ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 



in the Temple and prisoner in the Fleet, is recorded 23 June, 1585.^'® In 

 February, 1586, letters were forwarded to special commissioners in various 

 counties, including Dorset, to enforce a regular assessment of fines for 

 recusancy.^" In December, 1591, a commission of inquiry was issued for 

 Jesuits and seminary priests in Dorset, and the following year it was 

 renewed for the purpose of adding to the commission.''*^ In spite of the 

 increasing severity of the penalties inflicted on recusants, it seems evident that 

 their numbers were largely increasing. The first Recusancy roll under Eliza- 

 beth, 1 59 1— 2, gives eighty-six names, and indicates pretty clearly the chief 

 centres of Catholic sentiment : Hampreston, the neighbourhood of Wimborne, 

 Corfe, Canford, Swanage, and above all Chideock. where the forfeitures of 

 Charles Sturton of Chideock, gent., Dorothea Arundel, Cecilia Arundel, 

 Gertrude Arundel, Elizabeth Chernock, and John Chernock are followed by 

 those of twenty-five retainers, members of the household and tenants.^'*' A 

 list on I October, 1598, of certain recusants finedjri5 each towards the Irish 

 Light Horse gives the names of Lady Sturton, Charles Sturton, esq., Mr. Martin 

 of Athelhampton, Henry Cary of Hamworthy, and Mr. Slade of Mawston 

 (Mansion), gent."*" The names of most frequent, and in some cases continual, 

 recurrence in the recusancy rolls of the whole of Elizabeth and early part of 

 James I are those of William Gerard of Clerkenwell, who forfeited two parts 

 of the manor of Broadway, William Morecock of Nether Kincombe, Gregory 

 Durdo of Iwerne Minster, Henry Yunge of Wimborne, Henry Cary of Ham- 

 worthy, the Stourtons, the Arundels, the Wells, the Lockyers, the Loapes 

 or Loopes of Hampreston, the Martins of Athelhampton, the Goulds of 

 Cranborne and Edmondsham.''" The State Papers of James I, under date of 

 23 December, 1607, record the grant to Lawrence Marbury of the benefit of 

 the recusancy of Elizabeth Wells of Dorset,"^ on 10 January, 1608, the 

 grant of the benefit of the recusancy of Mary Gerard, widow ; ^" on 

 20 July, 1609, came an order to inquire into the goods of Anne Turber- 

 ville of Dorset the benefit of whose recusancy was granted to Sir John 

 Cowper.*** 



The chief source of anxiety to the authorities was the position that 

 Catholicism was able to take up in Dorset owing to the support it con- 

 tinued to receive from some of the oldest and most influential families in the 

 county. The chief centre of Catholic leaning in the sixteenth century was 

 at Chideock, the residence of the Arundel family,-*^ who like the Webbs of 

 Canford, and the Welds of Lulworth, remained faithful to the Royalist cause 

 during the later rebellion."" Most of the Popish priests executed during that 



836 



239 



Cal S.P. Dom. 1581-90, p. 247. '" Jets ofP.C. (New Ser.), 1586-7, pp. 15, 16. 



Cal. S.P. Dom. 1 591-4, pp. 137, 212. 



Recus. R. 34 Eliz. Exch. L.T.R. (Pipe OfF. Ser.). In 1586 a note of the names of the wives and 

 widows ' who are most obstinate recusants in the county of Bedford ' records the name of Elizabeth Char- 

 nock, daughter of Sir John Arundel and wife of John Charnock. Ca/. S.P. Dom. 1581-90, p. 376. 



™ Jcti ofP.C. (New Ser.), 1598-9, p. 203. "' Recus. R. Exch. L.T.R. (Pipe Off. Ser), 1-14. 



'" Cal. S.P. Dom. 1603-10, p. 395. »" Ibid. "" Ibid. 530. 



"' Chideock came into the hands of the Arundel family in the reign of Henry VII by the marriage of 

 Katherine Chideock, youngest daughter of Sir John Chideock and last of the family, to Sir John Arundel, of 

 Lanherne (Foley, Rec. of Engl. Province of S.J. iii, 426). 



"* Chideock Castle fell alternately into the hands of the Royalist and Parliamentary party during the Civil 

 War. According to Hutchins {Hist.of Dorset.u, 259) it was at last taken in 1645 by the Parliamentary forces 

 quartered at Lyme, and in the same year thirteen owners of small tenements, whereof seven were recusants, had 

 their estates sequestered, doubtless as a punishment for their loyal defence of the house. 



31 



