¹ The report of the royal commission of 1552, ed. Richardson, Walter C. (Morgantown, West Virginia, 1974)Google Scholar.

² The chronicle and political papers of King Edward VI, ed. Jordan, Wilbur K. (London, 1966), p. 102Google Scholar.

³ Report, pp. xxiii–iv.

⁴ Original letters patent in the Petre family papers, Essex Record Office, D/DP/050. A copy is included in the register of the commission's proceedings, Public Record Office, E 163/12/14, fos. 10–12 v.

⁵ Chronicle, p. 102; register of debt commission, E 163/12/14.

⁶ Edward's journal, British Library, Cotton MS, Nero CX, fos. 85–v.

⁷ For example, Jordan, Wilbur K., Edward VI, the threshold of power (London, 1970), pp. 452–3Google Scholar; Report, p. xxvi; Lehmberg, Stamford, Sir Walter Mildmay and Tudor government (Austin, Texas, 1964), p. 32Google Scholar. The true nature of these agencies is discussed in: Hoak, Dale E., The king's council in the reign of Edward VI (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 132–3Google Scholar.

⁸ See the Report, pp. xxvi–xxviii.

⁹ P.R.O., C 66/847, pt. 6, m. 33 v. It is apparent from the manuscript privy council register of outgoing documents that this commission was originally established on 8 March, around the time of the entry in King Edward's journal, and even at that time included all nine members: council docquet-book, B.L., Royal MS 18. C. xxiv, fo. 187. It is not known why Edward's list contains only seven commissioners or why the letters patent were delayed until 23 Mar., when a second identical entry was recorded in the privy council register: ibid., fo. 191 v. The nature of this register is explained in Hoak, King's council, pp. 26–8.

¹⁰ Council docquet-book, Royal MS 18. C. xxiv, fo. 179. Bishop Goodrich rose through his association with Northumberland and had little political importance: Heal, Felicity, ‘The bishops of Ely and their diocese during the Reformation period’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University, 1972), pp. 20–2Google Scholar.

¹¹ Letters patent, Petre papers, D/DP/050.

¹² Report, p. xxvi.

¹³ An original letter from the commission to the Exchequer relating to the survey and dated 26 Apr. 1552 was signed by all nine commissioners: Augmentations miscellaneous books, P.R.O., E 315/476, fos. 46–7.

¹⁴ The fact that Sir John Gates signed the report demonstrates that the membership of the two sections did partly reunite. He was unique among the signatories for being on the original 30 Dec. 1551 commission but excluded from King Edward's Mar. subcommittee.

¹⁵ Council docquet-book, Royal MS 18. C. xxiv, fo. 237; Calendar of Patent Rolls (hereafter cited as C.P.R.), Edward VI, ed. Brodie, R. H. (6 vols., London, 1924–9). IV355–6Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Richardson, Walter C., History of the Court of Augmentations, 1536–1554 (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1961), p. 198Google Scholar; Report, pp. xxvi–xxvii.

¹⁷ Elton, G. R., ‘Mid-Tudor finance’, Historical Journal, xx, 3 (1977), 738Google Scholar. Another commissioner, Cotton, entered the privy council during the course of the investigation on 11 May 1552: ibid. Hoak, King's council, p. 78.

¹⁸ Hoak, King's council, pp. 55–8.

¹⁹ Ibid. p. 65.

²⁰ By 14 Mar. he was appointed keeper of the Duchy seals: council docquet-book, Royal MS 18. C. xxiv, fo. 189 v.

²¹ Hoak, King's council, p. 78.

²² Ibid. pp. 70–1.

²³ Shirley, Timothy, Thomas Thirlby, Tudor bishop (London, 1964), pp. 115–16Google Scholar.

²⁴ Waller, William C., ‘An extinct county family: Wroth of Loughton Hall’, Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, new series, VIII(1903), 145–50Google Scholar; Hoak, King's council, pp. 203, 249.

²⁵ Letters and papers, foreign and domestic, of the reign of Henry VIII (hereafter cited as L.P.), ed. Brodie, R. H. et al. (22 vols., London, 1920–1932), xxi, i, 1166Google Scholar (71). Sir Walter Mildmay was not a member of this commission, but served as its executive assistant.

²⁶ Proceedings against debtors, P.R.O., SP 1/221, fo. 195.

²⁷ C.P.R., Edward IV, iv, 391–2.

²⁸ Ibid. 1, 93; SP 10/15, fo. 155; Acts of the privy council of England, 1542–1604 (hereafter cited as A.P.C.), ed. Dasent, John (32 vols., London, 1890–1907), III, 29Google Scholar.

²⁹ This was William Powncett: P.R.O., E 101/426/12, end paper, E 135/10/38, SP 10/16, fo. 83.

³⁰ Richardson, Augmentations, pp. 359–65; A.P.C., III, 18. For additional information on Osborne's activities see the Exchequer tellers' records, P.R.O., E 405/117, mems. 16, 33, 34 v, 42 v, 43 v, 46 v, 48, 54, 58, E 101/631/42.

³¹ C.P.R., Edward VI, iv, 355–6; council docquet-book, Royal MS 18. C. xxiv, fos. 270 v, 278 v; proceedings of commission for sale of lands, B.L., Harleian MS 284, fos. 110, 114.

³² Northumberland to Darcy and Cecil, 14 Jan. 1553, SP 10/18, fo. 6.

³³ Richardson, Augmentations, pp. 355, 367–8; Alsop, James D., ‘The Exchequer of Receipt in the reign of Edward VI’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University, 1978), pp. 262, 279Google Scholar. See the commissioners' complaint: Report, p. 192.

³⁴ L.P., xxi, i, 1166 (71), 1280; Lehmberg, Mildmay, p. 15.

³⁵ A.P.C., iv, 128; Lehmberg, Mildmay, pp. 32–3. Two members of the commission, Darcy and Cotton, were included among the councillors attending this meeting.

³⁶ Register of the commission of debts, E 163/12/14; report of the revenue commission, B.L., Harleian MS 7, 383, and P.R.O., E 163/12/19; letter from the commission to the Exchequer, E 315/476, fos. 46–7. These documents are described below.

³⁷ Register of the commission of debts, E 163/12/14, fo. 123 v.

³⁸ Lehmberg, Mildmay, p. 306.

³⁹ Around 1560–2 Dodington kept the Exchequer seal for Mildmay, the chancellor: list of Exchequer staff, E 101/336/26, fos. 5–v. On 24 Dec. 1559 he was appointed particlar receiver of Derbyshire and in Mar. 1570 secured the posts of auditor of the mint and one of the two auditors of the prests, foreign accounts, and first fruits and tenths: C.P.R., Elizabeth, 1, 325, v, no. 551.

⁴⁰ L.P., xxi, i, 775. Mildmay had been connected with the Augmentations since 1540 and soon established himself as a principal Northamptonshire landowner: Richardson, Augmentations, p. 118; Lehmberg, Mildmay, p. 25. Dodington was probably the son and heir of John, senior (d. 1545), of Somerset and Hertfordshire: L.P. xvm, i, 981 (64), xxi, ii, 332 (67). This John Dodington, junior, held several estates near Mildmay's manor of Queen Camel, Cornwall: Lehmberg, Mildmay, p. 46; C.P.R., Elizabeth, 11, 534, iv, no. 2, 091.

⁴¹ He replaced Pymme, Thomas, junior, who was appointed a baron of the Exchequer on 30 09 1562: C.P.R., Elizabeth, n, 248Google Scholar; list of Exchequer staff, E 101/336/26, fo. 5 V; declaration of issues, E 405/527. This office was in the gift of Mildmay as chancellor: B.L., Lansdowne MS 168, fos. 350–3 v, 117, fo. 410. Dodington acquired numerous Exchequer leases and speculated in property on a substantial scale, but he was unsuccessful and when he wrote his will in 1577 he was deeply in debt: C.P.R., Edward VI, 11, 410–11, in, 84–5, iv, 313–14, Elizabeth, 1, 363, 466, 11, 4, in, no. 1, 945, iv, nos. 559, 579, 1,755, 2,101, v, nos. 517, 2, 278, vi, nos. 287, 494, 3, 221; will, P.R.O., PROB 11/68, fos. 449–v.

⁴² Exchequer issues, E 405/122, m. 16 v, 123, m. 71, 528, unfoliated. The register of proceedings of the debt commission established on 9 Dec. 1555 is: E 163/13/26.

⁴³ This is Harleian MS 7,383. It was purchased for Robert Harley in Aug. 1724 along with four other manuscripts: an original account of the royal jewels and plate in Lord Treasurer Winchester's custody during Queen Mary's reign (Harleian MS 7,376), a collection of papers relating to the mint, taxes, Mary, Queen of Scots, and other Elizabethan matters (Harleian MS 4,243), a collection of early seventeenth century ecclesiastical tracts (Harleian MS 7,381), and a chronicle of Richard II's reign (not identified): The diary of Humphrey Wanley, 1715–1726, eds. Wright, C. E. and Wright, R. (2 vols., London, 1966), 11, 309–10Google Scholar. It is very probable that the first two, Harleian MSS 7,376 and 4,243, had both belonged to Mildmay, along with Harleian MS 7,383. In 1559 Mildmay surveyed the royal jewels and plate in Winchester's possession and compared them with lists dating back to Henry VIII's reign; Harleian MS 7,376 could well have been connected with this work. Moreover, all of Harleian MS 4,243 is devoted to topics with which Mildmay was intimately connected: see Lehmberg, Mildmay, passim. It is entirely in one handwriting and a portion of it (fos. 4–5) is a copy of the first part of a document, also in the identical handwriting, in Harleian MS 660 (fos. 107–18) which has been attributed to Mildmay: ibid, pp. 61–2.

⁴⁴ Richardson, Augmentations, p. 199; Report, p. xxix; Elton, G. R., The Tudor revolution in government (Cambridge, 1953), p. 230CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁵ This date is given at the beginning of the report, but since it is in all copies, including the draft and the two different final versions, it is not certain that this was the actual date of presentation.

⁴⁴ This commission initiated proceedings against individual debtors on 17 Jan. 1552 and most of the work was performed in Jan. or Feb., although isolated entries in the register continue until July 1553: E 163/12/14.

⁴⁷ Commission to Exchequer, E 315/476, fos. 46–7.

⁴⁸ Register of debt commission, E 163/12/14, fos. 13–14 v.

⁴⁹ B.L., Additional MS 30,198, acquired from the Marquis of Lansdowne collection; Society of Antiquaries MS 209, copied from what was believed to be an original manuscript obtained from the Historiographer Royal, Robert Stephens; P.R.O. reproductions of extraneous documents, 22/53, a photostat of an eighteenth-century copy formerly in the possession of the Constitutional Club, London, but now lost; Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington, MS v. b. 146, formerly owned by Lord Foley. The first three copies are described in: Report, pp. xxxiv–v. I am indebted to Laetitia Yeandle of the Folger Shakespeare Library for information on the last manuscript.

⁵⁰ Report, p. xxxv.

⁵¹ Ibid.Dr Richardson is incorrect when he suggests that this document is an inaccurate copy compiled from the original report after it was submitted: ibid.; Elton, ‘Mid-Tudor finance’, p. 739. One folio, the first for the Court of Augmentations in part one, is missing, but the contemporary foliation reveals that it had originally been included. Other subsections in parts one and two are out of sequence.

⁵² King's remembrancer miscellanea, E 163/12/19.

⁵³ Elton, ‘Mid-Tudor finance’, p. 738.

⁵⁴ Ibid. p. 739

⁵⁵ F 315/476, fos. 46–7. It has been maintained that the detailed submission to the commission made by the Court of First Fruits and Tenths survives as SP 10/16: Report, pp. xxix–xxx. However, this document is actually the list of debts owing in this court on 1 Feb. 1552, which was compiled for the 2 Jan. commission of debts. Emmison, Frederick incorrectly assigns it to the July 1552 debt commission: Tudor secretary, Sir William Petre at court and home (London, 1961), p. 102Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Report, p. xi; Jordan, Edward VI: threshold of power, p. 445.

⁵⁷ Richardson, Walter C., Tudor chamber administration, 1485–1547 (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1952), p. 429Google Scholar; Elton, Tudor revolution, p. 230.

⁵⁸ Richardson, Augmentations, p. 199.

⁵⁹ Petre papers, D/DP/050; register of debt commission, E 163/12/14.

⁶⁰ Council docquet-book, Royal MS 18. C. xxiv, fo. 179.

⁶¹ King's journal, Cotton MS, Nero CX, fos. 85–v. Edward copied this section twice because he first placed the commission for debts and the subcommittee investigating the state of the revenue in one unit and later crossed it out and entered the two bodies separately. The fullest description, with the only mention of the revenue declaration, is in the cancelled section.

⁶² Letters patent, C 66/847, Pt. 6, m. 33 v. The council issued detailed instructions to the commissioners in five articles but these do not appear to be extant: council docquet-book, Royal MS 18. C. xxiv, fo. 187.

⁶³ The mint was an extremely important source of revenue throughout the period of devaluation ending in 1551: Challis, Christopher E., The Tudor coinage (Manchester, 1978)Google Scholar, passim. Independent treasurers were employed primarily for extraordinary revenue in the form of goods or bonds and included at this time the lord treasurer, the merchant staplers, and the dean and chapter of Windsor: A.P.C. II, 400, 431, III, 26, 109, 208, 213, 252, IV, 12, 40, 106–8, 148–9, 199, 214. Dr Richardson stated that the report included descriptions of the mint and the jewel house, which is patently incorrect: Augmentations, p. 199; Report, p. xxx.

⁶⁴ For example, during Edward VI's reign the Exchequer disbursed an annual average of over £2,000 each to the cofferer of the household and master of the great wardrobe in exceptional payments over and above the regular allowances of £6,000 and £1,476 to these departments, and it also contributed extraordinary sums towards the normal maintenance of the men-at-arms, the chamber, the royal works, and other agencies: Alsop, ‘Exchequer of Receipt’, pp. 237–9. The same was true of other revenue courts: Richardson, Augmentations, pp. 344–5.

⁶⁵ For example, the theoretical justification for taxation had been widened since 1529 to include the requirements of ordinary government as well as those of war, and this was reflected in actual use: Elton, G. R., ‘Taxation for war and peace in early-Tudor England’, in War and economic development, ed. Winter, J. M. (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 33–48Google Scholar; Alsop, ‘Exchequer of Receipt’, pp. 230–1, 241–2. The Exchequer, perhaps the most conservative of the courts, traditionally separated ordinary and extraordinary finances, but even here the change was apparent. When a new record for extraordinary disbursements was introduced around 1544 it indiscriminately mixed the sums taken from normal and abnormal revenue for these disbursements: E 405/484; Alsop, ‘Exchequer of Receipt’, pp. 155–6.

⁶⁶ The sale of lands, decay of rents, and statutory remission of rents and charges were approximately £8,362 in the Exchequer, Augmentations, and Duchy: Report, pp. 36–8, 98, 106.

⁶⁷ E 315/476, fos. 46–7.

⁶⁸ Cotton MS, Nero CX, fo. 85 v. Nevertheless, the letters patent of 2 Jan. 1552 requested a declaration of regular finances concluding at the date of the commission: D/DP/050. In their letter to the Exchequer the commissioners specifically restricted their survey to the year ending at Michaelmas 1551: E 315/476, fo. 46.

⁶⁹ Alsop, ‘Exchequer of Receipt’, p. 252; Hurstfield, Joel, ‘The profits of fiscal feudalism, 1541–1602’, Economic History Review, 2nd series, VIII (1955–1956), 55Google Scholar; Dietz, Frederick C., Finances of Edward VI and Mary (Northampton, Massachusetts, 1918), pp. 124, 129Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Report, p. 156.

⁷¹ Ibid. pp. 94–5, 140–1.

⁷² Elton, Tudor revolution, p. 232; Richardson, Chamber administration, p. 394, Augmentations, p. 200. In the latter Dr Richardson recognized that the total included reversion of lands, but still stated that receipts in the Augmentations yielded £159,295 in 1550–1.

⁷³ Report, pp. 94–5, 140–1.

⁷⁴ The Exchequer records demonstrate that this money was paid directly to the master of the wardrobe or his servant, for example: P.R.O., E 401/1,200, 10 Feb.

⁷⁵ Report, pp. 38, 94–5.

⁷⁶ Alsop, ‘Exchequer of Receipt’, pp. 238, 246.

⁷⁷ Report, pp. 38, 158, 203; Elton, Tudor revolution, pp. 410–12. The commissioners were wrong from the very beginning and referred to the payment as an assignment in their letter to the Exchequer: E 315/476, fos. 46–7.

⁷⁸ Report, p. 94; Sir John Williams' account, P.R.O., E 323/7, summarized in Lansdowne MS 156, fos. 166–7.

⁷⁹ Report, p. 104; Dietz, Finances of Edward VI and Mary, p. 125.

⁸⁰ Report, p. 34; declaration of the state of the treasury, E 405/497, unfoliated.

⁸¹ For example, some of the salaries for the Exchequer staff were lower than those actually paid: Report, p. 16; Alsop, ‘Exchequer of Receipt’, pp. 35ff.

⁸² Many but not all of these are described by the editor in his notes: Report, passim.

⁸³ Elton, ‘Mid-Tudor finance’, p. 739. Another small unnoticed error is that the fee of the keeper of Bristol Castle was incorrectly recorded: ibid. p. 4; Harleian MS 7,383, fo. 2.

⁸⁴ The council was convinced that the present difficulties were caused by corruption and maladminstration at every level below itself and attention was focused on these problems: SP 10/2, fos. 103–4, 109–10, 5, fos. 149, 154, 14, fo. 147, 15, fos. 17, 155, 11/1, fos. 5, 57–v. In particular, the government exaggerated the importance of debts owed to the crown as a cause of the crisis and a means of resolving it. At the greatest estimate debts totalled £100,000, but this included many problematic amounts, some dating back over fifty years, and the actual returns were moderate: E 163/12/14; SP 10/16. Even at the highest estimate debts could only have been responsible for one-third of the current deficit: Chronicle, p. 174; Richardson, Augmentations, p. 195.

⁸⁵ Report, especially pp. 184–5, 197, 199.

⁸⁶ Ibid. pp. 184, 197. One specific example is the case of the chancellor of the Court of Augmentations. The commissioners stated that his traditional fees and allowances had been £300 and were now £340: ibid. p. 184. The annual declaration of the court's treasurer listed the £300 as the ordinary fee and the £40 as his extraordinary diets for taking the accounts: E 315/262, fos. 48, 70 v.

⁸⁷ In the case of the courts established by statute this was specifically authorized, for example: 27 Henry VIII, c. 27, xxi. In the Exchequer it was a traditional custom: Alspp, ‘Exchequer of Receipt’, pp. 114–15.

⁸⁸ Richardson, Augmentations, pp. 207, 218–19; Elton Tudor revolution, p. 234.

⁸⁹ Report, p. xxxi; Alsop, ‘Exchequer of Receipt’, pp. 163–88.

⁹⁰ For example, the act creating the Court of Wards provided for two clerks, yet this was never implemented and a single clerk always occupied the office: Calendar of state papers, domestic series, of the reign of Elizabeth, 1601–1601; with addenda, 1547–1565, ed. Green, M. A. E. (London, 1870), pp. 432–3Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Richardson, Augmentations, p. 210.

⁹² Report, pp. 73, 175, 189–92, 194, 197.

⁹³ 7 Edward VI, c. 1, c. 4. This and the following points are fully examined in: Lehmberg, Mildmay, p. 37; Elton, Tudor revolution, pp. 238–9; Report, pp. xxxi–ii.

⁹⁴ Report, pp. 191–3; C.P.R., Edward VI, iv, 391–3, 397–8; SP 10/2, fos. 103–4, 10/15, fo 155.

⁹⁵ Report, pp. 179–80.

⁹⁶ Ibid. p. 173. I wish to thank Mr Christopher Coleman for his assistance on this point.

⁹⁷ Report, pp. 171, 195–6.

⁹⁸ Ibid. The Duchy stewardship was finally discontinued in 1574.

⁹⁹ Ibid. p. 195 n.

¹⁰⁰ Heal, Felicity, ‘Clerical tax collection under the Tudors: the influence of the Reformation’, in Continuity and change, eds. O'Day, R. and Heal, F. (Leicester, 1976), p. 110Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ A.P.C., in, 315.

¹⁰² Alsop, ‘Exchequer of Receipt’, pp. 235–6.

¹⁰³ Report, p. 186.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid. p. 169.

¹⁰⁵ Alsop, ‘Exchequer of Receipt’, pp. 220–1.

¹⁰⁶ A.P.C., in, 316. Council memoranda in Aug. and Sept. 1552 were devoted to the same topic: SP 10/14, fo. 147, 15, fo, 17.

¹⁰⁷ Report, pp. 227–8.

¹⁰⁸ For the early history of this idea see: Wolffe, B. P., The crown lands, 1461–1536 (London, 1970), pp. 25–8Google Scholar and passim. Based upon the calculations in section one, land revenue would only barely suffice for normal expenditure when all of the £78,500 listed as temporary expenses ultimately reverting to the crown was actually available to the government. Since many of these disbursements were temporary only in theory, this would never occur.

¹⁰⁹ Report, p. 216.

¹¹⁰ Elton, Tudor revolution, p. 250. This subject still awaits detailed investigation, but the numerous salary increases during Elizabeth's reign can be examined in the surviving accounts: P.R.O., E 407/71, especially fo. 141; Lansdowne MS 171, fos. 241 v–3.

¹¹¹ Harleian MS 7, 383; E 163/12/19. The published text follows the former, but provides the figures from the latter in the notes: Report, pp. xxxvi, 208–16.

¹¹² This included the two auditors of the prests: Report, p. 213. These officials were subsequently removed in 1554, but it was found necessary to revive them in 1560: Elton, Tudor revolution, p. 247; Richardson, Augmentations, pp. 441–2.

¹¹³ Letter from Elizabeth to the Exchequer, 15 Apr. 1562, SP 12/22, fos. 95–v; Hurstfield, ‘Profits of fiscal feudalism’, 57–61; Wolffe, Crown lands, p. 22.

¹¹⁴ Report, p. 211.

¹¹⁵ Ibid. pp. 194, 196, 202, 215–16. Under the first proposal to retain all the courts the report desired that the office of treasurer of the chamber should be merged with the post of treasurer of the Court of Augmentations: ibid. p. 208.

¹¹⁶ Elton, , Tudor revolution, pp. 237–9, Reform and reformation (London, 1977), p. 357Google Scholar; Richardson, Augmentations, pp. 211–12; Report, pp. xxxii–iii.

¹¹⁷ Lehmberg, Mildmay, p. 35 n.; Report, p. xxxi.

¹¹⁸ Elton, ‘Mid-Tudor finance’, pp. 738–40.

¹¹⁹ The final draft copy, Harleian MS 7, 383, was entirely written by Dodington, although the final section is slightly different in presentation and was perhaps composed separately.

¹²⁰ E 163/12/19. The fragments consist of the first folio of section one and two folios of section three. They follow word for word the unrevised form of Harleian MS 7, 383.

¹²¹ Elton, ‘Mid-Tudor finance’, pp. 738–40.

¹²² Elton, Tudor revolution, pp. 239–44.

¹²³ The merger, like the preceding one in 1547 which united the courts of Augmentations and General Surveyors, was principally favoured for its economy: Lehmberg, Mildmay, pp. 15–16; Elton, Tudor revolution, p. 244. The schedules of annexation detailed the intended return to traditional methods, although some of the most reactionary articles were not enforced: P.R.O., C 54/500, mems. 3–6; Elton, Tudor revolution, pp. 244–50; Richardson, Augmentations, pp. 436–47.

¹²⁴ Elton, Tudor revolution, pp. 224, 239; Richardson, Augmentations, p. 457.

¹²⁵ See especially the testimony of Lord Stafford, a Marian chamberlain: Lansdowne MS 106, fos. 8–15 v; Elton, G.R., ‘The Elizabethan Exchequer: war in the Receipt’, in Elizabethan government and society, eds. Bindoff, S. T. et al. (London, 1961), pp. 219–23Google Scholar; Alsop, ‘Exchequer of Receipt’, pp. 72–3, 360.

¹²⁶ This was specified in both King Edward's journal and the letters patent: Cotton MS, Nero CX, fo. 85 v; C 66/847, Pt. 6, m. 33 v.

¹²⁷ Declaration of disbursements, E 405/484, fos. 27, 38 v, 39 v, 41 v, 43 v; SP 10/14, fo. 116 v.

¹²⁸ Chronicle, ed. Jordan, pp. 176–8, articles 10 and 12. The date is endorsed in Cecil's handwriting.

¹²⁹ A council memorandum of this period viewed the submitted report solely in terms of the individual recommendations and was silent on the subject of reorganization: SP 10/5, fo. 154. None of the subsequent documents relating to the events of 1553–4 mention the report or consider the reform in terms that correspond to its proposals.

¹³⁰ In spite of the fact that the Edwardian parliamentary bill permitting the reorganization was at one point entrusted to one of the commissioners, Bowes, the resulting act bore no relation to the report: Journals of the House of Commons, eds. Vardon, T. and May, T. E. (London, 1852), I, 25Google Scholar; 7 Edward VI, c. 2.

¹³¹ I am grateful to Professor G. R. Elton for his comments upon this paper.