the reign, active Roman recusancy was partly the 

 effect of deliberate missionary incitement only applied later on. But the 

 missions probably did not take so strong a hold of Surrey as of some 

 counties, though recusants were by no means scarce. 



From 1572 to 1579 120 recusants whose names are preserved 

 were indicted at sessions in Surrey. In 1582 there were thirty- 

 eight persons in prison on account of recusancy in the Marshalsea, five 

 in the Clink, and thirteen in the White Lion in Southwark. 1 These 

 were not all Surrey men, some being from Sussex. In 1585 there were 

 forty in the King's Bench and many in the other prisons, who declared 

 that they had neither ' livings nor goods,' poor men or ruined men. , 



The plight of such was most miserable. At some unknown date 

 the prisoners on account of religion lying in the White Lion, South- 

 wark, petitioned More ' to take some pity upon us your poor and 

 obedient subjackes whiche lye heare in prysson upon your commande- 

 ment, whear that wee are licke to perishe for defayet of Systenauncis yf 

 your wurshipes favourable and marcyfull hand be not streatched fourthe 

 to take some mercy upon vs.' J Poor men often died, sometimes starved, 

 in prison. Those who had goods could compound for their recusancy, 

 though they were in continual danger of suffering from warrants of 

 search to discover lurking priests or forbidden books in their houses, and 

 to arrest on lightly aroused suspicion. In 1581 a return of recusants 

 who were regularly compounding gives the large proportion of sixty- 

 five in Surrey among over 1,100 in England. 3 But probably in some 

 northern and western counties some who would have been on this list 

 had been weeded out by actual rebellion and outlawry, as in 1569 in the 

 north, and some simply evaded the law where authority was weaker than 

 near London. Surrey was a peaceful county and under the close super- 

 vision of the Government. The queen lay too often in Surrey for open 

 recusancy to be allowed there. In 1586 Sir William Catesby of Lam- 

 beth, with an estate of 500 a year, offered 100 a year for relief from 

 further proceedings. John Southcote of Westham, in Surrey, with 160 

 a year, offered 40,* yet in the same year Southcote was in danger of 

 being again indicted. The Lord Admiral would not decide to proceed 

 against him nor to recommend no proceedings, a fact notified to Sir 

 William More as if the decision were to be left to him. 6 An income 

 tax of 20 or 25 per cent, represented what the Council had described to 

 More on February 25, 1586, as her majesty's gracious purpose to 

 relieve the recusants, for an adequate pecuniary consideration in the 

 way of a yearly tribute to her exchequer, of the vexatious operation of 

 the laws against recusants. 8 There was a deliberate purpose to ruin the 



1 Loseley MSS. July ?i, 1582, and July 23, 1582, xii. 52-3. 



* Ibid. v. pt. ii. 42. It is undated. 3 St. P. E/iz. Dom. clvi. 42. 



4 Loseley MSS. March 9, 1585-6, v. pt. ii. 29-33. 6 Ibid. April 27, 1586, v. pt. ii. 35. 



6 Ibid, date cited. It is wrongly dated 1581 in H. MSS. 'Comm. Report. The indulgence is 

 shown because the recusants have furnished light horses for the expedition to the Low Countries, 

 probably on compulsion. See below. 



384 



