I am very grateful to Colonel Trappes-Lomax for his criticism of my estimates of Catholic numbers between 1559 and 1720[1]. I have found his comments stimulating, and, while I cannot fully accept his views, I have been led to modify my own in one respect, though perhaps not quite in the sense which he intended. As I understand Colonel Trappes-Lomax, the essence of his criticism may be expressed as follows:
I have never claimed that my estimates of total Catholic numbers represented recusants; my estimates of total numbers include those who were in varying degrees Catholic in belief and sympathy but who externally conformed. Colonel Trappes-Lomax himself recognises this; nevertheless, in the course of his article, he frequently disregards it. I say that he frequently disregards the distinction because, in many places, he attacks my estimates of total numbers by arguments which can properly be applied only to recusants and practising Catholics. I think I am correct in saying that the main substance of his argument lies in his plea that the opportunities for practising the Catholic religion were so limited and restricted. He returns again and again to the point. Thus :
I must confess to feeling that Colonel Trappes-Lomax has, to a great extent, been beating at an open door. I entirely agree that the numbers of recusants and practising Catholics were at all times very small. I make no claim for a total of more than 200,000 at any time during the seventeenth century, and I do not suppose that they were any more numerous under Elizabeth; on the contrary the severity of the Elizabethan persecution may have depressed the numbers of those who were prepared to risk life and fortune to an even lower level than in the following century. As I pointed out in my book, the Papal Nuncio at Brussels in 1613 estimated practising English Catholics at 18,000 families, or, say 90,000 persons ; under the more tolerant regime which followed in the later years of James I, and in those periods when Charles I and Charles II held the reins of government, we have estimates ranging from 150,000 to 300,000. In 1621, several speakers agreed in maintaining that the number of recusants had doubled or trebled since the time of Queen Elizabeth.
In my book, I record contemporary estimates that one-third of the nation was Catholic in 1603. Colonel Trappes-Lomax, comparing this estimate with my calculation of some 540,000 (including schismatics) under Charles I, rightly remarks that the landslide occurred during the reign of James I. He emphasises that, under Elizabeth, there were very few priests, and very limited facilities for receiving the sacraments, and remarks :
But I have never claimed that recusants and practising* Catholics formed any considerable proportion of the population. What I have tried to do is to show the persistence of Catholic tradition and Catholic sympathies among a very large section of the people. It is all a question of precisely what is meant by a Catholic. No doubt I have used the word in a looser and less accurate sense than Colonel Trappes-Lomax, but I cannot see that I have given any false impression. I have recorded the very small totals of known recusants, as set out in the diocesan return of 1603 ; I nave referred to the estimate of the Papal Nuncio in 1613. I have contrasted these small figures with contemporary estimates that Catholics (in the widest sense of the word) formed a really large minority.
Colonel Trappes-Lomax argues that it is unreasonable to assume that the tenants and dependants of the Catholic gentry were themselves entirely or mainly Catholic. He points out that the Catholic landowners did not all provide facilities for hearing Mass and receiving the sacraments. This is certainly true, but, once again, it only proves that my estimates of total Catholic numbers do not represent practising Catholics; I have never made such a claim.
Once again, the point at issue is not the number of recusants, but the number of schismatics. Colonel Trappes-Lomax suggests that the Blundell family, whose dependants were solidly Catholic, were not typical. Not of the Church Papists and schismatics, I agree. I have based my estimates of recusants and practising Catholics on the figures given by papal agents and Vicars Apostolic, which Colonel Trappes-Lomax seems to accept, and it therefore seems to me that his arguments in regard to the extent of Catholic practice are not relevant to the real point at issue, which can only be the numbers of schismatics, or Church Papists.
It is on this point that Colonel Trappes-Lomax has given me much food for thought.
In 1680, I have established 10% of the gentry as Catholic (not necessarily recusants: they are described as 'Papists') ; in 1715-20, 5% of the gentry (probably recusants). The total number of recusants in 1677 (near enough to 1680) may be placed at 200,000 (report of Alexander Holt), which is rather less than 5% of the total population. Can we assume that there were another 300,000 schismatics ?
In taking the view that the schismatics were more numerous than the recusants I have inter alia, relied on the estimate of Sarmiento (1618), and on fragmentary returns of non-communicants, who are invariably given as more numerous than the recusants. Also, since I wrote my book, I have noted a passage in the Venetian calendar (temp. James I) in which the Venetian Ambassador writes that the number of Catholics who conform is much greater than of those who show themselves.' Since I have read Colonel Trappes-Lomax's paper, I have been struck by the fact that this evidence is confined to the reign of James I, and I am led to enquiredoes the same principle hold good for later periods ? I am compelled to admit that it does not follow.
On the contrary, it is, I think, reasonable to suppose that the schismatics, lacking as they did the sustaining power of the Mass and the sacraments, may well have declined more rapidly than the recusants. After all, they did ultimately disappear entirely; we hear nothing of Church Papists by, say, 1781. The picture I have formed of the England of Elizabeth is consistent with this view. With the memory of universal Catholic practice fresh in the minds of all, it is easy to understand that for one recusant who risked the penalties of the law, there may have been ten or twenty conformists who retained a secret attachment to the Catholic religion. The landslide of the reign of James I is not marked by a decline in the number of recusants (on the contrary, they increased) but by the disappearance of the older generation of Church Papists who retained memories of Queen Mary.
Still, under James I, we have plenty of evidence that the schismatics remained more numerous than the recusants, but only in the ratio of 2 to 1, or 1.5 to 1, compared with perhaps 10 or 20 to 1 under Elizabeth. It is easy to believe that, under Charles I and Charles II the schismatics declined, though the number of recusants seems to have remained stable. With each succeeding generation the Catholic tradition among the schismatics would become weaker, while among the recusants the tradition would retain its full force. Ultimately, at some stage, before the dawn of the nineteenth century, the schismatic virtually disappears. It would be interesting to find the latest period at which the term Church Papist' was in use.
In view of all this, it is possible that, in 1680, the schismatics were fewer than the 300,000 required by my estimate. Until further evidence is forthcoming, it is impossible to say. I do not think Colonel Trappes-Lomax proves that the schismatics had disappeared as early as 1715 which his graph seems to suggest. I think it unlikely.
I can see no necessity to assume that, where facilities for Catholic practice were lacking, the common people must immediately have lost all attachment to Catholic tradition. Where the local squire was a Church Papist, his influence was probably sufficient, for the most part, to prevent any active hostility to Catholic sympathisers. I think it reasonable to assume that the labourers and yeomen would retain some measure of Catholic tradition, in districts where active hostility was absent, and where the propaganda of the towns did not penetrate. The Anglican parson might refrain from bitter criticism which would displease the squire.
The Church Papists were not necessarily secret in their Catholic sympathies; of the 58 Catholic knights whom I have identified among the creations of Charles I, only 28 are described as recusants. Yet the remaining 30 were sufficiently open in their opinions to be known and described as Papists. They went to church to escape the penalties of recusancy but, they did not necessarily refrain from expressing their opinions. In districts where the squire was powerful enough to prevent active hostility and hostile propaganda, the natural conservatism of the peasantry would prevent the enthusiastic acceptance of Protestantism.
I have referred in my book to the great influence exercised by Lord William Howard in Northumberland, and the contempt in which the Anglican minister was held. Yet I have contemporary evidence that Lord William escaped the penalties of recusancy by occasional conformity. It is surely no misuse of words to regard such a man as a Catholic rather than a Protestant. I am prepared to admit that the Church Papists must have dwindled more rapidly than the recusants, and that with the passage of time, their Catholic traditions became more vague and tenuous. Yet I am convinced that it is a great error to minimise their importance unduly. Colonel Trappes-Lomax asks: And what, all said and done, was a Church Papist ?' My reply is that, though they were not heroes, they form an essential part of our picture of the balance of forces, and of the social structure in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Two minor points remain to be considered. Colonel Trappes-Lomax points out that I disregard the towns in my calculations. This is quite true, and I was not unaware of the fact. But, with the exception of London, the towns were very small and accounted for a very small fraction of the population. The Catholics were undoubtedly weak in most of the towns, but there is plenty of evidence that they were very numerous in London. Secondly, Colonel Trappes-Lomax cannot credit a defection of 3 Catholics in 5 between 1680 and 1696. It is only necessary to compare Holt's estimate of 200,000 in 1677 with the 100,000 returned by the Vicars Apostolic in the later year. Whether the defection was 1 in 2 or 3 in 5 depends upon the necessarily vague estimates of schismatics.
In conclusion, I must express my thanks to Colonel Trappes-Lomax for a most interesting and stimulating criticism, which has opened up a new point of view. But, though I am prepared to modify my calculations of total numbers, as indicated in the foregoing, I repeat what I said in my book:
In any event, the social and political influence of the Catholic party, and the place it occupied in the minds of those who busied themselves with affairs of State, are to be measured by the numerical strength of the Catholic gentry, rather than by the total number of Catholics of all classes.