his attempts to condemn the latter's Protestantism during Mary's reign, is said to have been prosecuted to death after paying out £ 700 on lawsuits. Catharne's son-in-law, Alban Stepney, inherited the feud and proved one of Perrot's most recalcitrant opponents. There is extant a list of landowners who were persecuted and prosecuted by Perrot up to 1581, together with the sums of money they were alleged to have lost through this legal warfare.' John Barlow of Slebech had lost 2,000 marks, Richard Barlow of St. David's £ 700, Rice ap Morgan £ 500, Edward Banester £ 500, Alban Stepney £ 400, William Philipps of Picton £ 300, George Owen £ 200, and Griffith White of Henllan Eioo-all immense losses which were probably highly exaggerated. Most of these men were rich and adept enough at the same game to survive, but a number of smaller individuals were persecuted mercilessly and hounded to beggary including Thomas Folland, a burgess of Haverfordwest who, unable to withstand the costs of a Chancery suit in London, was reduced to pauperism.3 This titanic struggle permeated the whole social structure of Elizabethan Pembrokeshire, for the system of patronage extended right down the social scale. As a result everyday life was carried on in an atmosphere of fear and tension, for the smaller tenants of landlords belonging to either group were easily exposed to the malice of their enemies. What might happen is well illustrated by Perrot's actions in 1570 while he was preparing to depart for Ireland as President of Munster. Vested with authority to press men from among his servants and tenants and from the town of Haverfordwest,' of which he was mayor, he proceeded to hold musters in the normal fashion and then impressed as many of his enemies' servants as possible, and tooke such over with him as he had mortall hatred and malice unto.' Others had not served his turne in juries and inquestes or displeased him in any other matter, or depended upon any gentelmen wth whome he had offended, of what state, age, qualitie or condicion soever they weare, not respectinge one whitt the utilite of their persons to serve in ye warres but acting to the revenge of his own private malice and displeasure.' All those he reviewed at the musters were asked whether they were or had ever been against him if they answered in the negative they were released with a caution that they were to remain in that state. These and other high-handed actions undoubtedly caused a good deal of hardship among poorer people who had fallen foul of Perrot and his allies or agents. He could do great harm to his enemies and their followers while still remaining within the law, as of course could any squire who was a J.P. or deputy lieutenant. Despite their responsibility for the maintenance of law and order, the gentry felt few scruples about breaking the law in cases 1 P. C. C. Evans, Sir John Perrot, p. 269. 2 Ibid, pp. 145-6. 3 Ibid, pp. 146-7. 4 Col. S.P. 1547-80, p. 398 Cal. S.P. Addenda 1566-79, p. 328. 5 P. C. C. Evans, Sir John Perrott, p. 78. « Ibid., p. 80.