 The Blockhouses of Kingston Upon Hull |
DRIFFIELD AND WOLDS GENEALOGY |
|
|
Trade Directories Parish Registers Driffield Parish Church Baptisms 1836-1850 (incomplete) A - L Driffield Parish Church Baptisms 1836-1850 (incomplete) M - Z Flamborough Marriages by Banns 1754-1779 North Burton (Burton Fleming) Parish Registers Wesleyan Baptisms 1837-1867 A-H only Monumental Inscriptions North Frodingham & North Dalton Cemetery MIs BMD Announcements &c from the Driffield Times Religion List of Priors etc of Monastic Establishments on the Yorkshire Wolds Driffield Congregational Church Primitive Methodism on the Yorkshire Wolds Religious Meeting Houses Licenced 1708-1808 WW1 Soldiers who died in WW1 with a connection to Driffield WW2 Social History History of the Driffield Post Office Trevor Malkin on the Driffield Railway Biographies &c They left Nafferton in 1863 - Where are they now? Some Old Driffield Schoolmasters Thomas Saulsbury Wright- one of yours? Miscellaneous Useful links & Online family trees
|
THE BLOCKHOUSES OF KINGSTON-UPON-HULL AND WHO WENT THERE From the 1913 original by JOSEPH H. HIRST INTRODUCTION The Catholics of the North of England, and especially of York, Durham, Lancaster, and Ripon, have kept alive in various ways the memory of those noble-hearted and resolute Catholics who suffered fines, imprisonment, torture, and death for the sake of their religion during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In York the annual pilgrimage to Tyburn, and in other towns to the places where the martyrs suffered death for conscience sake has aroused a pious interest amongst their descendants, and a tradition has arisen which keeps them in honourable remembrance. It is true that Hull was not the actual scene of any Catholic execution, but it was, at any rate, the place of imprisonment of many of those who were taken from its Castle and Blockhouses to suffer death elsewhere. When the Tyburns of London and York began to claim their victims, Hull became notorious for strictness and severity, and for the utter discomfort and hardship meted out by its jailers to Catholic prisoners under the Penal Laws. Many Catholics died of starvation and ill-usage in the Hull Castle and Blockhouses, martyrs for the Faith, who, not being publicly executed, were soon forgotten. In order to make the Catholics of England better acquainted with the history of the prisoners who were confined in the Castle and, especially in the Blockhouses of Hull, for their staunch adherence to the Faith of their fathers, is the principal object of this book. To others who can admire firm adherence to principle and the patient endurance of suffering for justice sake or to those who take an interest in the records of the past, it is hoped that this book will appeal. The Penal Laws are well known by name and in general terms, but the actual details of what they made punishable and of what those punishments consisted, are known but to a few. This book will give full details and precise information on these points, and make one appreciate the strong Faith of our forefathers, who could patiently endure such tyranny. Some will say, “Why stir up the painful memory of these cruelties?” Why should we not? Are we ashamed to confess the same Faith as these confessors and martyrs of Christ? History, written with a purpose, may ignore them and make light of the Penal Laws, or, hiding behind a legal technicality, may boldly assert that these persons suffered justly, as they were traitors according to law. To make known the injustice of such laws, and to show that the persecution was directed against the adherents of the old religion of England who were loyal to the Holy See of Rome and to its supremacy in all things spiritual, is a further object of this book. When Henry VIII, being thwarted by the Pope in his lustful desire to divorce his lawful wife, had caused himself to be declared by Parliament Supreme Head of the Church in England, the country was taken by surprise, and was astounded at such an unheard of assumption and scarce knew what to think or how to act. Bishop Fisher and Lord Chancellor More, more clear-sighted, refused to admit that any such spiritual supremacy could be vested in the King by mere Act of Parliament, and for this denial they suffered death. Thence onwards for a century and a half – except for a short respite in Queen Mary’s reign – the storm of persecution raged against those who courageously thought and acted as Fisher and More. The names of many such have been preserved or recovered by diligent search in the public records, local histories, lists of prisoners, and similar documents. Eighteen years ago Mr Joseph H. Hirst, M.S.A., the writer of this book, came into possession of a copy of an old plan of the Castle and Blockhouses of Hull, and in looking further into the history of these buildings, an occasional reference was found to certain “popish recusants” who had been confined therein. In local histories of Hull their prisoners are practically unnoticed and so for this reason, together with the fact at least one of his ancestors had been executed, and several others brought to beggary for adherence to the old religion, he undertook the task of gathering together all the information he could find regarding the prisoners in Hull, and he has made it indeed a labour of love. This attempt to permanently place on record the names and some particulars of the lives, together with some extracts from the letters of the Catholics who were imprisoned for their religion under the Penal Laws in the Blockhouses of Hull, should prove interesting reading to the Catholics who now live in this city and neighbourhood. FRANCIS J. HALL St Charles’ Rectory, Hull. (1913) THE BLOCKHOUSES OF KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CHAPTER I THE BUILDING OF THE CASTLE AND BLOCKHOUSES King Henry VIII visited Hull on the 1st October, 1540, and made an inspection of the fortifications, which then existed on the north, west, and south sides of the town. With these walls, gates, and moats Henry expressed himself satisfied, but he determined that adequate means of defence should be constructed on the east or harbour side. Orders were therefore issued for the immediate erection of a Castle and two Blockhouses, and the King himself appears to have taken a particular interest in the details of the work. In the original document, giving instructions for “the advancement of the work,” several corrections are made in Henry’s own hand, his particular instructions being that the buildings should be made “mighty strong.” No time was lost after these commands, for within four months of the King’s visit, i.e., on the 22nd February, 1541, the foundations were laid. The stone and other materials from the nave of St Mary’s Church, Lowgate (which fell in 1518 owing to defective foundations), were used in the construction of the Castle, and Blockhouses, as were also the materials from the tower of the same church (pulled down in 1540 by order of King Henry), together with the materials from the Blackfriary, the Whitefriary, and the Carthusian Priory in Hull, and the Cistercian Priory of Swine in Holderness, all of which extensive and magnificent building had been previously suppressed and confiscated. Three centuries afterwards, when Henry’s buildings were being taken down, large quantities of these old materials again came to light. Some of the stone was re-used at St Peter’s School, Drypool, and at other buildings then in progress. During the demolition of the Castle and Blockhouses, several sculptured and inscribed stones were collected and subsequently put together, and built in the form of a monument, which still remains near the pathway of St Mary’s Church, Sculcoates. Upon these stones may be seen the following fragmentary inscriptions, which indicate that many of the slabs have originally been grave covers removed from one or other of the religious houses of Hull, where they had once marked the resting place of some prior or illustrious brother: -
Little did these friars think when erecting their religious houses in Hull that the very stones wherewith their friaries had been constructed, nay, even their own grave covers, would one day form part of the walls and dungeons in which were to be imprisoned and tortured innocent men and women professing the Faith which the friars themselves had done so much to preserve. Henry’s fortifications were erected east of and parallel to the River Hull. The North Blockhouse occupied a site a little south-east of the present North Bridge. The Castle was built midway between the two Blockhouses. All three buildings were connected by a moat and an embattled wall extending northwards from the Humber for a distance of about three-quarters of a mile. The Castle comprised an inner and an outer building. The keep or inner building was of three stories, and measured sixty-six feet in length and fifty feet in width. There were two rooms or dungeons on each floor, with walls eight feet in thickness. The keep was surrounded by an extensive courtyard, which in turn was enclosed by the outer Castle. This latter was of two stories, and measured 174 feet square, with projecting rooms or dungeons on the east and west sides. A vaulted corridor encircled the building within the thickness of the walls. The only entrance, five feet six inches in width, looked towards the south. The walls of the Castle were nineteen feet in thickness. The Blockhouses were planned as a trefoil, and resembled a club on an ordinary playing card. The entrance was arranged in the square or flat part of the structure, and communicated with an open courtyard thirty-seven feet square giving access to three projecting dungeons. The Blockhouses were of two stories, with walls fifteen feet in thickness. Circular staircases of stone built within the walls provided means of communication between the upper and lower floors of both the Castle and Blockhouses. To repeat the story of the Castle and Blockhouses, when used as a means of defence, is unnecessary. That story has been well told and retold by local historians. There have been wars, sieges, lawsuits, royal warrants and plots enough to give the buildings an air of romance, while the following collection of scattered records enshroud the grim buildings in tragic gloom. For a considerable period the Castle and Blockhouses were used as prisons for Catholics convicted under the Penal Laws, where they endured unlimited iniquities and horrors, imposed by the most inhuman of keepers. Light and ventilation there were none, neither were the ordinary conveniences and necessities of life provided. At spring tides many of the floors were flooded, and the number of prisoners who died there is positively appalling. For food, and indeed, for everything, they were entirely at the mercy of their keepers, who charged the most exorbitant rates for the vilest fare, and when any complained there were the irons and screws to enforce silence and submission. During three long centuries the Castle and Blockhouses survived many vicissitudes, serving at different times the purposes of a fortress and a prison. The buildings, however, have long since ceased to exist. They have vanished utterly, and their sites have been converted to the commercial requirements of a bustling seaport. The present generation knows them only by repute. The North Blockhouse was taken down in 1801, the South Blockhouse was sold and demolished in 1863, and the Castle was sold for building purposes and removed in 1864. CHAPTER II CHANGING THE RELIGION OF ENGLAND Hadley in his History of Kingston-upon-Hull, says that “Henry VIII died on the 27th January, 1547, leaving behind him a memorial of perfidy, bigotry, rapacity, profusion of cruelty, contradiction, violence and lust. A rare character indeed for the man who is supposed by many to have re-formed religion in England. His efforts to change the religious belief of the English people also included the “reforming” of the buildings. This he most effectively carried out, as witness the numberless ruined priories and abbeys, scattered throughout the length and breadth of the land. Not content with dismantling the buildings, he carried his work of reformation to such an extent that many grand old piles were completely razed and their sites obliterated. Of these the Blackfriary the Whitefriary, and the Carthusian Priory are a few of the buildings which until Henry’s time charmed with their quaint architecture the stranger who visited picturesque old town of Hull. Of these once magnificent buildings nothing now remains. “Having existed for more than three centuries under different forms, in poverty and in wealth, in meanness and in magnificence, in misfortune and in success, they finally succumbed to the Royal will. The day came – and that a drear winter day – when their last Mass was sung, their last censer waved, their last congregation bent in wrapt and lowly adoration before the Altar there; and doubtless as the last tones of that day’s evensong died away in the vaulted roof, there were not wanting those who lingered in the solemn stillness of the old massive piles, and who, as the lights disappeared one by one, which could never be filled, because their old Friaries, with their beautiful services, their frequent means of grace, their hospitality to strangers, and their loving care for God’s poor, had passed away like an early morning dream and they were gone for ever.” A well-known historian has had the courage to remark that it was not the good, but the goods of the Church which gave Henry so much concern, and the original accounts of the Treasurer of the Court of Augmentation, which are still kept in the Public Record Office, confirm his opinion. The cash received by Henry VIII, as the result of the dissolution of the monasteries, is shewn to be between fourteen and fifteen million pounds sterling in present money value. By the fall of the monasteries there was also transferred from the Church and poor to the Royal purse a yearly income of more than two million pounds sterling. But these enormous sums did not nearly represent the whole of the spoils. The officials selected by the King for the work of demolition were men after his own heart, and subsequent inquiries by Henry and by Elizabeth revealed that these officers appropriated vast sums of money to their own use. These officials, who were men of exceedingly questionable character, had evidently concluded that they were as much entitled to the monastic spoils as Henry himself was. The King’s dishonest actions with regard to the religious houses at length exasperated the people to such an extent that they rose up in open violence, and England was on the eve of civil war. According to State papers it is evident that the English people most strenuously objected to the re-forming of their religious belief. The numbers of those who took up arms against the King in the neighbourhood of Hull is incredible. In Lincolnshire, sixty thousand; in Hull and the East Riding, twenty thousand; in Beverley and district, nine thousand; at Doncaster, eight thousand; at Pontefract five thousand; and at Durham twelve thousand mounted knights and esquires in complete armour. The significance of these numbers will be better realised when compared with the population of the town of Hull, which at that period was four thousand three hundred. These vast armies were led by men of immense popularity, including the Earl of Westmorland, Lord Darcy, Sir Robert Constable, Lord Lumley, Lord Latimer, and Robert Aske, barrister, of Augton, near Howden. “So general was the uprising that the clash of the alarm bells from the villages on the Yorkshire side of the Humber went pealing across the water, and the warning lights leaping from hill to hill, and from church to church were seen shooting towards the sky; all Yorkshire was in motion. The fishermen on the North Sea saw the lights flickering in the darkness from Spurn to Scarborough and from thence to Berwick-upon-Tweed. They streamed westward, over the long marshes, across Spalding Moor, up the Ouse and the Wharf, to the watershed whence the rivers flow into the Irish Sea. The mountains of Westmorland sent on the message to Kendal, to Cockermouth, to Penrith, to Carlisle: and for days and nights there was one loud storm of bells and blaze of beacons, from the Trent to the Cheviot Hills.” Henry was mighty alarmed and dare not meet the people in open battle. Their over whelming numbers caused him the greatest anxiety, but, true to his character, he adopted a course which for dishonesty and ferocity has no parallel in the annals of history. He arranged a conference with the leaders to discuss the cause of the people’s disaffection, and he made such excellent proposals and promises that the leaders accepted his word as an ultimate and satisfactory settlement of their grievances. They immediately conveyed the good news to their followers, and the assembled armies, trusting to the honour of the King, returned to their homes. Henry, meanwhile, had no intention of carrying out his promises, for no sooner had the insurgents dispersed than he caused martial law to be proclaimed in all the northern counties. In order to strike terror into the hearts of the people the King’s orders to his commander in the north were most complete. “Our pleasure is that before you shall close up our said banner again, you shall in any wise cause such dreadful execution to be done upon a good number of the inhabitants of every town, village, and hamlet, as have offended in this rebellion, as well by, the hanging them up in trees as by the quartering of them, and the setting of their heads and quarters in every town, great and small, and in all such other places as they may be a fearful spectacle to all others hereafter that would practise any like matter, which we require you to do without pity, or respect, according to our former letters.” Those directions were implicitly obeyed, and the North Country was converted into a veritable shambles. The towns on the banks of the Tweed, the Tyne, the Tees, the Don and the Trent were rendered loathsome with the ghastly heads and reeking members of the people who had taken part in what is known as the Pilgrimage of Grace. Amongst those who suffered locally may be named John Hallam, Thomas Walters, and John Proude, all of whom were leaders at Hull. They were all three hanged on a gallows which stood outside the town walls, and which occupied a position a little to the west of the De la Pole statue in King Edward Street. All the other leaders shared a similar fate. Lord Darcy was beheaded on Tower Hill, London. Robert Aske was executed in the Pavement at York, and afterwards hanged in chains on Heworth Moor. Sir Robert Constable was executed at Hull, and his body hanged in chains on a high gibbet above Beverley Gate, which was then the principal entrance to the town. His death is thus described in a letter written to the Lord Privy Seal dated July 8th, 1537: - “On Frydaye, beying Market daye at Hull, Sir Robert constable suffred, and dothe hang in cheynes, as this berer can shewe you, and I think his boones woll hang there this hundrethe yere.” CHAPTER III THE PENAL LAWS English historians omit to place on record the many details connected with the coercing of men’s consciences which took place after the re-forming of religious belief by King Henry VIII. Although the State documents (preserved in the Public Record Office) covering this most interesting period are easy of access, few people have even the remotest idea of the iniquity of what are known as the Penal Laws. The general impression gained by the reading of history is that Mary Tudor was the only sovereign who interfered with the religious belief of the people, and that always in a most sanguinary manner. The great trait of English character is that of fairness, and a desire to hear both sides, but how can a correct idea of the social condition of the people be gained when historians purposely omit half the facts? The reading of unbiased documents should convince the most prejudiced mind that Mary has been a much libelled Queen. Marks, in his history of Tyburn, gives the number of persons executed there during five reigns, and sums up the figures thus: Henry VIII, 9,940; Edward VI, 3,360; Mary, 1400; Elizabeth, 6,610; James I, 3,080. With regard to the local executions, the Rev John Tickell, a clergyman of the Established Church, in his well-known History of Hull, says that “it does not appear that any person was executed in this town either for treason or religion during all Mary’s reign.” Henry, having proclaimed himself Head of the English Church, left to his successors the task of compelling their subjects to abandon the old religion and to adopt the new. The people, however, did not readily embrace the new form of belief, with the result that a long series of Acts was passed which had for their object the forcing of unwilling people into the newly-established Church, and although they remained true to their lifelong convictions, they were speedily converted into lawbreakers and criminals. This was accomplished by the imposition of laws the like of which are unknown. To really understand these Acts, and to properly appreciate the sufferings of the prisoners whose biographies are recorded in the following pages, some attention must be given to a resumé of the Penal Laws. These enactments, which were passed with the object of exterminating all Englishmen who professed to be Catholics, are not at all nice reading, hence in school histories they are dismissed with the barest reference or altogether ignored. Yet for a period of over two hundred and seventy years the statutes against Catholics were in operation. It was not until 1829, upon the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act, that most of the Penal Laws were repealed, and England has now almost forgotten, if she ever really knew, the tragic story of the Penal times. The Acts particularly relating to Recusants were passed in the reigns of Elizabeth, James I, and Charles I, and it is quite clear that, having possessed themselves of the estates and revenues of the Church, their sole object was the total suppression of Catholicism. But before considering the statutes, it may be necessary to explain the term Recusant. Popish Recusants, therefore, were Catholics who refused to attend the new religious worship prescribed by the Act of uniformity. After being once convicted they were referred to as Popish Recusants Convict. From the year 1533 many Acts were passed which had for their object the abolition of Catholic worship. It may be said, however, that the first Penal Statute was passed in 1558. This Act required ministers to carry out all the Services as directed by the Book of Common Prayer. Penalty for non-compliance: - First offence, six moths’ imprisonment and a fine of one year’s income; second offence, deprivation of office and one year’s imprisonment; third offence, imprisonment for life. This Act also required all persons to attend the Established Church on Sundays under fines for every offence. A futher Act provided that all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical power should remain with the sovereign. It prohibited the maintaining or defending of the Spiritual Authority of the Pope. Penalties: - First offence, forfeiture of all personal property; second offence, forfeiture of all property and imprisonment; third offence, death. An Act of 1562 prohibited the writing, ciphering, printing, preaching, or teaching any defence of the Spiritual Authority of the Pope. Penalty: - First offence, forfeiture of goods and imprisonment for life; second offence, death. This Act also provided that for refusing to take the oath of the Sovereign’s Supremacy in matters of religious belief within twelve months, the penalty was: - For the first offence, forfeiture of all goods and imprisonment for life, and for the second offence, death. An Act of 1570 prohibited the bringing into the realm of any religious emblem, picture, cross, bead, etc., or offering the same to any person. Penalty: - First offence, forfeiture of property, and second, imprisonment for life. A further Act prohibited the absolution or reconciliation of any person to the Catholic Faith, the promising of any person to the Catholic Faith, the promising to reconcile any person, or being absolved or reconciled. Penalty, death. An Act of 1580 prohibited the absolution, persuasion, or withdrawal of any persons from the Established religion of any persons from the Established religion to the Catholic religion, or to move any person within the dominions, to promise spiritual obedience to the Pope. Penalty, death. A further Act prohibited the saying or singing of Mass. Penalty, fine of 100 marks and imprisonment for twelve months. A further Act prohibited the keeping of any schoolmaster who did not attend the Established Church. Penalty, fine of £10. The schoolmaster himself to be imprisoned for twelve months. An Act of 1584 prohibited priests or ecclesiastical persons coming into or remaining in the realm. Penalty, death. This Act also provided that all laymen educated in a Catholic college or school abroad should return and take the oath of the sovereign’s supremacy in religious matters within six months. Penalty, death. A further Act prohibited a Catholic sending relief directly or indirectly to any Catholic college or school abroad, or to any person of or in the same. Penalty, forfeiture of all property and imprisonment for life. The ordinances of the Lords and Commons of the years 1643-1652 appointed sequestrators who were empowered to seize two-thirds of all the estates of every Catholic, or which any person had in trust or for the use of any Catholic. For the carrying out of these seizures the following were deemed to be Catholics: - Any person who should harbour a priest; any person who should hear Mass; any person whose child or grandchild, or anyone living in the house with him under tuition in the Catholic faith, and any person of the age of 21 who refused to take the oath abjuring the Catholic religion. The sequestrators were empowered to examine upon oath any person as to the property or whereabouts of Catholics. They could call in any assistance they thought fit, and the assistants were to be paid one shilling in the pound of all lands, moneys or goods discovered. They were to have the protection of both Houses of Parliament, and to be esteemed as persons who did service to the Commonwealth. They were authorised to break open, either day or night, all locks, bolts, bars, doors, or other strength, when money or goods were upon probable grounds suspected to be concealed, and seize the same. The instructions to sequestrators were very clear, and were contained in thirteen articles. It will suffice to give an example of one. “You are to seize two parts of the estate both real and personal of all Papists, and you are to understand by two parts of Papists’ estates, two of the whole lands, and two of the goods, into three to be divided.” Austin, an eye-witness of the sequestrations, says: - “When the sequestrators have thus seized unto their hands two-thirds of the most innocent Recusants’ lands and goods, then come the excisemen, tax-gatherers, and other collectors, and pinch away no small part of the poor third penny that was left them; so that after these deductions, I have known some estates of three hundred pounds a year reduced to less than threescore, a lean pittance to maintain them and their children, being persons for the most part of good quality and civil education. And as for priests, it is made as great a crime to have taken orders after the rites of their Church as to have committed the most heinous treason that can be imagined, and they are far more cruelly punished than those who murder their own parents. Beside these extreme and fatal penalties that lie upon the Recusants merely for their conscience, there are many other afflictions whereof few take notice, which, though of lesser weight, yet being added to the former, quite sink them down to the bottom of sorrow and perplexity, as their continual fear of having their houses broke open and searched by pursuivants, who enter at what hours they please, and do what there they list, taking away not only all the instruments of their religion, but oftentimes money, plate, watches, and other such Popish idols, especially if they be found in the same room with any pictures, and so infected with a relative superstition.” An Act of 1627 prohibited the sending of any child or person abroad to any Catholic University, college, school, or private house to be educated. It also prohibited any money being sent for the maintenance of any child or person. Penalty: - First offence, Catholics were rendered unable to sue at law, or be executor, etc, for any person or to bear office within the realm or during their lifetime; second offence, forfeiture of all their property. An Act of 1661 prohibited the appointing to any position under a Corporation of any person who had not taken the Sacrament according to the rites of the Established Church of England within one year of their appointment. An Act of 1662 prohibited any assembly or meeting under colour or pretence of religion in any other manner than that of the Established Church of England, where there were five or more persons present in addition to those of the household. Penalty: First offence, five shillings; second offence, ten shillings. The preacher was also fined, for the first offence, £20; for the second offence, £40. Penalty on persons allowing religious meetings in their houses or barns, £200. An Act of 1672 insisted that schoolmasters in private families should obtain permission from the Protestant Bishop, and that they should conform to the Established Church of England. Penalty: - First offence, three months’ imprisonment; second and subsequent offences, two months’ imprisonment and a fine of £5. An Act of 1673 prohibited any person holding office or place of trust, civil or military, or to be admitted to the household of the King or Duke of York, who had not taken the Sacrament according to the usage of the Established Church of England and who had not made a written declaration of disbelief in Catholic doctrine. An Act of 1678 prohibited any Peer or Member of Parliament sitting or voting without first taking the Oath of the Spiritual Supremacy of the Sovereign and making a declaration against Catholic doctrine. Penalty, £500. In 1679 a Parliamentary Order was issued for the ejectment of all Catholics from the College of Physicians. An Act of 1683 prohibited the keeping of a school without the licence of a Protestant Bishop. Penalty, £2 per day. There was a similar penalty for acting as schoolmaster without the same licence. A further Act prohibited parents or Guardians sending children to any school abroad. Penalty, £100. The child so sent was unable to succeed to any real or personal estate whatsoever in England. An Act of 1685 prohibited the importation, the printing, selling, or bringing of any Catholic book of any kind, printed or written in any language. Penalty, £2 for every book, and all such books were to be burnt. A further Act prohibited the acceptance of service abroad without having taken the Oath of the Sovereign’s Spiritual Supremacy. Offenders were treated as felons and punished as such. No person was permitted to serve any foreign prince unless he became bound in sureties in the sum of at least £20 that he would not become a Catholic. A further Act prohibited any persons absolving, persuading, or withdrawing others, or themselves persuaded or withdrawn, either upon the seas or beyond the seas. Penalty, death. Another Act prohibited any child being baptized other than according to the rites of the Established Church of England, and that within a month of birth. Penalty, £100. If the child died within the month the fine was still imposed. This Act also prohibited the burial of any Catholic anywhere but in the churchyard and according to the rites of the Established Church of England. Penalty, £20. A further Act compelled every widow, once convicted of being a Catholic, to conform to the Established Church of England, and to receive the Sacrament within one year of her husband’s death. Penalty, forfeiture of two-thirds of her jointure and two-thirds of her dower during her lifetime, and all share in her husband’s goods and chattels. A married woman who had once been convicted of being a Catholic was also compelled to conform to the Established Church of England and take the Sacrament within three months of her first conviction. Penalty, imprisonment until she did conform. The husband, however, could pay £10 per month, or yield a third of his property, so long as he kept her at liberty. A further Act prohibited a Catholic being a witness, an administrator, a surety, an attorney, a procurator for any person, or an executor, and it denied him Christian burial. He could not be a lawyer or physician, or accept any public office, either in person or by deputy. The Protestant husband of a woman once convicted of being a Catholic came under the same law, if his children above nine years of age or his servants did not conform to the Established Church of England. Catholics under sixteen years of age who had once been convicted as such, were to repair their usual place of abode, and not moved more than five miles therefrom, without a written licence from the Sovereign or three Privy Councillors, or four local Justices, with the Bishop, Lord Lieutenant, or Deputy Lieutenant. Within twenty days of his return he was to report himself to the Protestant chaplain of the parish, and the Town Constable, who would notify the matter in the records. Penalty for moving more than five miles, or failing to report return, forfeiture of all possessions. If these did not exceed £20, and the offender did not conform to the Established Church of England within three months, he was to abjure the realm and depart out of it, at once. The penalty for not leaving the country was death. Another Act prevented any Catholic presenting to any living, benefice, or prebend, or to nominate to any free school, hospital, etc., or to grant the assurance of any living, benefice, etc. His rights in these matters were handed over the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. A further Act prohibited any person, once convicted of being a Catholic, entering Court, or any house where the King or his heir might be present, unless commanded by the King himself. Penalty, £100. Again an Act compelled Catholics to pay to the King £20 and two-thirds of all his lands, leases and farms. If a Catholic did conform to the Established Church, but did not take the Sacrament at the Parish Church within twelve months, he was fined £20 for the first year, £40 for the second year, and £60 for each succeeding year until he did receive the Sacrament. Every person who had under his roof any servant or stranger who did not attend the Parish Church was fined £10 and a like sum for every month they were absent. The Act of 1689 prohibited any Catholic entering or remaining in the presence of the King or Queen, or holding any place of trust, civil or military, or to sit or vote in either of the Houses of Parliament, to sue or take any action at law, or to be guardian, executor, or administrator, legatee, or donee. Penalty, £500. Any person once convicted of being a Catholic was forbidden to remain within ten miles of London after ten days of his trial. Penalty, £100. All arms, armour, and ammunition found in the houses of Catholics could be taken by warrant. Any two Justices and the Mayor, Bailiffs, etc., could search houses of Catholics and deface or burn any altar, pix, pictures or other religious object. All books, crucifixes, or relics were to be defaced at the Quarter Sessions. An Act of 1689 empowered any two Justices to enter the houses of Catholics and seize any arms or ammunition and any horse above the value of £10, for the King’s use. If there were any concealment the penalty was three months’ imprisonment and a fine of treble the value of the goods. Under an Act of 1689 Justices could require any person found attending any religious meeting to subscribe to a declaration against Catholic belief, and also to take the Oath of the Sovereign’s Supremacy in religious matters. A further Act provided that in case the sovereign became a Catholic, or married a Catholic, the crown was to pass to the next Protestant heir. An Act of 1695-6 prohibited Catholics entering the professions of cousellor-at-law, barrister, attorney, solicitor, or notary. This Act also provided that persons refusing to take the Oath of the Sovereign’s Supremacy in religious matters should suffer as Popish Recusants Convict, and it prohibited them voting at the election of Members of Parliament. An Act or 1699 imposed “over and above the good laws already made,” imprisonment for life upon any bishop or priest saying Mass, or performing any office of a Catholic Bishop or priest within the realm. A Catholic was prohibited opening a school, or assuming the education of a youth. Penalty, perpetual imprisonment. A Catholic who had not taken the Oath of the King’s Supremacy in religious matters within six months of his eighteenth birthday could not inherit by descent any lands or property. Penalty, all lands or property to pass directly to the next-of-kin being a Protestant. Catholics were also incapable either in their own or any other name, of purchasing lands, houses, or property. An Act of 1714 granted to the King all lands, buildings, money, goods, etc., given or bequeathed to religious houses, colleges, or for the education of youth in Great Britain or elsewhere, or to any other Catholic use. An Act of 1716 provided that sales by Catholics to Protestants might be good unless some person entitled to enter by previous statute had already asserted his claim. Looking backward over the events of the Penal times there does not appear to be any evidence that the people joined the Established Church from conviction. On the contrary, whoever went to the Parish Churches did so out of fear and because they were coerced into attending. They had no cause to disagree with the old Faith, and they certainly did not welcome the new. This fact has always been recognised on the Continent. In England we are beginning to realise it. CHAPTER IV THE SUFFERING OF RECUSANTS After passing the Acts involving heavy penalties it only remained for the Government to find willing officials to carry the law into effect. Twenty pounds were offered, under a Royal Proclamation, for the arrest of a priest, and one hundred pounds for the arrest of a Jesuit. Such tempting offers as these induced large numbers of persons of both sexes to engage themselves in the role of priest-hunters. These pursuivants were of infamous character, and their new profession suited them admirably, for they positively revelled in the work of bringing their fellow-countrymen to the gallows. Not content with the large rewards to be obtained, the priest-hunters offered to restore their prisoners at liberty for a monetary consideration, and if at times they were successful in extorting money, they did not hesitate to re-arrest the unfortunate priests whom they had just released. This, of course, entitled the priest-hunter to claim his legal reward as well. It is inconceivable that any Government would hang men on the unsupported evidence of such pursuivants. Hatton was a common thief, Newham a convicted highwayman, Dingley an outlawed bankrupt, Bedam a deprived parson, and Dales a notorious murderer. Yet these were the men to whom the State looked for assistance in establishing the new religion. They were good men for the purpose, and they did their work well. Documents at the Public Record Office shew that Humphrey Cross claimed £50 per head for eight priests, which he stated he had caught in one day. John Grey claimed the rewards in respect of thirty-two priests whom he caused to be arrested. Francis Newton claimed for twenty-nine priests, while James Wadsworth, Francis Newton, Thomas Mayo, and Robert Luke, who formed themselves into a company for the purpose, made a claim for thirty-eight priests captured. The Francis Newton mentioned was of scandalous life and behaviour. Having arrested Father Morse, he offered to restore him to liberty for £5. He at the same time threatened to arrest Francis Smith as a priest unless he gave him £5. Newton, however, over-reached himself and a petition was presented against him for unlawful practices. Whether Elizabeth paid all these claims for priest-hunting is doubtful, knowing her as we do. Atkinson, the Hull priest-hunter, did not get the reward he claimed. Reeves (whose efforts resulted in the hanging, drawing and quartering of Father Postgate, a priest of 79 years of age) never got the £20 he expected, which so preyed upon his mind that he shortly afterwards drowned himself in a shallow ditch. The names of Elizabeth’s priest-hunters are legion. Eglesfield, Ewbank, Topcliffe, Pollard, Collier, Rollinson, Reynold, Cadwell, Scarcroft, with hosts of others. So great, in fact, was the army that in the search for Father Haywood the Privy Council engaged six hundred pursuivants. Father Haywood was ultimately captured upon the information of a female priest-hunter. The pursuivants, urged on by the promise of money, did not spare any pains in their efforts to arrest priests. They inquired into and searched every conceivable place. They forced an entrance into every house they pleased, sometimes almost demolishing it, in their anxiety to find a hiding place. No building was safe for priests to enter, hence they were often compelled to hide themselves in haystacks and outhouses. Some of them took refuge in woods and plantations, but here, they were not safe, for the pursuivants are known to have surrounded the woods with nets and then to hunt out the priests with dogs, and when success attended their efforts the priests were arrested, hanged, drawn, bowelled and quartered. An eye-witness of the carrying out of such an execution says: “After he (the priest) had been hung awhile, they cut the rope and let him fall, and the hangman, who was but a boy, drew him along by the rope yet alive, and then dismembered and bowelled him, and cast his bowels into the fire. Taking his heart he cast it there also. Then the hangman cut off his head and held it up, saying, ‘Behold the head of a traitor!’ His quarters, after they were boiled in a cauldron, were buried in the baker’s dunghill.” Other cruel details are also included in the letter, but they are altogether too horrible to repeat here. The expenses incurred in executing a Priest were somewhat heavy, probably on account of the difficulty experienced in finding anyone willing to carry out the sentence. The Municipal Accounts of Newcastle shew what was actually paid for an execution. Paid to a Frenchman, which did take forth the Seminary Priest’s bowels after he was hanged …….20s For coals, which made the fire at the execution of the Seminary Priest ………………………………...6d And for a wright’s axe, which headed the Seminary ………………………………………………… 4s 6d For a hand axe, and a cutting knife which did rip and quarter the Seminary Priest …………………….14d And for the horse which trailed him from off the sledge to the gallows ………………………………..12d For four iron satchels, with hooks on them, for the hanging of the Seminary’s four quarters on the four gates ..3s 8d To a mason for two days’ work, setting the satchels of the gates fast, 10d a day ……………………….20d In order to procure evidence against recusants, their houses were searched by armed pursuivants, who pierced the floors, battered the walls, broke up the stairs, dug up the pavements with pick and spade, and turned everything upside down. They made bonfires in the halls and threw in all the valuable books, manuscripts, and pictures they could find. At one house, after trying every bed and cupboard with their swords, and finding nothing, they tied the family two and two together, and drove them off to jail, and, taking four of the youngest children from their beds, they turned them out and left them standing in their night-gowns until some neighbours, seeing their plight, took them away. Payment for such meritorious services was very easily arranged, as the Government commissioned the searchers to help themselves to whatever they found. Certain towns were assigned to the different bands of pursuivants, who were always at liberty to break into houses and seize money, jewels, and valuables. After carrying off all that was movable, they mercilessly destroyed furniture, clothes, and provisions. Cattle which could not be conveniently taken were slaughtered. A certain Catholic house was not only plundered, but permanently occupied and turned into a public house. The notorious Nicholas Thornes, who died in 1592, turned many Catholics from their homes and took possession of their dwellings. He was very partial to cattle and drove hundreds of beasts from Catholic farmsteads. His operations were extensive, and included the seizure of the possessions of George Cooke, William Poker, John Coher, Timothy Brown, Widow Wads, Richard Fitzherbert, Knowles, and many others. Among the MSS collected by Mr Charles Weld is an “Account of the Present State of the Persecution.” It is dated the 15th November, 1618, and relates that “the persecution of Catholics in the northern parts at that time exceeded in intensity all former vexations and afflictions.” There were at that period three sorts of officials employed in the execution of the laws against Catholics, viz., the Sheriffs, the pursuivants, and the Justices. Of the pursuivants there were twelve kinds. The first were those of the Privy Council, and were employed in the search after, the arrest, and committal to prison of Catholics according to the instructions of the Council. The second were those of the Protestant Bishops, who each month cited Catholics to the Bishops’ Courts, where the Oath of Supremacy was tendered to them. Catholics were made to pay the expenses of the pursuivants at thirteen pence per mile, and this was exacted from male and female, rich and poor, including servants. The third were the special pursuivants of the Protestant Bishops, the chief of whom was a man named Harrison, who, with his son, set out with forged letters as coming from a priest, and addressed to Catholic noblemen and gentlemen, concerning their sons at the seminaries on the Continent. Armed with these letters they caused many innocent persons to be committed to prison. Under pretext of searching for Catholic books, they carried off all the books that fell into their hands. They always went about accompanied by a body of men armed with pistols and muskets. The fourth kind possessed a higher authority than the third. The head of this class was one Dales, a servant of the Governor of York, who was notorious on account of having committed two or three murders and who had also caused a priest to be martyred. He sent laymen to prison as priests, and was willing to liberate any priest for £10 as a ransom. He examined anyone he met in the public streets of the towns, on the roads in the country, and at the inns. He carried off everything he could lay hold of, and committed to prison “with all fury.” Of the fifth kind the head was one Beverley, the companion of Dales, who went about everywhere, plundering necklaces, jewellery, and gold. This man’s authority was such that he compelled whole Parishes to compound with him for annual sums of money. Of the sixth kind the chief was a man also named Harrison, and who exceeded all the others in robbery and violence, taking sometimes as much as £60 in the streets as ransom money from priests. Searching a certain house he badly wounded the master of it and killed the servant, and yet he was allowed to go free and to pursue his office as before. Of the seventh kind the head was one Laiman. He had power to call upon the principal Magistrates for their assistance at night. He went about, followed by a great crowd, to the houses of leading Catholics, and where no one could be found in the houses he carried off all books, etc., under pretext of searching for arms. Of the eighth kind the chief was another servant of the Governor of York, with the same authority as the others, except that his operations were carried out in country places. Of the ninth kind William Johnson was the head. He went about secretly with his own bailiffs, and discovered to the Governor all the old hiding places of priests, together with the usual resorts of any other priests. The above pursuivants had no other income except that which could be secured from the plunder of Catholics, who were thus reduced to a state of the greatest poverty and misery, far worse, indeed, than in the times of Elizabeth herself. Of the tenth kind the chief was Hayton, “lately out of prison.” He was occupied in obtaining information about Recusants’ wives. He spent his time among the merchants, in the fairs, and in the public streets, and compelled women either to pay him ransom money or else to take the oath, or in default they were dragged to prison. Of the eleventh kind the head was one Bradford, who sought out the Catholics who had compounded. Some had already done so five times, but he compelled them to pay again. The twelfth kind were the ordinary bailiffs. They were very numerous and malicious, and executed their duties rigorously. The searches were made not only in the houses of Catholics, but in any house the purvuivants thought fit to enter. Sometimes a general search of a town or district was ordered by the Lord President himself. There is a letter among the records of the Corporation from Huntingdon to the Mayor of Hull, insisting upon a thorough search of all the houses in the town: - “To my lovinge friends the Maior and Aldermen of Kingeston-uppon-Hull. – After my hartie comendacons, &c. – Whereas divers of her Mats. disloiall and unnaturall subiectes have of late most wickedly and traiterously devised and attempted sundry detestable plots to the dangeringe of her heighnes pson (whom God long preserve) the practasers whereof have ben, and (as is suspected) are yet secretly fostered, mainteyned, and covered, and thereby kept from iustice by some men of theire disposicon contrary to lawe and theire alleadgance, for the discoverie of wch, and all other evill affected psons, I do most earnestly require you, and in her Mats. name streightly charge and command you, that on Wednesday next, between ten of the clock in the night and viij a clock upon Thursday in the mornynge, you do make diligent search of all places within the town and conte of Kingston-uppon-Hull, but especially and most carefully in all such houses as you shall knowe or suspect to be lyklyest to harboure and intereyne such lewde and evil disposed psons. And in this search I would have you to have special care for the apprehencon of Edward Windsor, als Digby, Daivd Ingelby, and John Bost, als Harkley, and of any Jesuite, seminary, and of any other suspected or unknowen pson. And in case you shall in this search happen to apprehend any of the ptyes before named, or any Jesuite, semenarie, or any pson suspected, I would require you that they may forthwth be brought hether unto me to York, in safe custody, without conference eyther amonge themselves or with any other. And in this search, you are to have especiall regard to the diligent searchinge of all innes, taverns, and alehouses. And for yr better assistance in this servis you may call unto you such other psons as you shall think fitt to ione with you for the better accompishmt thereof. Thus I do comytt you to God. At York XIXth of Septemb., 1586. Yo lovinge frende, H. Huntyndgdon.” The mention of Father David Ingleby by Huntingdon introduces a famous Hull priest-hunter, Anthony Atkinson, who, in addition to his appointment as Customs searcher, adopted the profession of priest-hunting. In a letter dated 13th February, 1593, addressed to Sir Robert Cecil, Atkinson says: - “Before I came home the Lord President had made a search, and by that means David Englebye did absent himself from his usual places of resort. I have laid a sure bail for him, and have hounds abroad, which I trust will lodge him as well as I lodged Boost. (Fr Boast was hanged, drawn, and quartered at Durham). If I observe one proviso in your warrant, commanding me to take a public officer with me, I shall not prevail of my purpose. I have experience by Boost. I have two men and horses of my charges watching to effect this matter and daily expect some good news to advertise you. Will shew myself as forward as in Boost’s apprehension, but must use many policies, he is as crafty a fox as Boost was, and hath many places of refuge.” Notwithstanding the efforts of Atkinson and his men, horses and hounds, Father Ingleby evaded arrest. Eleven months afterwards Atkinson again wrote a letter to Cecil with reference to Father Ingleby, and incidentally laments the non-payment of his fees for the capture of Father Boost: - “The bearer, Mr Falkingham, can acquaint you what is done and what may be done about Da. Englebie, and of our last service about the late seminary and his adherents, whom we have delivered to my Lord President, with all their popish trash, books, and relics. The bearers’ intelligences are great, and his partakers and friends are many in these parts. My Lord President has written to your father in our behalf for Boosts apprehension and this priest and others. My humble suit unto your honour is to be a means unto our Majesty for us, for you know her Highness promised that we should have recompense, and the bearer and myself and one Francis Eglisfield did take Boost of our own charge. Hull, 13 January, 1594.” There are two interesting letters from Atkinson preserved among the Hatfield MSS, one addressed to the Earl of Essex, and the other to Sir Robert Cecil. Both have reference to Father Ingleby, who was still in possession of his freedom. Anthony Atkinson to the Earl of Essex: - “There is sundry places in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire that are well known to me that harboureth Joseph Constable, and sundry traitorous priests that are kept in houses by servants and friends belonging to the Lady Constable, and all under her charges, as I am credibly informed, Da Engleby coming and going among them; and as is reported by such as are of that crew, that he hath gotten of the Earl of Westmorland his whole title of lands, and sundry in the north are in belief that he shall have all at his pleasure, so that seminaries comes over seas daily, and are more harboured and accounted of that ever they were, and the number increaseth and grows headstrong since my Lord of Huntingdon died, and they expect a day for their purpose as they imagine. I will with your warrant venture my life for their apprehension. I have none to countenance me since my lord of Huntingdon died. If the Queen wishes I can tell more, but without protectors I cannot escape the wolves. Hull, 10th September, 1596.” Anthony Atkinson to Sir Robert Cecil: - “In Lincolnshire there is a place called Twigmore, and four or five tenements adjoining that harboureth a number of traitorous Jesuits, seminaries, and others, that are their consorts, and it is credibly informed me that Davie Engleby, alias Jefford, is often there. The place is one of the worst in Her Majesty’s dominions, and is used like Popish college, for traitors that use the north parts are there harboured…….This bearer, Mar. Eyre, can more at large inform you therein. If it please you to grant a commission to John Gaytes, Esqre., one of her Majesty’s Justices in Yorkshire, and to me, to make in the said place and all other places known or suspected in the north parts, then I trust we shall do Her Majesty’s good service before it be long; your warrant being directed unto us, commanding the Mayor of Kingston-upon-Hull and his brethren, etc., to aid us with men and weapons, that good service be done in one night without suspicion. Your answer I humbly require by this bearer. Men of Hull are most fitted for that service. Hull, this 12th of July, 1597. P.S. – After I had taken Boost, the seminary, I took one Markland, seminary, who was companion with Engleby; and one Warcop, who harboureth the said Markland, was taken by me, and in prison at York, and he escaped. Now he is taken again and in his company a Jesuit. This Warcop was of Babbington’s conspiracy, and was of counsel with Engleby in all matters, and is a most dangerous person.” Atkinson, who appears to have been an ingenious letter writer, was also a successful pursuivant. On Christmas Eve, 1594, at midnight, Outlaw, another pursuivant, was sent to search a house in or about Winsley Wood, and there he met Anthonly Atkinson, the searcher of Hull, who had brought with him thirty men. They entered the house, and after breaking down walls and otherwise damaging the place, arrested Mr Warcop, Jno. Sadler, two menservants, and Father Alexander Rawlings, who were all afterwards imprisoned. Like all other priest-hunters he was a man entirely devoid of character, as is shewn by the fact that in May, 1597, John Chapman, the then Mayor of Hull, and the Aldermen, wrote to Sir Robert Cecil, complaining “that Atkinson was using his position for his own advantage,” and they suggested the “placing of one or two honest men in the place of Searcher and removing him that is in.” Whether he was removed in consequence of the complaint of the Mayor is not clear, but in the State calendars, 1602, pp. 209-220, it appears that “ a certain Anthony Atkinson, who with certain others, got into trouble for speaking disrespectfully of a member of the Privy Council in 1602, and was thereupon sentenced by the Star Chambers to whipping, to the Pillory, the galleys, etc., etc. Atkinson, however, was excused the whip, and the nailing up by the ears to the pillory, “because he had betrayed his fellows.” In addition to the priest hunters, there was another class of men who helped to carry out the Penal Laws. They were known as spies, and their business was to gain access, under pretence of being Catholics, to colleges, schools and private houses. In this way they obtained the information which ultimately brought death to those who had become their intimate friends. One of these spies, John Fawether, was a native of Hull. Passing over to the Continent he entered the English College at Douay, on the 2nd October, 1601. During his stay he obtained a fund of information with regard to the masters, and students and their families. He compiled a list for the information of the Government, giving the names of over forty residents of the college and a reference to fourteen non residents. Among the students at Douay was Robert Watkinson, who arrived from Rome on the 29th November, 1601, about two months after the advent of Fawether. On the 25th March, 1602, Robert Watkinson was ordained priest and left for England on the 3rd April. Meanwhile, on the 30th March, Fawether is shewn by the college books to have “departed secretly,” evidently with the intention of placing his fellow student under arrest. Meeting Father Watkinson in London he immediately betrayed him to the authorities. Father Watkinson was apprehended, arraigned, and condemned on the 15th April and was hanged, drawn, bowelled and quartered at Tyburn on the 20th April, 1602. Not only were Catholics watched and spied upon, but they were not allowed to move freely about. They were restricted to a radius of five miles from their homes. Sometimes they were permitted for urgent reasons to exceed this limit, and even then a written pass had to be obtained. A few of these permits still exist. The following copy of such a document contains some well-known local names: - “Whereas Thomas Owst, of Halsham, in the East Riding of the County of York, yeoman, is a Popish Recusant, and therefore by the Act of Parliament cannot go and travell out of the compass of Five miles from the usual place of his abode unless upon necessary occasions or Business, and first taking the Oath and being licenced thereto as the Act of Parliament directs. And whereas the said Thomas Owst hath requested us Four of his majesties’ Justices of the Peace for the said Riding with the privity and assent of one of the Deputy-Lieutenants for the said Riding, to grant unto him a Licence to travel from his said usual place of abode to Drax, in the West Riding of the County of York, to see his wife, who is very ill there at the house of his son-in-law, and he having made Oath thereof as the Act directs. These are, therefore, to Licence the said Thomas Owst to go and travell this day from his usual habituation to Drax aforesaid, and to return to his usual Habitiation on Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of January next or sooner. Given under our Hands and Seals this Eighteenth day of December, 1745. FRANS. APPLEYARD. HUGH BETHEL. JAMES GEE. RD. BERNARD. MARM. CONSTABLE. Deputy- Lieutenant of the said Riding.” Under the Corporation Act of 1661, which was a religious, as well as a political test, all Corporation officials were required to have taken the Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England within one year before their elections, and upon being elected, to take the oath of recognising the reigning monarch as supreme head of the Church. All the members of the Corporation forsook the religion of their fathers except Aldermon Raikes and Vevors, who were dismissed and their seats declared vacant. In 1673 the Test Act prevented anyone holding any office or place of trust, civil or military, or being admitted to the King’s or Duke of York’s households who did not receive the Sacrament according to the usage of the Church of England and who had not taken the oath against the Mass as understood by Catholics. This Act was rigorously enforced, no matter what previous services a Catholic might have rendered. A notable instance of the ingratitude of these times is that of Lord John Belasyse, who was for some time connected with Hull. He had been a commander in the time of the Civil Wars, and was in 1644 created a Lord by Charles I. He was appointed Lieutenant-General of the Counties of York, Nottingham, Lincoln and Derby; Governor of the City of York, Captain of the Garrison of Newark, and Captain-General of His Majesty’s Guards. He held commands and fought with distinguished valour at the battles of Edgehill, Newbury, and Naseby, and also at the sieges of Reading and Bristol. Afterwards, whilst Commander-in-Chief of all the King’s forces in Yorkshire, he fought the Battle of Selby. As Governor of Newark he valiantly defended the garrison against the armies of England and Scotland. He was several times wounded, and because of his adherence to the King he was three times imprisoned in the Tower of London. On the restoration of Charles II he was constituted Captain-General of the Forces in Africa, Governor of Tangier, Lord Lieutenant of the East Riding of Yorkshire, Governor of Hull, and Colonel of a regiment of foot. In 1670 he was appointed High Steward of Hull, and held the office until 1673. Being a Catholic he declined to take the oath required by the Test Act, and he was thereupon compelled to vacate the office and give up all his other honours and commands. In 1678 he was committed to the Tower on the information of the infamous Titus Oates, where he remained a prisoner until 1683, when he was released on bail. As a further consequence of the Test Act, the office of High Steward of Hull was again declared vacant in 1689. Henry, Lord Dover, had not received the Sacrament as administered by the Church of England, nor had he taken the oaths under the Act, the Corporation therefore appointed the Earl of Kingston to succeed him. In this year also the office of Recorder was declared vacant. Marmaduke, Lord Langdale, who had held the position since the proceeding reign, was forced to retire because he was a Catholic, and his place was filled by Robert Hollis, of Gray’s Inn. During the year 1680 the Privy Council required Corporations to return the names of all persons holding office who had not subscribed to the Test and Corporation Acts. The Mayor and Aldermen of Hull thereupon informed the Council “that all persons within their jurisdiction who exercised any office of authority were of the Church of England and had received the Sacrament and taken the oaths according to law, except Mr Daniel Hoar, Alderman, elected to that office nine years ago.” They therefore declared his election to be void. In the same year 1689, Aldermen William Skinner and William Hayes, of Hull, refused to take the Sacrament or the Oaths. They were each fines £40 and their seats declared vacant. Anthony Iveson and Richard Grey were afterwards selected for the positions. According to the Registers of Holy Trinity for 1682 William Skinner had previously been fined £5 for refusing to take the oath. The Acts prohibiting the employment of a Catholic teacher were most impressive, and were carried to extremes. Where a priest was engaged to teach children, even in private houses, pursuivants, assisted by an armed force, were despatched to the locality. The house was completely surrounded, the priest and pupils arrested, the building searched, and all books, etc., carried off. The children were then committed to attend the Established Church Services. In State papers, vol 303, Charles I, are several original orders of the Council with respect to the education of Catholic children. The Council on the 9th December, 1635, ordered Sir William Wilmar, a Protestant, to keep in custody at his house, William Andrew, a boy of twelve years of age, because at his own father’s house he had been educated as a Catholic. On the 12th February, 1584, at three o’clock in the morning, the Under-Sheriff and twenty armed men effected an entrance to the dwelling of John Sankay and seized four youths, Thomas, Robert, Richard and John Worthington, the eldest not being more than sixteen years of age, all of whom were being educated by a priest. By threats and terror the pursuivants tried to extract admissions from the boys against themselves. Being unable to shake their constancy, the two elder boys were brought before the Commissioners, but without any better result. All four were then examined by a new Commission. The youngest boy, not yet twelve, was kept without food until after six pm. And then offered wine, so that he would give the answers which they desired. The eldest boy was promised a position as Page of Honour if he would persuade his brothers to go to the Protestant Church and hear a sermon. After further questions and persuasions the boys were sent to prison. During their imprisonment their food and comfort were daily stinted. In the Queen’s name they were commanded to go to church, which they refused to do, and were consequently pronounced to be guilty of high treason, and were to be tried at the next Assizes. Meanwhile a rough fellow named Bull (rather appropriately) was engaged to whip them. Armed with four or five long, thin rods, he entered the boys’ room early in the morning, and asked them if they would go to church. As they refused, he dragged them out of bed and inflicted twenty strokes upon the back of the eldest boy, and served the second in like manner, afterwards shutting them up in separate rooms. The two younger boys, after being dragged from one Magistrate to another, were sent one to the house of the Protestant Bishop, and the other to the house of a rigid Puritan. The two eldest boys were now sent to a school kept by a Protestant preacher named Cartwright. Again all the four brothers were summoned before the Protestant Bishop and Commissioners, and one of them was promised that if he would hear a sermon he should succeed to his father’s estates (already confiscated to the Queen) to the exclusion of his other three brothers. As nothing seemed to avail, however, an order was given for three or four constables to drag them to church by force. During all this time they remained in custody, and eventually the eldest and the youngest escaped. Robert, who was examined without success as to their whereabouts, was condemned to Chester Castle, but on the way he was rescued by his friends. The three boys were afterwards captured at a house in Staffordshire, but they again escaped. Thomas was seized at Islington and imprisoned in the Gatehouse at Westminster. Robert once more effected his escape, and, with Richard and John, eventually got away to Rheims, and entered the English College as students for the priest-hood. At Hull equally severe measures were adopted in respect of the education of boys. John Ellerker, of Anlaby, was summoned in 1703 to appear at the Hull Quarter Sessions, and “to bring with him his eldest son to be shewn in Court, which if he did refuse to do he would be proceeded against according to law, being a Catholic, and suspected of having conveyed his son to some seminary or Catholic school beyond the seas to be brought up in the Catholic religion, contrary to the laws of England.” Fifteen years after this incident an Act was passed “to oblige Papists to register their names and real estates.” The Ellerkers then appear among “Catholic Nonjurors of 1715” : - “John Ellerker, of Anlaby, gen., Estate there and at North Ferriby, in fee charged with £275 to Benjamin Ellerker, £45. Elizabeth Ellerker, of Willerby, widow, Farm for lie, £16 10s. Thomas Ellerker, of Haltemprice, gent., House there and land at Willerby, £17.” In their anxiety to perform the rites and ceremonies prescribed for baptisms, marriages, and burials, the adherents of the old Faith experienced the greatest difficulties. To some extent the Bodleian MSS shew this in a “List of Catholics in Yorkshire in 1604.” One of the many items recorded in these documents shews how, at that period, every circumstance was entered against Recusants. “Private baptisme. Bartholomewe George, a child borne in January last, which he refused to bring to the Church to be baptized, and since, as they heare, it was baptized secretlie at Mr Bathram’s house, with some Popish priest, for two strangers were sene ther in the night tyme.” In the celebration of marriage the greatest secrecy had to be observed in order to prevent discovery. The records of the Dean and Chapter of York, dated the 1st May, 1604, tell us how. “Richard Cholmley and Mary Hunsgate were married in a field in Saxton Parish at ten o’clock at night. The ceremony being performed by Father Francis Smith, in the presence of John Wilson, William Martin, Hugh Hope, and Christopher Danyell, by the light of a candle in a lanthorn,” There was likewise much difficulty in disposing of the dead. The Parish churchyards, where their forefathers had been buried for centuries, were closed against Catholics. Some internments took place in open fields, others in disused cemeteries, and some upon private estates. But no matter where they were laid, Recusants were all buried by stealth. The old Parish registers contain entries to the effect that Catholics were “buried by night,” or “as recusants clandestinely by night.” The result of all this persecution was that Recusants were reduced to a most pitiable condition. Poor folks died of starvation and rich folks were reduced to poverty. Sir Raplh Bapthorp, of Osgodby, near Howden, when in his prosperity had forty servants, but he was so constantly fined for being a Catholic that at last he was reduced to a single attendant. His death in 1618 probably disappointed the Lord President of an execution. His widow, referring to the terrors of the times says: “For the poor Catholics in our Parish the persecution has been greater than I can relate, for no Catholic could keep any good; no, not the poor folks could keep a cow to give their children milk, but it as taken from them. If they had no money they took such things as they found in the houses, pots, pans, and clothes, and those that had nothing they sent to jail.” Mrs Thorpe, a lady of good birth, and allied to the best families in the country, after the death of her husband, lost her house and all she possessed because she was a Catholic, and at length came to misery and want. She was forced to come to the Manor House, where she had previously been mistress, but now occupied by a stranger, and there hid in an outhouse, where she had neither bed, meat, nor drink. Some of her former tenants, however, brought food and other necessaries, but not for very long. She was arrested, and remained a prisoner many years in York Castle. John Barker, having previously compounded and paid to the King two-thirds of all his goods, was further harassed by the driving away of his cattle three times in one year, and the selling at half value the hay, corn, wood, and other goods about the house. Churchwardens were ordered to enter houses and seize, in lieu of fines for non-attendance at the church, any goods they could find. Some Recusants were sent to prison because they had nothing to seize. Some had the bedclothes taken, others their cooking utensils. One poor woman had spun some cloth to clothe her children in the winter, and this was taken. One old man, a beggar, had nothing, so he was violently assaulted in his cottage, and having some milk in a pan over the fire, the pursuivants poured the milk into the fire and took the pan away. In the case of a poor lame man who was unable to move, they ransacked his cottage, and found so little that they took away the pot in which his children’s dinner was cooking and uncording the bed on which he lay, they took away the bed and bedstocks. Even the dead were not exempt from fines. Their next of kin was forced to pay arrears contracted under the Penal Laws. One heir-at-law was compelled to pay as much as £300 for his father, who had failed to pay his fines during the last months of his lifetime. In 1608 the Protestant Bishop of Bristol was sent to Yorkshire to assist in bringing the people into the Church, and “tyrannized over them in an atrocious and unheard of manner.” Having impounded the herds belonging to Catholics, he allowed them to redeem them by purchase, and then he seized them again, so that some had to re-purchase their own property repeatedly, one, indeed, as many as seven times. At each of the four law terms summonses were directed to all judges and justices, who were commanded to search out all Catholics and send them to London to take the Oath, without reference to age, sex, or condition. Sickness, old age, poverty, length of journey, the inclemency of the season, the serious illness of wife or children, were all pleaded in vain. Refusal signified total loss of goods and perpetual imprisonment. Those who did take the Oath were summoned to London, in some cases four times a year, for fear they fell away. They had to travel hundreds of miles in the depth of winter, encountering the perils of the roads, to await the convenience of the judges, and to fee, at no small cost, the officials and underlings of the Courts. They were also compelled to give bail for their good behaviour under most grievous penalties. Money in the reign of Elizabeth was at least ten or twelve times the value of money at the present time (1913), so that it would be perfectly correct to say that a penny at the end of the sixteenth century was equal to a shilling (5 pence) in our own time. The sums mentioned in these records should be increased about twelve times to ascertain what the figures really mean. Thus £20 per month for being absent from church represents about £240 in present value. This at thirteen months to the year amounts to £3,120, rather a heavy tax for the privilege of being a Catholic. During the last twenty years of Elizabeth’s life she actually received in hard cash, from people who refused to come to church, the sum of £120,305 19s 7 ½ d. The amounts forfeited in fines by Catholics during the reign of James I are so enormous as to be almost beyond belief. Abbot Gasquet gives some significant figures from the State Papers of James I, dated the 10th July, 1612. “The forfeitures of recusants paid into Court from Michaelmas in the ninth year of the King’s reign to the end of Trinity term in the tenth year of the same reign cast up to £371,720.” Four and half million pounds actually received in London. The greater part of the fines, however, never reached the State coffers. There were rewards to the numberless pursuivants, spies, informers, and hangers-on. There was the hush-money taken from affrighted Recusants, and also the generous fees given to Court favourites and officials, altogether a vast sum of which there is no trace. The Recusant fines were sometimes farmed out for a lump sum. Sir John Saville offered an amount equal to £462 per week (present value) for permission to collect the fines inflicted upon Yorkshire Catholics. Not only were Recusants imprisoned for not paying the fines imposed, but in many cases torture was added to their sufferings – indeed, some prisoners were suffocated by stench. One Recusant was “put into a filthy dungeon destitute of all things, and in eight days he died by the stench and filth of the place.” Nine Cathusians were killed by slow starvation and stench in the space of fifteen days. Some prisoners were loaded with iron shackles and fetters. One martyr was allowed to hire a boy to help him to bear his irons up, as they were more than he could carry. Torture was of several kinds. There was Limbo, a dark hole, filthy and full of rats and vermin. There was Little Ease, a cell so small that a man could neither sit, stand, nor lie down in it. There was a thing called the “Scavenger’s Daughter,” a hoop or circle of iron, into which the whole body was, as it were, folded up, and the hands, feet, and head bound fast together. In some cases needles were thrust under the nails. A Catholic of Oxford had his ears nailed to the pillory, and was obliged to deliver himself by cutting them off with his own hands. The worst form of torture was that of the Rack. Of this punishment there were two kinds. One was to be hung up by the wrists. The other was to have cords fastened to the wrists and feet, and then passed over windlasses by which they could be stretched as tight as the presiding Magistrate desired. Norton the rackmaster boasted that by this instrument he had made prisoners a foot longer. It was but a short step from the rack to the gallows, and the Catholics who suffered the extreme penalty were not a mere handful, nor was the period a short one. The first martyr died in 1535 and the last in 1681, a century and a half of agony and affliction. It will be remembered that the law of 1570 forbids, under a penalty of death, “the reconciling of any person to the Catholic Faith.” Under this Act a native of Hull was executed on the 21st February, 1592. The fact is thus recorded in a Catalogue of Martyrs preserved at Stonyhurst: - “Thomas Pormort, borne in Hull, first of Cambridge, preest of the Roman Seminary, quartered in Paules Churchyarde for havinge reconciled a townsman dwellinge there.” Notwithstanding all the efforts of Queen and Parliament, the people did not willingly come to church. A letter dated 17th November, 1580, mentions the fact that the Government had obtained during the previous month the names of fifty thousand persons who refused to conform. According to a State Paper of the 15th February, 1604, there were about one thousand Yorkshire Recusants indicted before Baron Saville at York. Among the Rawlinson Manuscripts is a list of Recusants in Yorkshire in 1604, nearly fifty years after the passing of the first Penal Act. It gives the names of over three thousand three hundred persons who were still unwilling to abandon the Faith of their fathers. Every town and village gives its faithful few. The names of those at Hull were: - “Francis Bullocke, laborer, and his wife, recusants new. William Spetch, butcher, and his wife. Widow Clarke, Michael Thompson, butcher, and his wife, William Toppinge, glover. Non-communicants. George Wolfe, John Newit, merchant, Robert Burton and William Maxwell, merchants, recusants. Robert Bennington, non-communicant since March last. Raiphe ffoster, yeoman, and Widdow ffree, non-communicants since 1603. John Thompson, Ann Craven, laitelie kept in the house of Robert Dalton, Esquire, and departed from thence upon Easter even last, new recusants. Anne Dalton, mother to the said Robert Dalton, Elizabeth his wife, Thomas Dalton his sonne, Robert Bacon ye younger, Anne his wife, and Margaret Crathorne, recusants since March, 1603. Certified by the Maior and Aldermen of Kingeston-upon-Hull, under the hands of the ministers, churchwardens, constables and sworne men.” The Robert Dalton mentioned in this list was the son of Thomas Dalton, merchant, and three times Mayor of Hull, who died in 1590, at the age of 74. There is an incised brass in the floor of Holy Trinity Church to the Mayor’s memory. At length, after a rigorous administration of the most cruel laws, Catholicity was thought to have been completely stamped out at Hull. John Taylor, who will be remembered as the Water Poet, visited Hull in August, 1662, and in his rhyming description of the town says: - “……and one thing more I there was told, Not one Recusant all the town doth hold.” Taylor appears to have been misinformed. There was a list of Yorkshire Recusants published in March, 1665-6, and this list gives the following Catholics as living in Hull at that time: - Mary Bentley, Mary Greenwood, William Walker, Richard Scott, and Thomas Loncaster. The Hull Quarter Sessions Book for the 3rd July, gives a further list of “His Majesty’s subjects professing the Popish religion.” This list includes seventy-three Catholics then residing in the town and district. A later return made in the year 1780 gives the number of Catholics in Yorkshire at 6687, and of this number fifty-nine lived in Hull. Father Foucher, a French refugee, tells us that when visiting Hull in 1798 he found a small congregation of about forty Catholics, for whom he afterwards built, at his own cost, a Chapel in North Street. One hundred and fourteen years afterwards (1912) there are five public churches, one chapel-of-ease, and six private chapels, fourteen priests, seven public elementary schools with over three thousand children on the rolls, a teaching college, a girls’ secondary school, an orphanage, two homes, four convents, and a Catholic population of sixteen thousand.
Old St Peter’s Church, Drypool (Demolished in 1822) Here the Recusants who died in the Blockhouses and Castle were “put into their graves without the minister and with the order of burial according to law.” (From a scarce print belonging to the author) CHAPTER V WHO WENT TO THE BLOCKHOUSES The Blockhouses and Castle at Hull have been made notorious by the cruelties inflicted upon Catholic prisoners there, and it is evident that the keepers appointed by Huntingdon heaped torments upon their charges with a view to speedy death. This was doubtless the object in selecting such inhuman characters as Bisbie, Alcoke, Hawick, and Hubert, for the Lord President, when visiting Hull in 1583, intimated that if they had done their duty none of the Catholics in the Blockhouses and Castle would have survived. Huntingdon – whose authority in the north was supreme – was himself a cruel oppressor. In the library of Oscott College is a letter written in 1586 by a Yorkshire Recusant, who described him as little less than a monster. He says: - “The chiefest deviser and contriver of our troubles here is Henry Hastings, Earl of Hungtingdon, and President of the North. This man, though he be described of most noble parentage, and himself the top of the emulous house, yet is he basely accounted of and had in no worthy estimation, as you know, in your parts. He is degenerated from all true nobility of his ancestors into a most bloody and herectical tyrant, insatiably thirsting for the lives and destruction of all good men, a fit instrument for the devil to work his will by, of no towardness in natural wit or wisdom to do well, a pestiferous and most irriligeous dessembler for his own gain and credit. Only this ungracious insufficiency is in him, that, placed in authority, he can trouble, molest, and oppress whole countries, torment good men, and do good to none. In these parts this monster is god, king, bishop, president, catchpole, and whatsoever else to annoy the Catholics.” With regard to the character of the keepers of the Blockhouses and Castle, the actual letters written by prisoners give a vivid description of the condition of the prisons and the infamous treatment meted out to Catholics condemned purely on religious grounds. A year after Huntingdon came to York one prisoner writes: - “If I were to declare all the cruelties we sustain in prisoner, I should extend my labour to overlong a work, for assure yourself that the tyrant’s brutish malice hath neither end nor measure in afflicting those whom he hath caught within his reach. The jailers be either his own men after long service he promoteth to this prowling office, or else some hot familiar of this Puritan congregeation being fallen into miserable beggary, he thus maintaineth by pilling and robbing. And he is very provident and wary that these fellows want no prisoners, but especially Catholics, whose just complaints against the most unjust extortioners cannot be heard. For more certainly of this pillage, he hath ordained new fees. At the first committing and entry every Catholic yeoman payeth ten shillings for fetters, every gentleman twenty shillings, every esquire forty shillings. Then for fees a yeoman payeth twenty-six shillings and eightpence, a gentleman four marks. Then for weekly diet a yeoman payeth six and eightpence or eight and fourpence or thirteen and fourpence. Very few Catholics are of ability to bear the charges of their tables for weekly diet, wherefore to compound with the jailers both at York and Hull they pay them some unreasonable chamber rents, that they may make and provided their own commons. The weekly chamber rents in the poorest twelve pence, in others sixteen pence, in others twenty pence, in others two shillings, three and fourpence, or four shillings, we ourselves providing all necessaries, and as many pestered into every chamber as it will receive, by reason of which throng and straitness oftentimes infectious sickness do reign amongst us. These jailers being purposely placed over us to enrich themselves by as many prowling shifts as they can devise to impoverish and rob us, have liberty without restraint to work their own gain |
