Preface

Calendar, Committee For Compounding: Part 1. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1889.

This premium content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.

'Preface', in Calendar, Committee For Compounding: Part 1, (London, 1889) pp. v-xxiv. British History Online https://www.british-history.ac.uk/compounding-committee/pt1/v-xxiv [accessed 24 March 2024]

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

PREFACE.

The origin of this committee, which afterwards became the most important of the Parliamentary committees, is very unpretending. In Sept. 1643, when the necessity for raising money to meet the demands of the Scots' army grew daily more urgent and imperative, 18 members of the House of Commons were commissioned to wait upon the Lord Mayor and Council of London, and request them to unite with themselves in a joint committee to raise or find security for raising money for this purpose (p. 1). This City Committee was then requested to divide, part to treat with the above-named Committee, and part with a Parliamentary Committee appointed to raise money for the general forces under Lord Fairfax (pp. 1, 10).

The title they then had was Committee for Scottish Affairs, or for raising money for "our brethren of Scotland," and for a short time part sat at Turners' Hall or Guildhall; but their general place of meeting was settled at Goldsmiths' Hall, probably for convenience of the city men who were to meet with them. Orders in Parliament naming them as the Goldsmiths' Hall Committee are frequent, the first being on 8th Nov. 1643 (p. 2).

For the sake of clearness the portion of the committee which dealt with the raising of money was usually called the Committee at Goldsmiths' Hall, and that which dealt with its distribution for the Scottish forces the Committee for Scottish Affairs. At first they had separate order books (G 1a and G 2), though occasionally the same entries appear in both books, but shortly the smaller committee became merged in the larger, and after Oct. 1646, the Committee for Scottish Affairs disappears entirely, except in a single letter dated 8 September 1648. The sums sent over by them to Scotland from 1643–1645 were very considerable (pp. 2–5, 17, 22, 129; also 778–786).

The attendance of the Committee at Goldsmiths' Hall was larger than that at the Committee for Scottish Affairs; it included several members,—especially the treasurers, Waring and Herring, also Lord Maitland, Sir A. Johnston, Lord Wariston,—who did not attend at the Committee for Scottish Affairs, but all the members of the Committee for Scottish Affairs are found in the Committee at Goldsmiths' Hall. There were many additions to the committee in the latter part of 1643, also in 1644 and 1645, and in 1648.

The Committee at Goldsmiths' Hall were empowered, in the first instance, to present the names of persons in London and Westminster, thought capable of lending moneys (pp. 11,17), but in July 1644, they began the dealings with delinquents which afterwards became their speciality. They were not, however, a prosecuting committee. Their business was not judicial but financial, therefore their first dealings were with estates of delinquents already sequestered by the Committee for Sequestrations, of which they were to authorize the sale, at 6 or 8 years' purchase, in order to raise pay for the Scottish army (p. 6).

In August 1644, the principle of compounding with delinquents began to be acted upon, but only as to prisoners, or those whose estates were already sequestered, and who, for the sake of liberty of person or lands, were willing to come to a compromise with the ruling powers, and sacrifice part of their estate to save the remainder (p. 8).

The first recognition that we find of the principle of general composition occurs in the Commons' Journals of 13 Sept. 1644, when, under the stress of urgent want of money to be sent to Lord Fairfax's army, the Committee at Goldsmiths' Hall were ordered to compound with delinquents for their estates, so as to raise with speed 15,000l., a month's pay for the army (p. 10). This order was, however, confined to those who had been pronounced delinquents by Parliament.

In March 1645, the Committee at Goldsmiths' Hall, being pressed to consider the best means for speedy raising of money, suggest, among other things, that whereas they have hitherto only had authority to treat with delinquents on particular orders of Parliament, they may now have power to compound with any who tender themselves, reporting proceedings to the House; also to summon such as they think fit to compound (p. 17).

This proposal was accepted. To make the powers granted to the committee more effective, they requested an order, that no man, once fined by this committee, if he did not pay his fine, should be discharged from sequestration by any other committee whatsoever, on composition or otherwise (p. 19), but this was not obtained till later.

Under the pressure of the civil war, business moved slowly, and it was not till August 1645 that definite rules for compounding were laid down. Estates were to be compounded for at 2 years' of their estimated value before the war, which differed from their present value, more or less, according to the ravages of the tide of war in different localities. Each compounder was to bring a certificate from his county commissioners of the value of his estate, and to be restored only to such portion of it as he compounded for, at not less than 2 years' value (p. 24).

The Speaker was authorized to grant passes to all such as desired it, to come to London to compound, and the guards were to take charge of them on their arrival and send them up to Goldsmiths' Hall.

The rules for composition were to be those previously offered to the King in the propositions for a safe and well grounded peace. These were that ⅓ of the estates of 48 persons named, and of others described as members of Parliament sitting at Oxford, law officers, bishops, clergy, &c., should be forfeited, and 1/10 of the estates of other delinquents, and the proceeds applied to the public debts. But should that not suffice, ½ of the estates of the former persons, and 1/6 of the latter were to be liable; these proportions were not to be exceeded. The estates of soldiers and others in England, not worth 200l., or 100l. in Scotland, were to be discharged without fine (see Rushworth, edit. 1692, p. 852). Later on, the proportions varied according to the date of surrender, the extent of delinquency, &c., and were respectively 2/3, ½, ⅓, 1/6, or 1/10.

In 1644 the committee met regularly in the afternoons of Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, but not on other days or hours without special summons (p. 12); a year later, in October 1645, their meetings were reduced to 3 a week (p. 26).

On 18 October 1645, an order was issued that compositions should be made with the Goldsmiths' Hall Committee only, and that no other committee should compound with any delinquent without special order of the House (p. 25).

To this rule, however, exceptions were afterwards made. In several instances power was given for special compositions in given localities. Thus on 2 March 1649, an Act was passed for compounding with and disposing of the estates of delinquents in the Northern Counties, and the Committee of the Northern Association had the power of issuing warrants for payment of moneys arising therefrom, which were chiefly devoted to the payment of the forces in the North (pp. 201–205, and 810–824).

The same powers were granted to the committees of Kent and Essex to deal with delinquents who had joined the insurrections in the respective counties (pp. 141, 179).

In Wales, the bulk of the inhabitants having been Royalists, it was difficult for compounding committees to act (see p. 61), and therefore it was thought better to deal with the country en masse. On 23 Feb. 1649, an Act was passed requiring payment of 3,500l. in lieu of fines from delinquents' estates in South Wales, excusing those only who were worth less than 100l.; and on 10 Aug. a like Act was passed for the 6 counties in North Wales (p. 146; also Domestic State Papers, Interregnum, vol. ii., No. 77).

Delinquents seeking to compound were not allowed the benefit of counsel as to the proving of any matters of fact (p. 26).

Compounders were required to subscribe the particulars of the estates for which they compounded, and copies of these particulars were kept in books which now form volumes 55 and 56 of the composition records, and which have been useful in working out the cases, in those few instances where the original particulars were wanting (p. 27).

On 6 December 1645, an order allowing delinquents to compound on certificate from the county committee as to the value of their estates was revoked, having been the cause of much inconvenience, as many delinquents had estates in several counties (p. 29).

To avoid the expenses of fees, where the fines of delinquents did not exceed 100l., 3 of them were allowed to be included in one form of pardon, which was required to be taken out within a month after composition, or the composition would be void (p. 27).

In order to expedite the getting in of moneys, delinquents who surrendered to the committees of London or Westminster before 1 Dec. 1645 were required to compound before 1 Jan. 1646, and those in the country before 1 Feb. But those who ventured within the lines of communication, without having taken the oath prescribed by Parliament on 1 April 1645, were to be committed to prison (p. 30).

No delinquent detected in concealing or undervaluing his estate was to be allowed any advantage of composition for what was so concealed, but forfeited it entirely if it was personal property, and had to redeem it at 4, instead of 2 years' purchase if it was real estate (p. 30).

Later this rule was altered, and concealments discovered by any other than the owner could only be redeemed at ½ the full value, 1s. in the pound being allowed as a premium to the discoverer (p. 125).

All advowsons and rights of patronage to churches were to be excepted from composition and left to the disposal of Parliament (p. 32); and all impropriate rectories were to be placed at disposal of the Committee for Plundered Ministers or Committee of Goldsmiths' Hall, for benefit of the ministry (pp. 50, 68).

County committees for Sequestrations, &c., were already in working operation, having been employed both by the Committee for Advance of Money and the Committee for Sequestrations, and these also acted on behalf of the Committee for Compounding.

The conduct of the county committees, especially in localities where the royal party was still in the ascendant, was often the subject of reproof. The complaints against them were:—

Over-indulgence to delinquents, in letting their estates to themselves, or to their friends for them, at too easy rates. (fn. 1)

Protecting their own friends and kindred, and oppressing their enemies.

Infrequency of meeting, and neglect of their duties as to sequestration.

Remissness in not making to the Committee for Compounding the returns of the condition of the estates, &c., required, and imperfections in the entries.

Neglect in the making up and bringing in of their accounts (pp. 74, 75, 131, 180).

Frequent complaints were made by the county commissioners of the opposition they had to encounter from the royalist party and others in the execution of their duties (pp. 196, 197, 241, 242, 245, 261, 306, 578). There were also complaints made by outsiders of the injustice, harshness, and partiality of their proceedings. Again, disputes among themselves were not infrequent, especially in counties Devon, Somerset, Berks, Hereford, and Lancaster (see under index of names, Major Jas. Pearse, Capt. Ben. Mason, and Col. John Pyne, Edw. Curle, Chris. Cheesman, Peter Ambrose, and Rob. Massey).

It will readily be seen that a payment of fines for compositions—which were to be paid half at once, the other half in six weeks— was a much more rapid mode of raising present money than the letting of delinquents' sequestered estates, even when let at their full present value, which was often not half their previous value; still more when it happened—as was frequently the case—that estates were let to friends or agents of the county committees, or sometimes to the delinquents themselves, at a mere nominal rental (see No. 72, p. 23).

Vigorous steps were taken to secure prompt payment of the fines. Rents were stayed pending composition in the tenants' hands; but if the first half of the fine were not paid at 6 months' end, the estates were forfeit to the State (No. 42, p. 84). Non-payment of the entire fine, after lapse of due time, also endangered sequestration of the whole estate (Nos. 162–164, p. 135).

In order to forward the raising of money, the sale of a portion of the estate,—which was frequently necessary before the second half of the fine could be paid,—was authorized, and the Committee at Goldsmiths' Hall had power to suspend the sequestration on payment of the first ½ of the fine, and on security for the remaining half (No. 132, p. 33).

On 21 March 1646, the House sent an urgent order for payment of the Scotch army for four months longer, beginning from 1 April; and on 23 March an order passed that the rules for compositions should be those "set by the House upon the next propositions for such as came in since the 1st of Dec." (No. 141, p. 34).

Those who were able to prove their voluntary surrender before 1 Dec. 1645, were to compound at ⅓ or 1/10, provided they had taken the national covenant and negative oath, and had lived orderly since; otherwise they were to compound at ½ or 1/6 (p. 35).

Special favour was promised to those who should compound on their own discovery before 1 May 1646, and this brought in numerous applicants in the early months of 1646; those who came up on 30 April, the last day of grace, amounted to several hundreds.

This systematic and vigorous mode of proceeding proved very useful to the government by bringing in large sums of ready money; whilst delinquents themselves, in the decline of their party, were only too glad, by a sacrifice of 2 years' income, or more, to secure the discharge and protection of their estates.

On first June 1646 fresh regulations were made. Those who had tendered themselves for composition before 1 May last were required to take the National league and covenant, and the negative oath, before 31 July, as a preliminary of composition. All who had surrendered upon articles of war were ordered the benefit of those articles (p. 39).

On 9 June 1646 the Commons passed a stringent ordinance for the forfeiture of the whole or 2/3 of the estates of certain classes of those who did not come in to compound before 1 May last, but it does not seem to have passed the Lords (p. 40).

A modified proposal was therefore passed 3 Sept. 1646, that delinquents who came in after the stipulated time, 1 May 1646, should still be allowed to compound, but at the highest rate in the propositions. In default of their prosecuting their compositions before 3 Oct. next, their whole estates were to be forfeit (p. 45).

On 8 Dec. 1646, an order was passed in the House that no delinquents should be sequestered for not compounding whose estates were under 200l. total value; but that all others, unless protected by articles of war, should be taken into custody, and their names certified to Goldsmiths' Hall (p. 51).

On 6 Feb. 1647, the Committee at Goldsmiths' Hall was reappointed, and Waring and Mich. Herring were then made treasurers (Scobel, p. 113); and on 9, 11, 16, 20, and 25 Feb. several new arrangements for better management of business were passed by this committee, and letters sent to the county committees to quicken their returns (pp. 56–58).

On 16 March 1648, an order was passed allowing Papists in arms to compound at ⅓ of the value of their estates, according to the Articles of Oxford, they being a class for whom no previous provision had been made; but this was not to include compositions for any offices of power or trust, nor the fees relating thereto (p. 84).

All debts due to delinquents, unless compounded for, were considered to belong to the State, and payment to the delinquents was forbidden (No. 116, p. 128).

Those persons concerned in the insurrections in Kent, Sussex, Surrey, and Essex were only allowed to compound on payment of ¼ of the value of their estates (No. 119, p. 128).

In order to stimulate the local committees to action, fines for compositions and sequestrations were frequently applied in whole or in part to the payment of garrisons and other local objects in the county (pp. 131, 133, &c.). The Essex forces were paid from the fines in that county, and the Dorsetshire officers had their arrears paid from half the sequestrations discovered by them (pp. 126, 142).

On 18 Dec. 1648, 11 new members were added to the Committee at Goldsmiths' Hall, and 15 more on 6 Jan. 1649; and the House passed strong resolutions for the giving in of accounts, and the sequestration of those delinquents who were in arrears with the first or second half of their payments (pp. 135–137).

On 13 March 1649 this committee drew up fresh rules for composition, laying the fines at ½, ¼, or 1/10 of the estate, but Parliament modified the two former rates to ⅓ and 1/6 (pp. 139, 141).

There was an attempt made in Nov. 1649 to transfer their sittings to the late House of Lords, which was fitted up for them accordingly; but they could not conveniently remain there, and returned to their old quarters at Goldsmiths' Hall (pp. 161, 164).

Many complex questions arose relating to the fair valuation of delinquents' estates. Some lands were charged with annuities to relatives and others; some with judgments and extents for debt; and the Committee at Goldsmiths' Hall was required to take care that the State should not be prejudiced in these matters (p. 142). Therefore all charges of whatever description were to be brought before the Committee for Compounding, and allowed, before they could be honoured by the county committees (pp. 229, 237, 263). This order gave rise to a host of petitions from claimants of several classes:—

Wives and families of delinquents who were allowed 1/5 of the estate.

Creditors of the delinquents, for debts contracted before the wars. Holders of rent charges, mortgages, or annuities on the estate. Ministers or parishes claiming grants from impropriate rectories.

Lessees of sequestered lands, to whom leases had been granted for terms of from one to seven years.

These two latter classes of claimants were in danger of being deprived of their benefit from the estate, when the delinquent compounded for it.

Towards the close of 1649 Parliament became dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Committee for Compounding, because, though compositions were numerous, the money that came in by no means answered the charge made on the Goldsmiths' Hall Treasury, as the money "comes in by driblets, passes through so many hands, and comes in a dilatory way," and enquiries were set on foot whether some more energetic mode of administration could not be adopted (pp. 159, 160), but the committee grappled in vain with the difficult problem of paying all the money charged on them, and thus enabling Parliament to reduce the monthly assessments charged for the Scottish army (p. 161).

On 25 Jan. 1650, their sphere of action was increased by the transfer to them of the sequestration cases still on hand before the late Committee for Sequestrations or Barons of Exchequer on appeal, and all the profits of sequestered estates, even when the delinquents had not compounded, were placed in their hands (p. 167).

The work devolving upon the Committee for Compounding now became so onerous that it was thought advisable to reconstruct it on a different basis. This was done by diminishing the number of the Commissioners to 7, none of whom were to be M.Ps, and giving them each such a salary,—viz., 300l. a year (worth at the present rate 1,200l. at least),—as should enable them to devote their whole time and energies to the work (pp. 188, 194).

To this committee also was entrusted the business of the late Committee for Advance of Money, and later on, that of the Committee for Indemnity. They sat on different days for their respective business. This arrangement, though practically good, because so many cases came before the Committee for Advance of Money, and were then transferred to the Committee for Compounding, led to occasional confusion as to the distribution of the papers (see preface to the Calendar of the Committee for Advance of Money, pp. 11, 12).

The new committee sat for the first time on 23 April 1650; they began their work by choosing their officers, arranging their routine of business, and issuing additional instructions to the county committees (p. 200).

There was a fresh adjustment of the county committees, who were newly appointed for the several counties (pp. 171–174). Orders were issued to these committees to transmit lists of the estates of all Papists and delinquents, whether they had compounded or not; to enquire into their property, and the state of the leases; to take their deeds and writings into charge, &c., &c., and the instructions of the Committee for Compounding, based on the Act of Parliament of 25 Jan. 1650, were conveyed to them, with request for immediate attention (pp. 167, 170).

The county committees were much embarassed by these instructions, because they felt their powers crippled, e.g.—

They could only let estates for one year.

The had no authority to nominate or pay their officers.

They could not allow rent-charges, fifths to delinquents, or augmentations to ministers from sequestered rectories.

They were not authorized to allow 1/5 to the discoverers of sequestered estates.

They could not compel witnesses to attend and give evidence.

Nor could they punish those who opposed their proceedings.

They had no power to administer oaths.

They had power to seize the estates of Papists, but not to dispose of them, &c., &c. (pp. 175, 180–182, 184).

Indeed, the letters of the county committees, from March to May 1650, abound with similar complaints, and with queries as to fuller explanations of the instructions given. To meet these, further instructions were issued 20 May and June (pp. 229, 230–263) and on 8 Aug. 1650, Parliament passed a series of resolutions relating to compositions which met most of the requests and enquiries (pp. 288, 289).

Another point of difficulty with the county committees was the custody of the records. When the change of county committees took place in Feb. 1650, the displaced commissioners were ordered to give up all their books and records to their successors, but several difficulties occurred in executing this order, e.g.—

In some instances the records had been seized, or destroyed, or lost, during the civil wars.

Sometimes they were needed by the late commissioners to make up the accounts demanded of them for the period of their stewardship.

Sometimes they had been kept so roughly and carelessly that they could not pass into other hands unless transcribed, and no allowance was made for the expense of transcription.

Again those committees which were guilty of malversation in their dealings were very reluctant to give up papers which might lead to their detection.

Some of the accounts given in were in such confusion that fresh ones had to be demanded (pp. 234, 238, 240, 274, 275, 314).

In a few places, as Carlisle, Shrewsbury, Pembrokeshire, Carmarthen, Haverfordwest, the plague had broken out and debarred access to records (pp. 285, 287, 319, 392, 571, 600).

These difficulties led to so many delays and refusals that the Committee for Compounding at length, on 23 July 1650, ordered a fine of 20l. to be levied on each one of the county commissioners or their agents who refused to deliver up the records, the fines to be augmented unless they were delivered promptly (pp. 296, 313, 470). Stringent letters, insisting on these fines being exacted, were sent to all the counties of England and Wales (p. 313), and produced many replies.

The county committees were generally slow in levying this fine. It was not easy to find out in whose custody the records lay; the late commissioners were generally their friends or neighbours, and some members of the new committees were also on the old, and they were reluctant to enforce a hard measure, which might be carried out against themselves, in case of future changes of commissioners (pp. 331, 339, 354, 357, 374, 393, 550).

On 1 Aug. 1650, an Act passed allowing any person who had a mortgage or extent for debts on any portions of a delinquent's estate to compound for that portion alone, and thus obtain its discharge from sequestration, in order that he might prosecute his legal claim upon it. This led to a large number of applications for these partial compositions (p. 286).

In 1650, on 8 Aug., there being no further hope of delinquents coming in on voluntary composition, a premium of 1/5 of the entire value of moneys brought in by their means was offered by Parliament to all who discovered concealed delinquents' estates.

On 13 Sept., Parliament settled the salaries that should be paid to the officers of the Committee for Compounding, and also the amount of fees which they should have a right to charge for their services, complaints having been made that the exorbitance of their fees proved a hindrance to composition business (pp. 311, 312).

On 20 Sept., the Committee for Compounding sent out vigorous letters to the county committees—with a view to the more rapid return of moneys,—divided into 2 classes.

The first, sent to 29 counties, reproved them for paying in for the half year less than half the rents of sequestered estates due from the county. It gives in parallel columns the estimated annual revenue from sequestrations, the half year's rents, and the sums actually paid in.

The second letter, sent to 5 counties in England, and to North and South Wales, complains of non-return of a reply to the order for sending an account of the sequestered estates in the county (pp. 312, 313). These letters led to numerous apologies and explanations, and some remonstrances, but to few compliances (pp. 324 et seq. passim).

On 2 Oct. 1650, several regulations of importance were passed in Parliament. Those who had hopes of estates, not at present their own, but in dispute, or in expectancy, or in reversion, had been allowed to insert "savings" in the particulars of their estates given in, to compound for these additions later, on obtaining possession of them. This was done to prevent informations being entered against them for concealing or undervaluing their estates. For these savings they were now allowed to compound on the same rates as before.

Although the composition rules were stringent, that a delinquent's estate should only be discharged to the amount for which he compounded, concealments and undervaluations were still very frequent. To encourage discovery, another order of the same date was passed that all who discover their own errors may compound if the fine is paid before 24 Nov. 1650, but failing this, if they are informed against—

Compounders at 1/10 are to pay 1/6 for undervaluations.

" 1/6 " ⅓"

" ⅓ " ½ " (p. 323).

From Cornwall alone 27 names were returned of persons who had not given in two thirds, others not half, and others not even one third of their estates (p. 336); and from Devonshire one informer returned a list of 22 undervaluations (p. 502).

In the close of 1650 and in 1651, there was great activity in raising the county militia, on account of the threatened, and at length accomplished, invasion of Charles II., which was terminated by the battle of Worcester. The sheriffs of counties followed former militia regulations in raising horses and arms on all the estates in the county, whereas the Committee for Compounding pleaded exemption for sequestered estates as being already in the hands of the State. This led to endless disputes between the authorities whose orders so clashed (pp. 334, 343, 346, 353, 359, 388, 439, 440).

On 12 Dec. 1650, the Committee for Compounding issued stringent orders to all the county committees to send, during January, their accounts up to the end of the year, "that there may be a constant yearly account, which is necessary to orderly proceedings," and this to be brought up by one of the committee or their agent, who shall be able to explain any doubtful points. Further instructions were issued at the same time about the letting of estates (pp. 373, 374).

These letters again brought in numerous replies; the tenor of many of them was a complaint of difficulty in the observance of the orders issued, while others expressed ready acquiescence (pp. 377, et seq).

On 27 Feb. 1651, the Committee for Compounding sent a more clear and accurate set of instructions to the county committees, embracing, or in a few cases modifying, those previously sent, and adding a few more items (pp. 413–415). After receipt of these, the enquiries of the county committees for further directions become much less frequent.

On 21 March 1651, an order passed forbidding the admission of any one to compound who should have been guilty of treason since the execution of the King, that is, since 1 Feb. 1648–49.

Those who were at Pendennis Castle at its surrender were only to be allowed to compound, if M.Ps, on payment of 2/3, and the rest of ⅓ the value of their estates (p. 425).

After the battle of Worcester, on 3 Sept. 1651, and the complete dispersion of the royalist party, much correspondence ensued about the treatment of the prisoners of war, and especially about the clothiers of Worcester, many of whom had stocks of cloth in London. This was seized on suspicion that all were favourers of King Charles' party, but where nothing could be proved against the owners, the goods were liberated (pp. 483, 485, 487, 488, 490, 498, 501).

On 16 December circular letters were issued to all the counties, ordering that all delinquents who had been freed from sequestration otherwise than by Parliament Order, or order of the Committee for Compounding, should produce their discharges in 28 days, as some had been unduly cleared by the Committee for Sequestrations or Barons of Exchequer (p. 518).

The verification of these discharges was now a matter of consequence, because, on the 24th of February 1652, an Act was passed with the view of healing the long discords of the nation, whereby all treasons committed before 3 Sept. 1651 were pardoned, excepting high treasons committed since 30 Jan. 1648–49, and none were to be called in question for acts of hostility during the wars. Any officer making out writs for anything pardoned by this Act was to pay treble damages, and a fine of 10l.

From this there were several exceptions. No person was to be allowed the benefit of the Act who had not first taken the engagement of fidelity to the present government. Also all delinquents were excluded whose estates were actually sequestered before 1 Dec. 1651, but not those which had only been seized (p. 547, and Scobel's Acts, 1651, pp. 179–186). This last proviso made it very important to ascertain what estates were in sequestration on that date.

On 19 March 1652, the county committees were ordered, to send in alphabetical lists of all the persons not sequestered before 1 Dec., and numerous lists were returned on this order (pp. 559, 565, et seq., passim).

The passing of this Act much perturbed the county committees, who declared that thereby the spirits of the malignants were much raised; and the county committees declared that if the "sons of violence, who have enriched themselves by the spoils of poor sufferers," are to escape, the State would lose thousands of pounds (pp. 543 (2), 549, 555, 557).

Many enquiries also arose as to the working of the Act, and the precise description of offences pardoned thereby (pp. 561–592, passim); and on 13 April, the Committee for Compounding issued definite instructions on the subject (p. 569). On 10 September they offered to Parliament the objections which, after nearly 5 month' trial, they found to the working of the Act, and the alterations which they proposed (607, 608).

The receipts from the estates of delinquents being thus considerably reduced, an attack was renewed against recusants—viz., those who refused to attend Protestant services; and the county committees were ordered to send in lists of all convicted, to tender the oath of abjuration to all suspected to be Popishly affected, and to sequester those who refused to take it, and report their names (p. 608). The Clerk of the Pipe was also ordered to return to the Committee for Compounding lists of all convicted for recusancy since 1603 (p. 609). This he declares would be a work of such labour that many hands could not do it in 12 months, but he promises to do his best (p. 611).

In spite of all the efforts of sequestrators, informers, and composition committees, there still remained a considerable class of delinquents who absolutely refused to recognize the right of Commonwealth authorities to deal with them, or who failed to pay the fines imposed on them, and their estates were therefore ordered to be seized, surveyed, and sold (pp. 323). Three Acts of Sale were passed. (fn. 2)

The first on July 16, 1651, contained 73 names (p. 464).

The second on Aug. 4, 1652, " 29 " (p. 602).

The third on Nov. 18, " " 678 " (p. 617).

This last Act contained the names of all sequestered delinquents who had not compounded, or had not paid the remainder of their fines. All these lands were vested in trustees, who held their sittings in Drury House, and were called Drury House Trustees, or trustees for sale of lands forfeited for treason, or more briefly Treason Trustees. They had power to sell the lands, and on certificate of their having done so, and of the payment of the whole or half the purchase money, the lands were discharged from sequestration by the Committee for Compounding. Most of these orders were entered in the order book G 18, but some occur in G 16 and 17.

As purchasers were by no means to be found for the whole of these estates, the third Act of Sale gave leave to delinquents to compound for their own estates, though on severe terms, they having to pay ⅓ of the full value. (Scobel, 1652, p. 221.)

These compositions were somewhat numerous. The order book marked G a, in which they were entered, has long been missing, but copies of most of the orders, were found among some unsorted bundles of Exchequer papers, and these are entered under their respective cases.

On 16 Aug. 1653, on an order from the Committee for Inspecting the Treasuries, the auditor of the Committee for Compounding was required to prepare a list of all those whose estates were sequestered, but had not been put into the Acts for Sale. This points to an intention of preparing a fourth Act for Sale, but the current of events prevented its carrying out (p. 648).

An Act of 21 Oct. 1653, permitting recusants to compound for the sequestered 2/3 of their estates, at the rate of 4 years' value of their real estate, and ⅓ of their personal estate, gave a great spring to business. Surveys of the estates were ordered, a large folio order book was set apart for these cases, and in the next few months many recusants presented themselves (pp. 657, 659), but the terms were thought hard. Though they were to contract for their estates at 4 years' value, they were only to be allowed to enjoy them on yearly leases, and the whole money was to be paid within three months (pp. 657, 666); therefore, though the petitions to contract were very numerous, very few of the contracts were completed.

The advent of Cromwell to the Protectorate changed the aspect of government in many departments, and in none more so than in the Committee for Compounding.

An ordinance was passed 10 Feb. 1654, which, though nominally an Act for continuing the powers of the Committee for Compounding, was in reality its death blow. Its office of sequestration was continued, it is true, but was limited to the management of estates already sequestered, or to the judging of cases already pending.

The tremendous weapon of composition, which had been wielded for more than 8 years, with such effect, was now almost deprived of its power. Composition was allowed on the late Act of Sale for delinquents' estates; and any delinquents, who chose to come in before the following 5 March, that is, in about 4 weeks, were permitted to compound on reasonable terms. But after that time the license for composition ceased.

The very title of the committee was changed, and it was now called a committee, not for compounding, but for sequestration.

Also it was enjoined to curtail the heavy expenses which had hitherto attended county operations (p. 663).

The commissioners sent a remonstrance against the reduction of their powers, specifying their difficulty in working under these new regulations, and requesting continuance of several of the powers enjoyed by the late committee, but their paper seems to have elicited no response (p. 670).

On 14 March they wrote to the former county committees, dissolving them entirely; and then to one or two members in each county, devolving upon him or them the business of the county, with the same poundage as before, but cutting off all allowances for travelling and incident charges, and all payments to solicitors, agents, and messengers (p. 672). This stipulation brought frequent requests for extra allowances, which were sometimes granted in special cases (pp. 677, 683, 685, &c.).

A little impulse was given to the committee by the Excise Act of 17 March 1654, which inflicted the penalty of sequestration for non-payment of arrears of excise, and deputed the Committee for Compounding to carry it out, but the cases were not numerous (see p. 716).

Another serious blow fell on the committee when, on 11 Dec. 1654, the Treasury issued orders to all the county commissioners to pay their moneys direct into the Exchequer of Westminster; and Waring and Herring, so long the Goldsmiths' Hall Treasurers, were also ordered to transfer into the Exchequer all their money, their accounts, and the bonds, leases, and all other documents relating to the finance of sequestered estates (p. 714).

This was followed by the appointment of receivers-general of counties, and the renewal of the powers of sheriffs of counties; and though on 15 May 1655, the powers of the county commissioners were continued for one year notwithstanding, yet they were constantly clashing with the newly constituted authorities (p. 724).

In August to October 1655, on orders to that effect, the county, committees sent up lists of all the Papists and delinquents under sequestration (pp. 728–733), and the Treasury Commissioners, on. Sept. 14 and 19, demanded from the Committee for Compounding very full and minute particulars of the condition of the estates, &c. (pp. 730, 731). They also required the delivery of all the bonds for payment of money which had been in the hands of the Committee for Compounding's officers (pp. 734, 735).

In March 1656, numerous returns were made into the Exchequer, on orders from the Treasury, relative to all branches of the composition work (pp. 740–742), and these returns practically closed the work of the Committee for Compounding, although a few orders on cases pending appear up to April 1658, when they close altogether.

In 1659, the rising, best known as Sir George Booth's insurrection, once more called into action, brief and spasmodic, the old process of sequestration. In the desire, by speedy and vigorous punishment of all concerned, to nip the mischief in the bud, on 27 Aug. 1659, the Sequestration Committee was revived, consisting of four members of former committees and three new members, with several of the former officers, and with power to appoint county committees; but without any proviso at first for salary, either to commissioners or agents. They were ordered to sequester, first, the estates of the 4 principal delinquents, Sir George Booth, Sir Thos. Middleton, Major Randal Egerton, and Rob. Werden, and then to secure the estates of all others suspected of being engaged in the insurrection, and to sequester them if found guilty.

Of this committee no order book has been preserved, but there is a rough index to an order book missing (G 264, No. 82). There is also a letter book of its correspondence with the county committees (G 59). The only other records of its proceedings are in a number of letters addressed to it by the county committees (G 263, 264).

Commissioners were appointed, chiefly in September, for every county, and instructions issued to them—(p. 745, 768)—but many excused themselves and refused to act, and others were negligent. The general feeling that the times were critical paralyzed proceedings, and in Derbyshire and other places the commissioners were threatened with personal violence. In counties where they did act, the witnesses they summoned often refused to appear or to be sworn, and the persons accused did not always vouchsafe to attempt their defence, but gained time by requesting orders to examine witnesses, &c.; and the rumours of the proceedings of Monk's army, and the breaking up of Parliament, interrupted their action (pp. 745–775).

On 7 Feb. 1660 another Sequestration Act was passed, enlarging the powers of the commissioners, and authorizing the payment of salaries (p. 776); but the time for action was over, the Interregnum was terminated by the restoration of Charles II.

The above remarks contain a brief summary of the leading features of this committee's proceedings, but numerous points of interest are untouched. Among the incidental papers worth naming may be noted—

Particulars of sequestered estates in Wirrall hundred, co. Chester, and also in Gloucestershire, giving the present as compared with the late value of the estates before the wars, often less than half, sometimes only amounting to ⅓ (pp. 60, 61, 85, 87).

Valuation of the estates of all the delinquents in co. Bucks (pp. 66–68).

Lists with numerous particulars of all the Papists and delinquents in co. Wilts (pp. 76–79).

Lists of sequestered Papists and delinquents in a large number of counties, sent on an order of the House, transmitted to the county committees by the Committee for Compounding, and made out with more or less of detail (pp. 85–124).

List of 175 delinquents who compounded with the county committee in the Essex insurrection, giving the value of their estates and amount of their respective fines (pp. 144, 145).

List of delinquents and Papists in two divisions of co. Devon, with the valuation of their estates (pp. 152, 153).

List of delinquents who compounded with the Northern Committee for Compounding, with an account of their fines. These were confined to the 4 Northern counties (pp. 200–204).

Two lists of compounders with the county committee in the Kent insurrection, and notes of their fines, the latter one much fuller, and giving the place of abode also (pp. 328, 329, 456–462).

Account of the revenues from estates in 28 counties for the year ending March 1651, sequestered from delinquents, Papist delinquents, or Papists (p. 429).

A curious correspondence between Lord Goring, afterwards Earl of Norwich, and his sons, the whole family being ardent Royalists (pp. 597, 598).

Account of the revenues from sequestration in every county in England and North Wales in 1652 (pp. 619, 620).

"Engagement roll," being a list of 56 persons who signed an engagement to be true to the Commonwealth without King or House of Lords. This is on parchment, and all the signatures are original (p. 623).

The present volume will be followed in due time by others con taining particulars of the individual cases brought before the Committee for Compounding; and these volumes by another which will contain indexes of names and places, &c., comprising the entire of the composition papers.

M. A. E. G.

100, Gower Street,
27 August1889.

Footnotes

  • 1. The newly-appointed Cornwall Commissioners sent up in Dec. 1650 a statement of 6 estates let by the late committee at 826l. 13s. 4d., for which the present committee had offers of 1,370l. rents (p. 387).
  • 2. A valuable and accurate index of these Acts, with the Acts themselves prefixed, was edited for the Index Society, in 1879, by Miss Mabel G. W. Peacock.