Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:41:18.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presidential Address: The Land Settlement and the Restoration of Charles II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

John Habakkuk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Roger Whitley, a Flintshire royalist, outlining in 1658 the terms which Charles should offer the Presbyterians to induce them to join in a royalist rising, included a reference to the purchasers of confiscated property: ‘as for Purchases of Church, Crowne or other lands, they shall either peacibly enjoy theire possessions, or be reimbursed the charge …’. In the discussions and speculations in the two years preceding the Restoration, it was commonly assumed that the interests of the purchasers would exercise a major influence on the course of events. Some observers thought these interests presented an insuperable obstacle to a restoration; others supposed, like Roger Whidey, that in order to bring about a restoration it would be necessary to propitiate the purchasers by promising them either confirmation of their purchases or compensation. In the spring of 1660, when a restoration of the King on terms seemed the most likely outcome, James Sharp, the representative of the Scottish Presbyterians in London, thought that the indemnity and the purchases were ‘the most sticking part’ of the articles to be laid before the Convention; and the French ambassador believed that the confirmation of confiscated lands would be ‘one of the principal questions of the accommodation’. The purpose of this paper is to consider how the interests of the purchasers were dealt with in 1660.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 28 , December 1978 , pp. 201 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Quoted by Morrill, J. S., Cheshire 1630–1660: County Government and Society during the English Revolution (Oxford, 1974), p. 305Google Scholar.

2 Woodrow, Robert, History of the sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the restoration to the revolution, i (Glasgow, 1829), p. 206Google Scholar; Guizot, , The History of Richard Cromwell, trans. Scoble, A. R., ii (London, 1861), p. 419Google Scholar.

3 A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, ed Birch, T., vii (London, 1742), p. 861Google Scholar. Monck had acquired Irish lands worth about £4,000 p.a.

4 State Paper collected by Edward Earl of Clarendon (hereafter Cl.S.P.), iii (Oxford, 1786), pp. 663, 702Google Scholar.

5 Cl.S.P., iii, p. 663; Calendar Clarendon State Papers (hereafter Cal.Cl.S.P.), ed. Routledge, F. J., iv (Oxford, 1932), p. 537Google Scholar; Firth, C. H., The House of Lords during the Civil War (London, 1910), p. 271Google Scholar. According to details submitted to the Surveyor General in July/August 1660, the soldiers in Monck's army had purchases of £1,566 p.a. in possession and £429 in reversion, while soldiers in the standing army had £6,659 in possession and £3,130 in reversion (P.R.O., S.P. 29/16, fo. 35)

6 This letter is printed in Kennett, White, A Register and Chronicle ecclesiastical and civil, i (London, 1728), p. 32Google Scholar. For the background to it see Davies, G., The Restoration of Charles II (Oxford, 1955), p. 270Google Scholar. In late February 1660, if his chaplain is to be believed, Monck thought that a restoration of episcopal lands was unlikely (Price, John, The mystery and method of his majesty's happy restauration (1680)Google Scholar, reprinted in Select Tracts to the Civil Wars in England, ed. Maseres, pt. ii (London, 1815), p. 774.

7 Firth, C. H., The Regimental History of Cromwell's Army, i (Oxford, 1940), p. 173Google Scholar; SirBaker, Richard, Chronicle of the Kings of England (1674) p. 710Google Scholar.

8 Davies, ibid., p. 290; Baker, ibid., pp. 710–11; John Price, ibid., p. 73.

9 Cl.S.P., iii, p. 749.

10 A list of purchasers is given in Collectanae Topographica et Genealogica, i (London, 1834), pp. 3–8, 122–7, 284–92Google Scholar, and a list of M.P.s in Underdown, D., Pride's Purge (Oxford, 1971), pp. 366–90Google Scholar.

11 Bodleian Library, Clarendon MSS, vol. 70, fo. 57; Cal.Cl.S.P., iv, p. 580. The report of a conversation with a secluded member of 1 March says ‘For indemnity, and for the King's land, and his properties (?), they mentioned little of them, but said that there are but 4 of all the secluded members that are at all concerned in any purchases, and that if they might receive satisfaction in matters of episcoll, there should be no difference in other things.’ The Calendar of the Clarendon Papers extends the abbreviation as Episcopacy but it is not the ordinary abbreviation and, since it occurs in a discussion of property it is possible that it stands for episcopal lands. I owe this reference to Mr B. H. G. Wormald.

12 For the proceedings on these subjects see Bosher, R. S., The Making of the Restoration settlement (London, 1951), pp. 115–218Google Scholar; Abernathy, G. R. Jnr.,, ‘The English Presbyterians and the Stuart Restoration, 1648–1663’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 55, pt. ii (Philadelphia, 1965), 55–79Google Scholar; Jones, G. F. Trevallyn, ‘The composition and leadership of the Presbyterian party in the Convention’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lxxix (1964), 307–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Cl.S.P., iii, p. 645.

14 Cal.Cl.S.P., iv, p. 584.

15 Cl.S.P., iii, p. 723.

16 Burnet, G., History of my own time, ed. Airy, O., i (Oxford, 1897), p. 160Google Scholar; Ludlow, E., Memoirs, 1625–1672, ed. Firth, C. H., ii (Oxford, 1894), p. 268Google Scholar.

17 The Letter-Book of John Mordaunt, 1658–1660, ed. Coate, Mary, Camden Third Series LXIX (London, 1945), p. 146Google Scholar; Cl.S.P., iii, p. 650. Some unexpected Londoners were involved; thus John Robinson, who was actively engaged in the Restoration and was an M.P. for the City in the Convention, had acquired royal property at second hand (Gentles, I., ‘The Purchasers of Northamptonshire Crown Lands, 1649–1660’, Midland History, iii (3) (1976), 206–32)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Hill, C., ‘The agrarian legislation of the Interregnum’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lv (1940), 234CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Petition of Alexander Baker to Commissioners appointed for regulating the sales of Bishops' and Dean and Chapter lands, concerning property in North-borough (Peterborough, Dean and Chapter Records, Bundle II).

20 Joseph Jane to Sir Edward Nicholas, 21 June 1655 (The Nicholas Papers, ed. Warner, G. F., Camden Soc, New Series, 1893, ii, p. 349)Google Scholar; Hyde, Edward, Life, ii (Oxford, 1827), pp. 248–50Google Scholar.

21 The Proceedings of the Dean and Chapter of Durham against their rebellious tenants before the King's Commissioners (1661), p. 2, in Allan, George, Collectanae ad statum civilem et ecclesiasticum comitatus Dunelmensis spectantia (Darlington, n.d.)Google Scholar, item 48. There is an interesting contrast with the episcopal estates of Durham; see Reasons humbly offered why the sale of the lands and estates belonging to the late Bishop of Durham should not be confirmed, October 1654; B. L., Thomason Tracts, 669, f. 19/36. In Lincoln a large number of conveyances of capitular property were made to George Walker, a Lincoln royalist, who appears in thirty conveyances in all, but was acting on behalf of tenants (Lincolnshire Record Office, C iii/29/1–3 contains the letters of attorney). Though it is sometimes difficult to distinguish action on behalf of tenants from resales to tenants, Philip Starkey, the Commonwealth cook, to whom capitular properties at Exeter and elsewhere were conveyed, was sometimes clearly acting as an agent (Dean and Chapter of Exeter; early deeds, various: 6002/14/4). I hope to publish a detailed analysis of the purchasers of the capitular estates of Peterborough; the sales where there are grounds for suspecting purchase on behalf of tenants amounted to £11,429 as against non-tenant sales of £18,851.

22 For the King's attitude, see Cl.S.P., iii, pp. 437, 512–13.

23 Cl.S.P., iii, pp. 614, 70a, 73a.

24 Cl.S.P., iii, pp. 687–8.

25 Baker, Ibid., pp. 612–13.

26 Lister, T. H., Life and Administration of Edward, First Earl of Clarendon, iii (London, 1837), pp. 500–01Google Scholar; Cal.C.S.P., v, p. 25. These terms were also reported in a letter of 10 May from Broderick to Hyde (CI.S.P., iii, p. 747). There had been some bargaining between Monck, royalist agents, and Presbyterians because, in a letter of 4 May, Broderick had reported to Hyde proposals which made no provision for civilian purchasers, and for the soldiers proposed 99 year leases a t rents one-tenth of annual value. (Cl.S.P., iii, p. 747, dated 13 May but from the contents clearly written on 4 May.)

27 Cl.S.P., ii, p. 747.

28 C.J., viii, p. 116; H.M.C., Fifth Report, Sutherland MSS., p. 149. For the composition of the Committee, see C.J., viii, p. 11.

29 C.J., viii, p. 72.

30 Woodrow, , op. cit., p. 44bGoogle Scholar.

31 The main source for this bill is the debate on the second reading reported in the diary of Seymour Bowman, M.P., Bodleian Library, MSS Dep. f. 9. Since the question whether soldiers were to be distinguished from other purchasers was not settled until 13 August, it is probable that the Bill retained the form of Monck's proposals and that the note in Bowmans' Diary—‘The King's etc. lands to be let for 99 years paying a sixth part of the rent’—refers to his proposal for purchasers who were soldiers. This bill cannot have done less for purchasers of delinquents' lands than treat them as mortgagees, so that another of Monck's proposals must have been retained. The doubt is whether civilian purchasers of episcopal and capitular lands were to be granted long leases (as in Monck's proposals) or to be treated as holders of mortgages (as proposed in the August resolutions, see n. 41, below). Sharp's comment is not consistent with the first possibility; and, furthermore, there is no evidence of a change on this point between the Bill and the August resolutions. Therefore the Bill must have treated episcopal and capitular purchases as mortgages (though not necessarily in identical terms). This interpretation of the contents of the Bill is also suggested in an undated memorial to Sir Edward Nicholas by the Steward of the Court of Marshelsea (Cal.S.P.Dom., 1660–1, p. 286; S.P. 29/16, fo. 137). ‘The Bill of Sales as it is yet agreed upon by the Committee (and it is hoped will pass the House) gives H[is] M[ajesty] the redemption of all the Crown and Church lands (except such as are in the possession of soldiers now in the Army) to be redeemed by HM, as in the case of mortgage… ’ In the Calendar this document is assigned, with a query, to September 1660. But since all Crown lands were excluded from the scope of the Bill as a result of the debate on 11 July, the memorial must relate to the Bill as it was debated on that day.

32 Bowman's Diary, fo. 31

33 The debate is reported in Cobbett's Parliamentary History, iv (London, 1808), pp. 80–2Google Scholar, based on Bowman's diary, fos. 69–73.

34 L.J., xi, pp. 93–4; Col. Treas. Books, i, 1660–1667, pp. 6–7, 11; P.R.O., Crest 6/1; L.R. 1/161, fos. 16b–17b; L.R. 1/114, fo. 158; S.P.29/16, fo. 35; L.R. 1/61, L.R. 2/56 and L.R. 2/134.

35 Dean and Chapter of Peterborough, MS 20, Dean Cosin's Notebook; Account-Book, 1660–1814. Among the ancient tenants was Lady Armine, widow of Sir William Armine and aunt of William Pierrepont, and Alexander Baker, both members of the Convention. In some cases the annual values used for calculating fines were higher than those before 1642, and the Dean attempted to extract from ancient tenants arrears due since the expiry of the lease. The memory of the great fines of 1660 lingered for a long time (Kennett, White, The Case of Impropriations, ii (London, 1704), p. 150Google Scholar.

36 C.J., viii, p. 112; Bowman's Diary, fo. 121r. Sometime between 6 and 13 August the Bill went to the Lords, for on the latter date messengers from the Lords sought the concurrence of the Commons to some amendments (L.J., xi, p. 125a; Bowman's Diary, fo. 137).

37 H.M.C., Fifth Report, Sutherland MSS., p. 204a.

38 Ibid., p. 195; Bowman's Diary, fo. 128r. The comment is dated 14 August, but it relates to the Recorder's speech in the committee on 9 August.

39 Proceedings of the Grand Committee upon the Bill of Sales, 6–29 August 1660 (Bodleian Library, Jones MSS, Vol. 56, item 8, fos, 125–7). My attention was drawn to this reference by Mr David Johnson. Another copy of the resolutions was among the muniments at Wells, but is now missing (H.M.C., Appendix to the Tenth Report, Wells Cathedral MSS (1885), p. 271). The Bishops' lands were dealt with on 17 and 20 August, and the terms were applied to capitular lands on 27 August, except that the interest allowed in this case was six per cent throughout. There is information on the proceedings in the Bowman Diary, fos. 75,121V–123V, 124, 137, 146r–146v; and in The Diaries and papers of Sir Edward Dering, 1644–1684, ed. Bond, M. F., House of Lords Record Office, occas. publ., 1 (London, 1976), p. 48Google Scholar.

40 For the eventual settlement of delinquents' estates, see Thirsk, Joan, ‘The Restoration Land Settlement’, Journal of Modern History, xxvi (1954), 315–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 C.J., viii, p. 178.

42 Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell, ed. Margoliouth, H. M., ii (Oxford, 1954), p. 28Google Scholar.

43 Ibid., p. 7.

44 , C. D. and Whetham, W. C. D., A History of the Life of Colonel Nathaniel Whetham (London, 1907), p. 223Google Scholar. See the cases of Darnell, Richard (C.J., viii, p. 224)Google Scholar; Challoner Chute (Dean and Chapter of St Pauls MSS, Minute Book 1660–64, fos. 59–61, 71); Matthew Bigg (S.P. Dom., vol. XVI (1660), fos. 12, 30, 47); Gamaliel Capell and Joseph Ward v. Mary Bigg and John Barwicke (P.R.O., C. 6/162, no.46; C. 6/166, no. 33; C. 33/221, fo. 636); Capell v. Dean and Chapter of St Pauls (C. 33/221, fo. 333). See also Sheils, W. J., ‘The Restoration and the Temporalities: Archbishop Frewen's Commissioners, 1661–1662’, Borthwick Institute Bulletin, i(I)(1975),21Google Scholar. Though the Commission dealt with fee-farm rents and occasionally with Crown lands, it was primarily concerned with Church property.

45 Woodrow, , op. cit., p. 40aGoogle Scholar.

46 Kent Record Office, Aylesford MSS, Cl. 234, B. 3.

47 Cosin was equally ruthless as Bishop of Durham, which he became in November 1660 (Hutchinson, W., The History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, (Newcastle, 1785), i, 538–9)Google Scholar. But the raising of large fines for the renewal of leases expired during the Interregnum was general ecclesiastical policy (Burnet, , History of my own time, i, p. 329)Google Scholar.

48 The King's letter of 13 October to Bishops and Deans and Chapters (B. L., Thomason Tracts, 669 f. 26/21; S.P. 29/18 fo. 60) was an attempt to protect the interests of the ancient tenants, particularly of those who had bought the reversion, against the ecclesiastical authorities. See also the letter from Cosin to Hyde defending his proceedings at Peterborough (MSS 20, fo. 68).

49 Bowman's Diary, fo. 71r.

50 I know of no surviving ratings of sales of Church property but it is sometimes possible to deduce them from the enrolled deeds; immediate tenants of capitular property who settled with doubled bills seem always to have been rated at 15 years' purchase. Some prices for doubled bills are quoted in George Walker's correspondence (op. cit. n. 21 above) and prices can sometimes be deduced from resales for cash of property bought with bills. The range of rates quoted in the text are compatible with the rates for undoubted bills cited in the allegations of forgery [see Cal.S.P.Dom., 1652–3, p. 378; Cal.S.P.Dom., 1655, p. 310].

51 P.R.O., S.P. 28/350 contains the names of those who doubled on the security of episcopal lands under the Ordinances of 13 May, 1647, and 13 June, 1647. The total sum secured was £484,000. Of this, £257,000 was settled by purchase. The names of those holding the outstanding debt in 1659 are in C.J., viii, pp. 238–240.

52 Ludlow, , Memoirs, ii, p. 235Google Scholar.