War costs money. The defeated usually have to pay at least a portion of that cost. When Charles I raised his standard at Nottingham in 1642, effectively declaring war on Parliament, Parliament retaliated by raising an army. At first it depended on voluntary contributions from wealthy supporters, but in November 1642 a Committee for the Advance of Money was established, and demanded a loan ‘on the public faith’ from everyone whose wealth exceeded £100. In the following year, Parliament established a Sequestration Committee to confiscate the estates of Royalist ‘delinquents’, that is, those who had taken up arms for the King. It also established the Committee for Compounding with Delinquents, which allowed sequestrated Royalists to compound (pay a fine) and recover their estates. They were required to pledge not to take up arms against Parliament again. The idea of sequestration and compounding was not unique to Parliament. The Royalists had the same idea; the difference is that they lost the war, and consequently destroyed almost all of their records to avoid incriminating evidence.

In 1645, the Committee for the Advance of Money began to investigate concealed Royalist estates. By 1650 it was meeting with the other two committees, and in 1656 they finally merged. In order to compound, the supposedly penitent Royalist petitioned the Committee for Compounding, giving details of his delinquency, and particulars of his estate. He also had to take various oaths affirming his allegiance to Parliament. A report based on his petition and particulars was then prepared for the committee, which decided on the fine to be set.

The papers of these committees are in The National Archives, classes SP 19 (advance of money), SP 20 (sequestration), and SP 23 (compounding). The SP 23 documents are known as the Royalist Composition Papers. They may be searched on TNA’s Discovery catalogue. There are also published calendars (see box).

These papers provide much information on particular individuals and their families, on their estates, and on their involvement in the war. Parliament intended delinquents’ families to have some support, and consequently many of their wives petitioned to be allowed their fifth part of their husbands’ estates, sometimes naming their children. Delinquents’ own petitions and particulars sometimes named other members of their families – brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers. It might help if a relative who had fought for Parliament could be named.

Composition fines were imposed on the value of estates. Therefore the committee needed ‘particulars’ of those estates. Sometimes they were described in great detail, with the names of tenants, and of anyone with claims on the estate, such as debtors and annuitants.

Conviction for ‘delinquency’ depended on the extent of the accused’s participation in the war. The papers name many Royalists who fought in particular battles. Some were captured, some were exchanged for other Parliamentary prisoners. Others who were not involved in fighting, but who had resided in Royalist garrisons, were also named. So were those who had contributed to Royalist finances, or provided horses or armour. That was the point where the accused could plead that they had been ‘within the power of the enemy’, and could not avoid complying with their demands.

Colonel Ralph Sneyd
The career of Colonel Ralph Sneyd of Keele Hall in Staffordshire exemplifies what can be learnt from these papers and associated sources. He was a substantial landowner, but was heavily in debt on the eve of the Civil War. One wonders if that was why he persuaded the electors of Stafford to elect him as their member of parliament in both Short and Long Parliaments. Members of parliament could not be arrested for debt. We have no evidence of Sneyd’s participation in parliamentary activities, except that he was disabled from sitting in 1643, and told the committee that he had not sat in the Royalists’ Oxford Parliament.

When the King, in September 1642, invited the gentry of Staffordshire to meet him in Uttoxeter, Ralph was one of the few who agreed to join his army. He accompanied Charles to Stafford, where his younger brother Richard entertained the royal guest at the High House (which is still standing). That was where Ralph received his commission as a royalist colonel, while Richard was commissioned captain. Did the opportunity to serve the King look like a good way to escape his debts?

Ralph probably fought at Edgehill, but in May 1643 he was in Stafford when it fell to Parliamentary forces. He was captured and imprisoned, but was exchanged for John Birch of Cannock. On release, he attempted to fortify Keele Hall, but was captured again. In November 1645 he petitioned to compound, but in the following February was said to be ‘in arms against Parliament’. A fine of £2,026 was ordered in October 1646, to be abated to £1,000 if Sneyd agreed to settle annuities of £50 per annum on two local chapels. After this order was made, he again committed ‘delinquency’. In October 1647, the estate, valued at £1,000, was ordered to be sequestered ‘till he has paid his assessment’. The valuation was increased to £2,500 in December 1647. He paid half his fine in February 1648. His wife, Jane, who had apparently stayed at Keele throughout the conflict, petitioned to be allowed the usual fifth of his estate in July 1650.

Ralph twice took an oath recognising the authority of Parliament, in order to recover his sequestered estate. But after Charles I’s execution, he continued to plot. Sir Robert Shirley, a fellow Royalist, was accused of attending meetings with Sneyd at Keele and Darlaston in December 1649, where letters from the exiled ‘Charles Stuart’ were discussed. Eight months later, Ralph Sneyd fled to join the Earl of Derby in the Isle of Man. He was accidentally shot, and died of his wounds in January 1651.

Ralph and Jane had no surviving son, so Ralph’s brother William inherited the estate, and had to deal with the committee’s demands on the estate. Ralph had paid a fine of £1,500 before he died, but the committee claimed that £500 was still outstanding. William petitioned to be discharged, as the fine was ‘not properly due from him, the estate being heavily charged for the payment of portions and his brother’s debts, and by reason of jointures and annuities, and sale during his brother’s life of part of it worth £500 a year it is not worth more than £300 a year’. His petition does not appear to have succeeded; we subsequently read that Jane, Ralph’s widow, paid the remaining fine in 1652.

The demands of the committee also impacted on other claimants on the estate. The papers record Ralph’s debts, and how his creditors tried to obtain payment. As early as 1642, Henry Beech of London obtained a judgement for payment of a debt of £907. Probably at the same time, John Heath claimed a debt of £800. William Clifton, vintner, obtained judgement against Ralph in the Court of Common Pleas for £300. Samuel Smith, executor of William Roberts, sought payment of debts amounting to £300. Nathaniel Hallowes had a 1646 judgement against Sneyd for £1,000. All found that the property from which they sought to obtain payment was sequestrated by the committee, and therefore petitioned for redress.

It is evident that Colonel Sneyd was an impetuous, reckless and indebted Royalist. He was also a prominent landowner. Not everyone accused of delinquency had such a strong commitment to the Royalist cause; nor were they all substantial landowners. There were also many men and women of lesser standing who had found themselves dragged into a war in which they wanted no part – at least, that is what they told the committee! A browse through the calendars of these committees provides many interesting insights into the way in which war impacted on mid-17th century society.