POLITICAL HISTORY Captain Mathias Barry as sub-commissioners ; "' and on one occasion we find the former body complaining that ' it seems strange that we have neither obedience nor the civiUty of an answer, and your severity makes us suspect something beyond love of justice.'"^ It was reported in 1650 to the Central Committee that as the sequestrated estates consisted mainly of tillage, small farms, and ' mean rents,' there was — apart from the tenants' losses by rot, &c. — some difficulty in remitting the revenues desired from them with the speed and completeness expected in London ; and also that the courts, most of which were in Buckingham's estate, and the maintenance of which was necessary to prevent disorders amongst the tenants, brought little profit."^ The Central Committee was not satisfied, however, and on 20 September 1650, complained that only jC^oo instead of £2^^ 6s. Sd., the half-year's rent of the sequestrated estates, had been sent up to London, and threatened to fine the members of the late committee >(^2o each if they failed to make due returns.^'"' In replying to this threat, Armyn and Norton said that for themselves they had complied with this rule, though they could not answer for things done before their appointment or in their absence. '^^ ' Some Colonels &c.,' they observed significantly, ' received great pay ; we did not receive public money ' ; and Armyn in another letter says, ' If there be any profit to be had, others who seek such places get them ; but if there be any trouble without profit, that they lay upon those which seek for no place at all.'^^' In December 1654 the Committee for Sequestrations, which had then, under an ordinance of 10 February, 1653-4, replaced the Central Committee for Compounding,'*^ declared that no account or rentals — except one paper — had been sent in since the appointment of the new Rutland Committee in February 1650, and demanding proper returns within twenty- one days."* On 14 March in this year, however, all existing county com- mittees were discharged, and Rutland, with Northamptonshire, was placed ten days later under Peter Whalley as sub-commissioner,'*^ who sent up in August 1655 a list of fifteen sequestrated Papists and delinquents,'"^ but complained that the late committee refused to give details as to dates in connexion with proceedings against two recusants in the county.'" It appears from a letter of 1659 that Rutland was eventually united for seques- tration purposes with Huntingdonshire instead of Northamptonshire since the Huntingdonshire commissioners desired Huntingdonshire and Rutland business to be joined with Northamptonshire, the Isle of Ely, or some other.'^* Other difficulties of various kinds connected with sequestration are also recorded in the papers of the Committee for Compounding. Thus in 1650 Captain Barry, one of the sub-commissioners, complained that at Burley the commissioners were interfered with by the agents of Lord Fairfax, who claimed rights over the manor to secure the payment of certain debts, and on whose behalf the London Committee eventually ordered that the Burley rents should be paid to him until the debts were discharged.'*' Again Captain Barry and other sub-commissioners opposed the purchase by Mr. Armyn of '" Ca/. of Com. for Comfounding, 559. '" Ibid. 1497. '" Ibid. 302. "" Ibid. 313. ■ Ibid. 559 (19 Mar. 165 1). "' Ibid. 193. '■•' Ibid. 668. '^'* Ibid. 713. '" Ibid. 672-3. "'= Ibid. 730. '" Ibid. 728 (7 Aug.), and 736 (29 Feb. 1655-6). Ibid. 76: (29 Oct. 1659). "' Ibid. 33 3 ; cf. pp. 357. 372. and 400. 197
