A HISTORY OF SURREY the number of those who were Catholics by birth and habit was greater at the beginning of the reign, active Roman recusancy was partly the effect of deliberate missionary incitement only applied later on. But the missions probably did not take so strong a hold of Surrey as of some counties, though recusants were by no means scarce. From 1572 to 1579 120 recusants whose names are preserved were indicted at sessions in Surrey. In 1582 there were thirty- eight persons in prison on account of recusancy in the Marshalsea, five in the Clink, and thirteen in the White Lion in Southwark. 1 These were not all Surrey men, some being from Sussex. In 1585 there were forty in the King's Bench and many in the other prisons, who declared that they had neither ' livings nor goods,' poor men or ruined men. , The plight of such was most miserable. At some unknown date the prisoners on account of religion lying in the White Lion, South- wark, petitioned More ' to take some pity upon us your poor and obedient subjackes whiche lye heare in prysson upon your commande- ment, whear that wee are licke to perishe for defayet of Systenauncis yf your wurshipes favourable and marcyfull hand be not streatched fourthe to take some mercy upon vs.' J Poor men often died, sometimes starved, in prison. Those who had goods could compound for their recusancy, though they were in continual danger of suffering from warrants of search to discover lurking priests or forbidden books in their houses, and to arrest on lightly aroused suspicion. In 1581 a return of recusants who were regularly compounding gives the large proportion of sixty- five in Surrey among over 1,100 in England. 3 But probably in some northern and western counties some who would have been on this list had been weeded out by actual rebellion and outlawry, as in 1569 in the north, and some simply evaded the law where authority was weaker than near London. Surrey was a peaceful county and under the close super- vision of the Government. The queen lay too often in Surrey for open recusancy to be allowed there. In 1586 Sir William Catesby of Lam- beth, with an estate of 500 a year, offered 100 a year for relief from further proceedings. John Southcote of Westham, in Surrey, with 160 a year, offered 40,* yet in the same year Southcote was in danger of being again indicted. The Lord Admiral would not decide to proceed against him nor to recommend no proceedings, a fact notified to Sir William More as if the decision were to be left to him. 6 An income tax of 20 or 25 per cent, represented what the Council had described to More on February 25, 1586, as her majesty's gracious purpose to relieve the recusants, for an adequate pecuniary consideration in the way of a yearly tribute to her exchequer, of the vexatious operation of the laws against recusants. 8 There was a deliberate purpose to ruin the 1 Loseley MSS. July ?i, 1582, and July 23, 1582, xii. 52-3.
- Ibid. v. pt. ii. 42. It is undated. 3 St. P. E/iz. Dom. clvi. 42.
4 Loseley MSS. March 9, 1585-6, v. pt. ii. 29-33. 6 Ibid. April 27, 1586, v. pt. ii. 35. 6 Ibid, date cited. It is wrongly dated 1581 in H. MSS. 'Comm. Report. The indulgence is shown because the recusants have furnished light horses for the expedition to the Low Countries, probably on compulsion. See below. 384
