Preface

PREFACE.

During the period of the civil war, and later, until the reins of government were seized and held by the firm hand of Oliver Cromwell, the fortunes of Englishmen were greatly at the mercy of Parliamentary Committees. The records of some of these committees have come down to us in good preservation, whilst of others, the order books, which form the backbone of the whole, are wanting; and of some, though the order books are preserved, the original papers are wanting.

The Army Committee was a potent element, because to it was mainly entrusted the regulation of public expenditure; but its order books are absent, and its only records consist of large numbers of warrants, scattered among 300 bundles of Interregnum Exchequer Papers, which are now in process of arrangement.

Another committee was that for taking the Accounts of the kingdom. It was formed 22 Feb. 1644, and consisted of 25 members. (fn. 1) Without its examination and approval, no accounts could be passed. All accounts for arrears of officers and soldiers, expenses of garrisons, &c., as well as of civil expenditure, passed through the hands of this committee. But here again the sole records remaining in the Record Office are letters and papers scattered among the 300 bundles of Exchequer Papers. These two committees belong rather to the department of the Exchequer than to that of general history.

There were also Committees of Safety; for Removing Obstructions in the sale of Delinquents' lands; and for relief of those who surrendered on Articles of War, of which only casual records remain.

The Committees of which the records are sufficiently complete to render a calendar practicable, are,

1. Committee for Advance of Money.

2. Sequestration Committee.

3. Committee for Plundered Ministers

4. Committee for Compounding with Delinquents

5. Derby House Committee, or Committee for both Kingdoms.

6. Committee for Indemnity.

7. Committee for Sale of Fee-farm Rents or Crown Lands.

The Derby House Committee really represented the governing power on the Parliamentary side during the civil war, and its records are being calendared by Mr. W. D. Hamilton, with those of the closing years of Charles I. An account of the other Committees will be given with their respective calendars. (fn. 2)

The first in order of date was that for Advance of Money, its object being to furnish the sinews of war to the Parliament party. It was appointed 26 November 1642, on a previous order in Parliament of 14 November, that the Public faith of the kingdom should be given for repayment, with 8 per cent. interest, of all loans of money advanced for the public service. Among the 16 original members occur the names of 5 peers and 4 knights, but several others were added later (p. 1).

The officers of the Committee were,

1. Treasurer, at 150l. a year, with percentage on receipts.

2. Clerk or secretary, at 4l. a week, with the benefit of the copying of orders, which was considerable after it became a rule of the Committee that all petitions or requests made to it should be accompanied by an official copy of the last order in the case.

3. Registrar, at 150l. a year.

4. Legal counsellor, at 150l. a year.

5. Examiner of witnesses, at 100l. a year.

6. Six attendants or collectors, who were allowed 6s. 8d. a day when on duty, 6d. in the pound on all moneys brought in by them, and their travelling expenses.

The meetings of the Committee were first held at the Hall of the Haberdashers' Company in Gresham Street, which was hired for the purpose, at a rental of 60l. (p. 88), then at Sir Wm. Bruncard's house, Old Palace, or the Queen's Court, Westminster (p. 995), but after its amalgamation with the Committee for Compounding with delinquents, in 1650, it returned to Haberdashers' Hall, where its treasury had remained all along (pp. 62, 76, 221).

A sub-committee was also appointed by the civic authorities of London to raise assessments in the several wards. It consisted of 26 members, whose meetings were held in Weavers' Hall, Basinghall Street (pp. 1, 2). They received weekly contributions for the expenses of the war. They appointed their own assessors and collectors for the respective wards.

On 7 January 1643, Parliament issued a declaration, to be read in the churches, urging the necessity of a present subscription, in money or plate, to the war expenses, the money to be paid in four instalments, on Public Faith Bills for principal and interest at 8 per cent. (p. 11). Frequently Parliament was in such straits for money-, that sums were borrowed, for a few days or months only, from private persons or city companies.

The efforts of the Committee for Advance of Money to procure supplies were at first chiefly limited to residents within 20 miles of London, but occasionally the counties which embraced the side of the Parliament sent liberal contributions, or. were called into question for not doing so (pp. 3, 12, 14).

The ratio of the assessment was 1/20 of the real, and ¹/5of the personal estate; but the estimates being founded on property or income, without reduction- for the lowering of the value of both by the critical and uncertain position of public affairs, were often so much too high that instances of their payment in full are extremely rare;. although one occurs whose assessment of 10l. was reduced to 5l., but he was "content to pay the whole."

An examination of the assessment books, Nos. 61 to 73, which give in parallel columns the sums assessed, the sums already contributed, and the sums remaining to be paid, will prove that the actual receipts bear a small proportion to the assessments laid. From two account books, Nos. 51 and 74, an estimate can be formed of sums assessed, and sums actually paid, between 24 June 1643 and 1 July 1644. The receipts were 260,306l. 14s. 5d; the unpaid balance of the sums demanded was nearly 6 times as much, being 1,418,299l.

Sums already lent to Parliament were allowed on account of assessment when the receipts could be produced, or when affidavits were taken that they had not been disposed of, by "doubling or otherwise." The phrase of doubling refers to a skilful device by means of which Parliament paid its debts by exacting more money. To any one producing a Public Faith Bill, and paying again as much as its value, lands from forfeited estates in Ireland or elsewhere were transferred, to the full value of the double sums. Large contributors occasionally accepted this mode of repayment, rather than trust to the uncertain discharge of their Public Faith Bills.

The collectors were ordered to serve the summonses for payment of assessments on the persons concerned, and the grant of the Public Faith was conditional on payment ten days after the summons. In case of failure, orders were issued for seizure and sale of goods, and for seizure of houses and lands, till the amount of assessment was paid. The houses were either let, or turned into a refuge for those who lost their houses owing to their adherence to the King's party. (fn. 3)

Some endeavoured to elude payment by conveying away their goods, and some by absenting themselves, thus putting the collectors to great expense and trouble. The Committee retaliated by ordering the offenders to pay all expenses incurred by the distress levied upon their goods, including an extra allowance to the collectors of 3d. in the pound on moneys thus brought in. The goods were to be carried to Guildhall, and after due advertisement, to be sold "by the candle." (fn. 4) This phrase alludes to a practice, fallen into desuetude, of sale by auction, a bid being absolute as soon as a candle lighted expired. One large purchaser of such goods was accused of placing himself too near the candle, and by some indirect means, blowing it out! (p. 129).

The difficulties incurred by assessment collectors in getting in the assessments are given in detail on pp. 30, 31. In case of there being "no distress," –that is, 'no property forthcoming on which the assessments could be levied by distraint, the persons assessed were to be taken into custody, and detained till payment was made. (fn. 5)

In June 1643, a sub-committee was appointed for mitigation of assessments that were considered too high, but a hearing from this committee could only be obtained on payment in deposit of half the sum assessed.

The affidavit of the person assessed was frequently taken and accepted, as to the amount of his property, deducting debts incurred before June 1642, but should the affidavit prove false, he was condemned to pay the total amount of the primary assessment. (fn. 6) Should it be proved that the ½ deposited was the full proportion, it was accepted as such; if less, then the balance was to be paid; if more, the surplus was returned. (fn. 7)

Mitigations were sometimes, granted on family reasons, (fn. 8) and mitigations, sometimes extending to discharges, to those who had performed services, (fn. 9) or had supplied money, horses, arms, or goods, for Parliament for which they were not paid, (fn. 10) or who had suffered heavy losses by the King's troops, the billetting of soldiers, &c. (fn. 11)

Discharges were also frequently granted to those who had been previously assessed in London, and had paid their assessments; (fn. 12) also to those who had country as well as town residences, and had paid their assessments in the country. (fn. 13)

The Committee for Advance of Money granted respite or postponement of assessment in cases where the persons assessed were away from England, especially when on Parliament service; (fn. 14) also when their estates were in counties occupied by the King's troops, (fn. 15) or when they were under sequestration for delinquency. (fn. 16)

Sometimes, though seldom, persons who had shown good affection to Parliament were freed from assessment, and left to their voluntary contributions, and sometimes they were discharged by direct Order from Parliament. (fn. 17) Discharge was also granted by Parliament to those included in the Articles of War granted on surrender of Exeter, Truro, Oxford, &c. (fn. 18)

The only persons exempted from assessment were those whose total property did not exceed 100l. in value, and this exemption was frequently granted on the affidavit of the persons. (fn. 19) Members of either House of Parliament and attendants on the House of Peers were to be assessed, not by the Committee for Advance of Money, but by their respective Houses.

During the first 15 months of its existence, the proceedings of the Committee for Advance of Money were mainly confined to assessments; but in February 1645, it was ordered that informations might be entered before it against those delinquents who had been sequestrated and had, in compounding for delinquency, concealed any part of their estate, or of the debts due to them. Ordinary discoverers were allowed ¹/5 of the money brought in on their discoveries. In the cases of officers and others who had arrears due to them from Parliament, it was a frequent practice to settle their accounts in a manner that should not draw upon government resources, but add to them. They were promised ⅓, ½, and even, very occasionally, the whole clear benefit derived from the estates of delinquents to be discovered by them,—½ being the most frequent proportion (pp. 41, et seq.),—the remainder accuring to the State.

A few months proved however that this arrangement gave rise to untrue accusations, and therefore no one was permitted to enter a discovery without a personal recommendation by an M.P., signed by the Speaker (pp. 43, 44).—The informations were entered in official books, and each entry was signed by the informer. Later on, informers were obliged to enter into a bond, generally in 200l., to prosecute their informations, and those who dropped prosecutions, compounded with the persons concerned to desist prosecution, or suborned witnesses, were made liable to imprisonment (p. 83).

The proceedings of this Committee as to assessments were at first made without distinction of party, except so far as that those who had voluntarily contributed with liberality to Parliament funds were exempted. Gradually, as the Parliament party gained strength in the country, delinquents,—as the Royalists were called—were more frequently subject to this taxation. On 6 August 1646, an Order in the House of Commons was issued that the officers of the Committee for Compounding should certify the names of all those who by composition had acknowledged their delinquency, and that all these should be assessed for their 1/20 (p. 56).

On 25 August following, assessments were limited to those who had been delinquents, or who had not contributed in any place to Parliament (p. 56). On 5 June 1648, a still more important Order was passed in Parliament, viz., that the ¹/5 and 1/20 should not be levied excepting on those delinquents who were within the Ordinance of Sequestration; but this order was not to be retrospective, or to prevent the payment of assessments already ordered (p. 70).

On March 13 following (1649), it was ordered that all delinquents who compounded, if assessed, should be taxed according to the particulars of their estates, presented and signed by themselves at Goldsmiths' Hall, their allegations of debts, &c., to be subject to the judgment of the Committee for Advance of Money (p. 74). The composition was considered, however, to free them from assessment, provided the fine was fully paid up, but in case of failure in payment of the second half, the assessment was imposed.

In April 1650, an entire change was made in the personnel of the Committee for Advance of Money; the former Commissioners were dismissed, and replaced by—

John Berners.
Wm. Molins.
Rich. Moore.
Sam. Moyer.
Jas. Russell.
Art. Squibb.
Edw. Winslow.

These were the men who were on the Committee for Compounding, and the title of the Committee for Advance of Money was enlarged to Committee for Sequestration and Advance of Money, and for Compounding with delinquents, the former Sequestration Committee being abolished.

Although efforts were made to keep distinct the business of the two Committees for Advance of Money and Compounding, it followed almost inevitably that confusion arose, and orders in cases begun, in one committee were given in the other.

This was the more easy because the course of business so often led from the one committee to the other in the following routine:—A delinquent was informed against in the Committee for Advance of Money and convicted.

The delinquent then applied for his composition to the Committee for Compounding.

In case he undervalued his estate in the account he sent in, information of the undervaluation might be presented to the Committee for Advance of Money.

He had then to go back to the Committee for Compounding to compound for the undervaluations.

When it is considered that the same men were on both committees, and that both sat in the same place, the surprise is that mistakes were not more frequent.

The powers of the new Committee for Advance were defined by Parliament Order on 8 Aug. 1650 (pp. 83, 84).

During the years 1650 and 1651, assessments in the country by the county commissioners—which had all along been partially enforced in counties where Parliament authority was recognized,—were more general (pp. 84, 88–100). The last in the large books of assessments which contain the initiation of these proceedings are dated Oct. 1651.

In April 1651, the Committee defined more fully the difference between an order for seizing and securing an estate, and sequestering it. In the former case, the rents of the real estate were stayed in the tenants' hands, and the suspected delinquent was allowed to enjoy his personal estate, on security in double its value, in case he should be convicted of delinquency. In the latter case, the whole property was taken into the hands of the county commissioners, the estates let, and the goods sold. In April 1651 also, Auditor Sherwin issued a series of proposals for the better regulation of the committee's business (p. 91).

As the persons accused of delinquency frequently complained of want of definiteness in the charges preferred, which rendered a defence difficult, or even impracticable, an order was issued on 18 June 1651, that the date, within a year, and the place of the acts of delinquency informed against, should be ascertained (p. 93).

But by this time the country had become so weary of the uncertainty to property attending the proceedings against delinquents, and the tediousness with which they dragged on, that Parliament passed an Act of Pardon and Oblivion, whereby discharges from sequestration were granted to all those whose estates were not actually sequestered 1 Dec. 1651 (pp. 99, 101).

This Act produced a great revolution in the reduction of the numbers of informations, and in the discharge of very numerous cases, both of delinquency and non-payment of assessments, already before the Committee; but it pressed very heavily upon the informers, many of whom had expended considerable sums in the prosecution of cases, which were far advanced towards a hearing, but the estates not sequestered; and as the recompense to informers was solely from the amounts paid in by the delinquents accused by them, they lost not only their expenses but the reward hoped for.

These informers differed much in position and character; we find among them such men as Cols. Hutchinson and Venn, and numerous other officers, and groups of officers and soldiers, who were unable in any other way to obtain their arrears of pay. But some were money hunters, who brought their neighbours into trouble for their own gain; and some vented their malice upon their private enemies by picking holes in their political conduct, and informing against them for delinquency. (fn. 20)

It cannot be supposed that a Committee whose object was to raise money from the accused would act partially towards them, yet the instances of discharge from sequestration are not very infrequent.

In June 1652, a mandate was issued that the Public Faith should not, without special order, be granted for assessments paid in (p. 105); but on 7 Dec. 1653, certificates for the Public Faith were granted, on the Parliament Order of 12 Aug. 1645, to all who had paid their assessment within the time limited, or had been respited; but not to those against whom proceedings had been taken. This led to numerous requests for Public Faith certificates, from such of the community as still retained a hope that the Public Faith of the Commonwealth was worth anything (p. 112).

From the time of the Protectorate, in December 1653, the powers of all committees were gradually curtailed, and their business diverted and absorbed into Cromwell's hands, until, one by one, they ceased to exist. The latest entry of the proceedings of this Committee is 14 May 1656.

In the general proceedings of the Committee for Advance are placed some entries relating to individual cases, when they seemed needful to illustrate the modus operandi of the committee, although in a few instances, they are repeated in the case itself.

In reference to the cases brought before the Committee for Advance of Money, especially those relating to assessments, they were so numerous that, had they all been calendared, the present volumes must have extended to seven or eight. A selection of these only is therefore given; they comprise—

1. Noblemen, baronets, knights, and ladies.

2. All those whose assessments amounted to 1,000l., and who, therefore, were considered to be worth 20,000l., equal to 80,000l. or 100,000l. in our days.

3. Ministers of churches.

4. Men whose names were known in the legal, literary, diplomatic, or official circles of the period.

5. Cases in which there are several original papers, as well as entries in the order books.

6. Cases which occur, though they may not begin, in the later order books, thereby leading to the presumption that the parties are delinquents.

Any persons seeking information about names of persons assessed, especially those resident in London, not occurring in the index to these volumes, should consult the indexes to the six assessment books, A 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, and 72.

The mode of calendaring adopted for the cases, to secure at once brevity and clearness, and to avoid repetitions, is to place the case under the date of the earliest entry relating to it, and then to add all the other proceedings in order of date. All petitions and the principal orders in the case are calendared, and the references placed in the right-hand margin. Orders of minor importance—as those for respite or hearing of a case, or for confirmation of former orders—are not calendared, but the references to them placed in the left-hand margin. In that margin are also placed references to the evidences on which the orders are grounded, as letters from the county committees, depositions, reports, &c. Any searcher wishing to follow out a case in full should look over these papers.

Occasionally the depositions contain particulars of historical interest relating to the civil war, especially to the proceedings before and after the battle of Worcester. The reports frequently contain details valuable for family pedigree, whilst the particulars of estates and debts give full accounts of the financial position of the individual concerned.

The contractions used in the left-hand margin are—

The first of the large books of assessment on which the majority of the assessment cases are based, does not begin till June 1643, but there are several cases of assessment before this date, though no note exists of the laying of the assessment. After June 1643, the cases usually begin with the laying of the assessment, orders for deposit, or for hearing on payment of the ½, and then discharge on payment of the second half, and frequently of collectors' salary and charges, or of the percentage of 6d. in the pound granted to the County Commissioners.

The discharge on payment was by no means an exemption from future charges, as persons were frequently assessed two, three, or four times. Sometimes, however, a later assessment was discharged because of an earlier one. Some cases terminated within a few weeks or months; others dragged on for years.

Delays occurred more especially where there were debts due to the persons concerned, which were claimed in payment of their assessment, or forfeited for their delinquency; each debtor was summoned to pay the debt to the Committee for Advance of Money, who, for the sake of securing the money, often remitted part of the debt. The debtors refused to pay unless their bonds, securities, or mortgages could be delivered up to them. In troublous times these had often been lost or mislaid, and the creditors were naturally reluctant to give them up, when they received no benefit from the payment. (fn. 21)

The cases of concealed or undervalued estates of delinquents, and also of delinquency, usually commence with informations. These are followed up by orders to the county commissioners to make inquiries, then a return of depositions on the case, publication of proofs, and a final decision. The cases were frequently prolonged owing to delay on the part of the prosecutor, or of the county commissioners; sometimes to the difficulty of obtaining evidence, or to a determination on the part of the accused person to weary out his prosecutor. If the cases were thus protracted without sequestration to the close of 1651, the delinquent obtained his discharge on the Act of Pardon.

On pp. xix. to xxiv. will be found a complete list of the books and papers of the Committee for Advance of Money, noting how far their contents are embodied in the present calendar; but it should be observed that, though many books are noted as not calendared, it is because all the important information in them occurs in other books which have been calendared. To this list is appended a note of directions for the guidance of searchers.

It has been found necessary to divide this Committee's Calendar into three parts, but the pagination is consecutive, and one Index includes the whole Calendar.

The contents, especially the general proceedings (pp. 1–113), afford frequent elucidations of the history of the period; while to the genealogist and the topographer, the cases open out a mine of information.

All the leading families of the country will be able to ascertain, directly or indirectly, the side taken by their ancestry in the great civil strife. If they took the Parliament side, they will not be found here, unless falsely accused; but if they were Royalists—as were most of the landed proprietors—details, often curious and interesting, will be found relating to them, their families, and their estates. The cases of the Duke of Buckingham (pp. 528–541); Thomas, Lord Coventry, and his sons (pp. 1363–1369); William, Lord Craven (pp. 297–299); the Marquis of Worcester (pp. 208–217); and the Countess of Derby (pp. 1,295–1,298) may be cited as illustrative.

The Yorkshire and Oxford Engagements illustrate the position of the Royalists. Merchants and moneyed men were willing to advance loans, but they required better security than the King's privy seals. The noblemen and gentry around him therefore became guarantors, and signed bonds making themselves personally responsible for the return of the money lent. The outcome was unfortunate for both parties. The guarantors were obliged to pay to the State half the sums for which they had made themselves responsible, even though in a few cases the creditors had claimed and recovered the debts, and the lenders found their debts sequestered, and were summoned to deliver up their bonds, and thus disabled from recovering their money by law (pp. 907–941, 996–1,005).

The topographer also will find a store of information; these records make it easy to ascertain, in what counties the King's party or the Parliament party prevailed. London, its city companies, and its streets, parishes, wards, and buildings occupy much space, owing to the fact that the earlier assessments were mainly limited to the city.

The records of the two Committees that follow that for the Advance of Money in point of date are far from perfect. Of the Sequestration Committee the order books, seven in number, are all in existence, but very few of the original papers. They are comprised in four bundles.

As to the Committee for Plundered Ministers, there are only two volumes of its proceedings, one a regular order book, but only extending from 1646 to the early part of 1647. The other, a collection of orders bound together, forming a thick volume, and dating from December 1645 to October 1653. Many of this Committee's orders are scattered among the composition papers,—a portion of the fine of the compounders being frequently transmuted into a settlement of income upon neighbouring ministers,—and there is also a bundle of loose orders and papers relating to it.

It is not at present intended to print a Calendar of these records. The next Committee to be dealt with is, therefore the Committee for Compounding with Delinquents, by far the largest and most important of the Commonwealth's Committees.

M. A. E. G.

100, Gower-street,
27th August 1888.