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 July 2014
In a recent article, Caroline M. Hibbard noted that recent work on Tudor-Stuart recusancy has focused on the enforcement of royal and statutory policy on the local level and has examined the social composition of the recusant community. These studies have revealed that the recusant community was not dominated by priests, not subject to the political directives of the papacy, and not plotting rebellion. The problem inherent in these local studies, as Professor Hibbard points out, is that they do not explain why the English were anti-Catholic and they do not examine the international character of the English Catholic Community. This article is an attempt to view the recusant problem from the perspective of the monarch and the privy council, because both monarch and privy council were aware of the international character of Catholicism and both stated clearly in their policies toward recusants the grounds of their objection to the Catholic community. An analysis of the recusancy policy established by Elizabeth between 1559 and 1574 reveals that her primary objection to the recusants was not religious but political. The recusants denied a fundamental claim of the monarch: the headship of the church and, therefore, the claim that the monarch was the source of all power within the realm. This article, then, will examine the ways in which she wished to contain a minority who denied her supreme power in the realm and the circumstances which caused the queen and the council to change that policy.
1 Hibbard, Caroline M., “Early Stuart Catholicism,” Journal of Modern History 52 (March, 1980):1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Ibid., pp. 31-34.
3 The only exceptions to these studies analyzing Elizabethan Catholicism seem to be Trimble, William R., The Catholic Laity in Elizabethan England 1558-1603 (Cambridge, Mass., 1964)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and McGrath, Patrick, Papists and Puritans under Elizabeth I (New York, 1967).Google Scholar
4 LaRocca, John J., “English Catholics and the Recusancy Laws 1558-1625: A Study in Religion and Politics” (Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, 1977), pp. 10–12.Google Scholar
5 This statement refers to the general body of Catholics. It does not apply to either the Catholic peers or to those who took part in the Northern Rising.
6 1 and 2 Phil. & Mar. c. 6 and 8. 23 Hen. VIII c. 9 and 20. 24 Hen. VIII c. 12. 25 Hen. VIII c. 19, 20, 21. 26 Hen. VIII c. 14. 28 Hen. VIII c. 16. 32 Hen. VIII c. 38 as amended by 2 and 3 Ed. VI c. 23. 37 Hen. VIII c. 17. 1 Eliz. c. 1 § 7 and 8.
7 The same statements can be made about Puritans. The problem will be dealt with later in this article.
8 1 Eliz. 1. 1 § 10, 11, 12, 13.
9 1 Eliz. c. 1 § 13.
10 1 Eliz. c. 1 § 21.
11 1 Eliz. c. 1 § 5. Upon the third conviction beneficed clergy were imprisoned for a year and lost all of their benefices for life. Unbeneficed clergy upon the third conviction were imprisoned for life.
12 A typical situation in which the queen demanded enforcement of the law is described in MacCaffrey, Wallace, Queen Elizabeth and the Making of Policy, 1572-1588 (Princeton, N.J., 1981), p. 68Google Scholar; and idem., The Shaping of the Elizabethan Regime (Princeton, 1968), p. 109.
13 Allen, John W., A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1928), pp. 178, also pp. 182, 193Google Scholar; Manning, Brian, “The Nobles, the People, and the Constitution,” in Aston, Trevor, ed., Crisis in Europe, 1560-1660 (Garden City, 1967), pp. 263–265Google Scholar; Heal, Felicity, Of Prelates and Princes (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 126–128, 141, 203CrossRefGoogle Scholar notes that the Elizabethan bishops were not appointed under a civil commission. The return to the traditional manner of appointing bishops did not, however, take away from the fact that according to the Act of Supremacy the power to govern the church, i.e., what canon law called jurisdiction, was granted the bishops by the queen.
14 LaRocca, , “Catholics and the Recusancy Laws,” pp. 1–33Google Scholar; Parmiter, Geoffrey de C., “Elizabethan Popish Recusancy in the Inns of Court,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research Special Supplement No. 11 (November, 1976): 6Google Scholar; MacCaffrey, , Queen Elizabeth, pp. 33, 120–122.Google Scholar
15 Calendar of State Papers Spanish, Elizabeth, Vol. 1, ed. Hume, Martin A.S., Public Records Office (London, 1892), pp. 158, 267Google Scholar; SP 12/41/1; Trimble, , The Catholic Laity, p. 22Google Scholar; Calendar of State Papers, Rome, 1558-71, Public Record Office (London), p. 37Google Scholar; Wark, K.R., Elizabethan Recusancy in Cheshire, Chetham Society, English Remains Historical and Literary, Series 3 No. 19 (Manchester, 1973), p. 9Google Scholar; Hughes, Philip, The Reformation in England, 3 vols. (New York, 1954), 3:248, 240, n. 2, 249–252Google Scholar; Bayne, C.G., Anglo-Roman Relations, 1558-65 (Oxford, 1968), pp. 176, 296Google Scholar; MacCaffrey, , The Shaping of the Elizabethan Regime, p. 302Google Scholar; Haigh, Christopher, “The Continuity of Catholicism in the English Reformation,” Past and Present no. 93 (November, 1981):37–69.Google Scholar
16 LaRocca, , “Catholics and the Recusancy Laws,” pp. 10–13Google Scholar; Bossy, John, “Blood and Baptism: Kinship, Community, and Christianity in Western Europe from the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries,” in Sanctity and Secularity: Studies in Church History, Papers read at the Eleventh Summer and Twelfth Winter Meetings of the Ecclesiastical History Society (Oxford, 1973), pp. 134–136, 140, 132–134Google Scholar; Bossy, John, “The Counter Reformation and the People of Catholic Europe,” Past and Present no. 47 (May, 1970): 51–70Google Scholar; Bossy, John, “The Character of Elizabethan Catholicism,” in Aston, , ed., Crisis in Europe, pp. 235, 236, 238.Google Scholar
17 Walker, F.X., “The Implementation of the Elizabethan Statutes Against Recusants 1581-1603” (Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1961), p. 4Google Scholar; LaRocca, , “Catholics and the Recusancy Laws,” p. 16Google Scholar; Trimble, , The Catholic Laity, p. 21.Google Scholar
18 Wark, , Recusancy in Cheshire, p. 5Google Scholar; Parker, Matthew, Correspondance, ed. Bruce, John and Perrowne, T.T., Publications of the Parker Society (London, 1853), p. 222 (probably 1564).Google Scholar
19 SP 12/11/16; Trimble, , The Catholic Laity, p. 16Google Scholar; Haigh, Christopher, Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 211–216Google Scholar; 230-231; 1 Eliz. c. 2, 3; for an example of the deference given to one's betters in society see: Stone, Lawrence, “Patriarchy and Paternalism in Tudor England: The Earl of Arundel and the Peasants' Revolt of 1549,” The Journal of British Studies 13 (Hartford, 1974): 19–24Google Scholar; Bossy, , “The Character of Elizabethan Catholicism,” pp. 239 and 239 n. 15Google Scholar; Wark, , Recusancy in Cheshire, p. 17.Google Scholar
20 For a detailed examination of the process see Price, F.D., “The Abuses of Ecclesiastical Discipline under Elizabeth,” English Historical Review 57 (January, 1942): 106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anglin, Jay P., “The Essex Puritan Movement and the ‘Bawdy’ Courts, 1577-1594,” in Slavin, A.J., ed., Tudor Men and Institutions (Baton Rouge, 1972), pp. 171–204Google Scholar; Kitching, Christopher, “The Prerogative Court of Canterbury from Warham to Whitgift,” in O'Day, Rosemary and Heal, Felicity, eds., Continuity and Change: Personnel and Administration of the Church in England 1500-1642 (Leicester, 1976), pp. 191–214Google Scholar; Stephen Lander, “Church Courts and the Reformation in the Diocese of Chichester, 1500-58,” in ibid., pp. 215-238; Ralph Haulbrooke, “The Decline of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction under the Tudors,” in ibid., pp. 239-258.
21 Wark, , Recusancy in Cheshire p. 5Google Scholar; Dickens, A.G., “The First Stages of Romanist Recusancy in Yorkshire, 1560-1590,” The Yorkshire Archeological Journal 35 (1942): p. 158Google Scholar. The comperta and detecta for the diocese of Lincoln for the reigns of both Elizabeth and James I listed only the infamous recusants. In all other cases the churchwardens simply responded “omnia bene” to the questions concerning absence from the parish church.
22 SP 15/11/23; Trimble, , The Catholic Laity, p. 11.Google Scholar
23 Gleason, J.H., The Justices of the Peace in England 1558-1640 (Oxford, 1969), p. 71Google Scholar; Haigh, , Reformation, p. 213.Google Scholar
24 Smith, A. Hassell, “The Personnel of the Commission of the Peace 1554-1564: A Reconsideration,” Huntingdon Library Quarterly 22 (1959): 309–310Google Scholar. Gleason, John H., “The Personnel of the Commission of the Peace, 1554-1564,” Huntingdon Library Quarterly 18 (1955): 171, 176–177Google Scholar. A. Hassell Smith wrote his article to challenge Gleason's conclusions. Smith examined Norfolk, Sussex, and Northampton. He concluded that there was evidence that a purge of the commission took place between 1554-1564. He does not, however, demonstrate that a purge took place, and, that if it did, the determining factor was religion. He admits that most of the changes which took place were due to a change in patronage with the arrival of a new set of courtiers.
25 Parmiter, G. de C., Elizabethan Popish Recusancy, pp. 3–5Google Scholar; Smith, A. Hassell, “Commission of Peace,” pp. 309–310Google Scholar; Manning, Roger B., “Catholics and Local Office Holding in Elizabethan Sussex,” The Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 35 (1962): 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacCaffrey, , Queen Elizabeth, p. 124Google Scholar; Haigh, , Reformation, p. 213Google Scholar. An examination of the replies of the bishops to the privy council circular asking them to rate the religious preferences of the justices of the peace is revealing. The replies are in Bateson, Mary, Collection of the Original Letters from the Bishops to the Privy Council 1564, with the Returns of the Justices of the Peace and Others Classified According to Religious Conviction, Camden Society Misc. 9 (1893)Google Scholar. If the reports contained in Bateson for the counties around London are correct, then it would only be possible to say that a purge of the justices had taken place if one also said that the privy council was either uninformed about notorious recusants in the London area or that the council left them in office. See: Trimble, , The Catholic Laity, p. 30Google Scholar; Bateson, , Letters from the Bishops, for Middlesex (p. 60)Google Scholar, for Herts., (p. 61), and for Essex (pp. 62-63). In 1564 Essex had 21 favorable justices, 5 unfavorable, 5 neutral, and three whose sincerity was doubtful. Herts, had 9 favorable, 4 unfavorable, and 2 neutral. Middlesex had 2 unfavorable, 2 neutral, and 1 unknown.
26 Historical Manuscripts Commission, Salisbury Manuscripts, Vol. 1, p. 163Google Scholar; Beales, A.C.F., Education under Penalty: English Catholic Education 1574-1689 (London, 1963), p. 29 n. 1.Google Scholar
27 Beales, p. 36.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid., pp. 36-37.
30 SP 12/46/44 - 1 March 1586; Cai S.P. Span., Elizabeth, ii 22 10 April 1568, 135 12 March 1569Google Scholar; i 686-687 1 December 1567, 689 1 December 1567, 689-690 21 December 1567, 690 29 December 1567, 686 1 December 1567; ii 26 24 April 1568, 80 25 October 1568. SP 12/48/26, 26.1, 24, 25; Acts of the Privy Council of England, 1558-1570, Dasent, J.R., ed., H.M. Stationery Office (London, 1893), p. 142 (22 April 1564)Google Scholar, p. 168 (23 Nov. 1564), p. 222 (22 June 1565), p. 242 (16 Aug. 1565), p. 247 (19 Aug. 1565); Trimble, , The Catholic Laity, p. 38.Google Scholar
31 APC, 1558-1570, p. 17 (27 March 1565), pp. 49-50 (3 July 1568); SP 12/47/7 - 8 July 1568.
32 Parmiter, G. de C., Elizabethan Popish Recusancy, p. 9.Google Scholar
32 Dickens, , “The First Stages of Romanist Recusancy,” p. 96Google Scholar; Trimble, , The Catholic Laity, p. 43Google Scholar; SP 15/12/68.2. Those arrested were Sir Thomas Metham, Sir William Babthorpe, Sir John Neville, Sir William Mallerie, William Hussey, and Peter Vavasour; SP 15/12/79; Leys, D.M., Catholicism in England, 1559-1829 (London 1961), p. 6.Google Scholar
34 SP 12/46/32.
35 SP 12/48/36.1.
36 SP 12/48/35; SP 15/14/123; SP 15/12/68.
37 LaRocca, , “Catholics and the Recusancy Laws,” pp. 10–12Google Scholar. An investigation of the visitation articles from this period indicates that church officials were interested only in the survival of Roman practice and not in being reconciled to Rome or in reconciling to Rome.
38 Trimble, , The Catholic Laity, p. 52–55.Google Scholar
39 Ibid., p. 52 n. 157.
40 Ibid., pp. 53-54; SP 12/59/37, 37.2, 46; SP 12/60/62, 62.2, 62.3, 47, 47.2, 39, 39.2.
41 Parmiter, G. De C., Elizabethan Popish Recusancy, pp. 9–17.Google Scholar
42 These canons can be found in Cardwell, Edward, Synodalia, 1 (Oxford, 1842; reprinted Ridgewood, New Jersey, 1968), pp. 122–128Google Scholar. There is disagreement over the effect of the canons in curbing recusancy. In Gee, Henry and Hardy, W.J., eds. Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London, 1896), p. 476Google Scholar, the editors stated their belief that since Elizabeth did not sign the canons they were meaningless. Beales, (Education under Penalty, pp. 37–38)Google Scholar thought that they were the key for repression resulting from more uniform articles of inquiry for visitations. This reveals that Beales did not have any acquaintance with the effect of the Royal Articles, especially the Royal Articles of 1559, and those issued by the Metropolitan in producing uniformity of policy. Beales also exaggerated the strength of the church if he could see it as the key to repression. Cardwell seems to be more balanced. He places these canons in a class with Parker's Advertisement of 1566. Elizabeth had refused to sign these, too, but she expected her bishops to enforce them; but their success depended on the cooperation of local officials. To see these canons, therefore, as the key to repression is to read too much into them (ibid., p. 38).
43 Cardwell, , Synodalia, 1, p. 128Google Scholar: “Hoc autem loco primariam nobilitatem honoris causa excipimus.”
44 SP 15/17/64, 64.1.
45 Hughes, Philip, Reformation in England, 3: 418–421Google Scholar; Neale, John E., Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments 1559-1581 (New York, 1958), pp. 191–207, 212.Google Scholar
46 13 Eliz. c. 3.
47 APC 1570-1574, pp. 218, 253, 264, 283, 320, 327, 339, 367, 373.
48 APC 1570-1574, p. 327.
49 APC 1570-1574, p. 271.
50 SP 15/17/64.
51 SP 15/21/111.
52 SP 12/75/95; another example of the ability to circumvent the recusancy statutes was the ability of Edmund Campion to allow Robert Parsons to take his degree without taking the oath (see, Hughes, , Reformation in England, 3: 62 n. 1).Google Scholar
53 McGrath, , Puritans and Papists, pp. 117, 176–81, 193–94.Google Scholar
54 Loades, D.M., Politics and the Nation (London, 1974), p. 290Google Scholar, and The Oxford Martyrs (New York, 1970), pp. 37–101, 234–275Google Scholar; Haigh, , “Continuity of Catholicism,” p. 301Google Scholar; Neale, J.E., Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1584-1601, (New York, 1958), p. 287Google Scholar; Loomie, Albert J. S.J., “Toleration and Diplomacy,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 53, Pt. 6(Philadelphia, 1963), p. 5 and n.2Google Scholar; McCaffrey, , The Shaping of the Elizabethan Regieme pp. 53–59, 108–109, 298–304Google Scholar; idem., Queen Elizabeth, p. 68.
55 Walker, , “Implementation of Elizabethan Statutes,” p. 2.Google Scholar
