Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:31:40.647Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Quest for Concealed Lands in the Reign of Elizabeth I (The Alexander Prize Essay)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

C. J. Kitching
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Concealment has proved one of the most inscrutable aspects of the land market following the English Reformation. It has received only passing reference in standard works on the period, and the gravity of the problem has never been fully appraised by historians, even though the discovery and disposal of concealed property exercised administrators and speculators alike more than any other aspect of the land market for much of the reign of Elizabeth, and consequently left an abundance of documentation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 24 , January 1974 , pp. 63 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1974

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 The problem was discussed in Strype, J., Annals of the Reformation (Oxford, 1824), II, i, p. 310Google Scholar; III, i, p. 169. More recently, see Madge, S. J., The Domesday of Crown Lands (London, 1938)Google Scholar; Hurstfield, J., The Queen's Wards (London, 1958), p. 34Google Scholaret seq.; and Stone, L., The Crisis of the Aristocracy (Oxford, 1965), pp. 415–16Google Scholar. There have been some notable local studies, such as Wenham, L. P., ‘The chantries, gilds, obits and lights of Richmond’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, xxxviii (1955), pp. 96, 185, 310Google Scholar.

2 See Hurstfield, J., ‘The revival of feudalism in early Tudor England’, History, new ser., xxxvii (1952), p. 131CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The profits of fiscal feudalism, 1541–1602’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., viii (1955–1956), p. 53Google Scholar.

3 Unless otherwise stated all references are to documents in the Public Record Office. Crown copyright material is quoted by permission of the Controller of H.M.S.O. The principal sources are: E 178 (Exchequer Special Commissions); E 134 (Depositions); E 302 (Augmentations, Particulars for Concealments); E 315 (Augmentations Miscellaneous Books); DL 44 (Duchy of Lancaster Special Commissions); C 66 (Patent Rolls); SP 12 and SP 14 (State Papers Domestic, Elizabeth and James I).

4 There were many local enquiries. See, for example, E 301/43, E 301/108 (supplements to chantry certificates); and E 117/10/11. Also Somerville, R., History of the Duchy of Lancaster, i (London, 1953), P. 297Google Scholar. Among the more curious instances is a grant of lands confessed as a result of Latimer's preaching, see Richardson, W. C., History of the Court of Augmentations (Baton Rouge, 1961), p. 167Google Scholar.

5 Statutes 27 Hen. VIII c. 28; 31 Hen. VIII c. 13; 37 Hen. VIII c. 4 and I Edw. VI c. 14.

6 There were some honourable exceptions; see, for example, WoodLegh, K. L., A Small Household of the Fifteenth Century (Manchester, 1956)Google Scholar.

7 E 178/2927.

8 For example, E 315/115, fos. 2, 11; E 315/123, fo. 151.

9 The names of informers rarely come to light unless they were granted some of the property as a reward or gave information before a commission.

10 See, for example, The Inventories of Church Goods, for the Counties of York, Durham, and Northumberland, ed.Page, W. (Surtees Soc., xcvii, 1897) p. 118Google Scholar.

11 Calendar of the Patent Rolls (hereafter cited as CPR), Mary, iii, p. 25. The findings are mainly in E 117 (Church Goods).

12 C 66/1071, m. 22. Spelling has been modernized in all quotations.

13 For the later sales see Outhwaite, R. B., ‘Who bought crown lands…1589–1603?’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xliv (1971), p. 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 CPR, Eliz., i, pp. 87, 307, 395, 427 and ii, pp. 10, 160. The lands amounted to a yearly value of £65, and a separate record seems to have been kept, SP 12/12, no. 60. See also CPR, Mary, iv, p. 411.

15 CPR, Eliz., iii, pp. 104, 329, totalling less than £30 p.a.

16 Ibid., ii, p. 159; iii, p. 52; v, pp. 236–38.

17 Ibid., ii, pp. 257, 554, 566.

18 E 302/1/12; E 315/168.

19 E 315/168, no. 32; also, for Lancashire, E 315/170, no. 8.

20 Typical was the return for Middleton Scriven, Salop.: ‘We have nothing that is demanded by your books’, E 302/1/12, fo. 101c. In later returns only the digests of positive findings generally survive. There is other scattered evidence of the hunt, and in one case a gardener at Hampton Court managed to force the clergy of Berkshire to produce their glebe accounts: CPR, Eliz., iii, p. 477 and SP 12/42, nos. 44–46.

21 CPR, Eliz., iii, pp. 80, 393; iv, pp. 225–27; v, p. 38. There are many subsequent references to Farnham, e.g. C 66/1158, m. 44; C 66/1163, m. 23; C 66/1144, m. 28.

22 C 66/1181, m. 15; C 66/1198, m. 34; C 66/1328, m. 31.

23 C 66/1117, m. 4. On Dyer, see Sargent, R. M., At the Court of Queen Elizabeth (London, 1935)Google Scholar.

24 CPR, Eliz., v, p. 15. There are many subsequent patents, e.g. Ibid., pp. 227, 273, 341, 397 and later rolls: C 66/1219, m. 28; C 66/1251, m. 30, etc. For the warrant see E 178/3191. The legal problems are discussed below.

25 The references so far printed are CPR, Eliz., iii, pp. 62, 453; iv, pp. 51, 162, 352; v, pp. 271, 334, 371, but there are other examples on later rolls, sec C 66/1096, m. I; C 66/1097, m. 7; C 66/1121, m. 2; C 66/1127, m. 30; C 66/1138, m. 15; C 66/1170, m. 3; C 66/1183, m. 12; C 66/1288, m. 16. The list of recipients given in the text is probably almost complete, though more may come to light with further knowledge of the later rolls.

26 Only the larger leases appear on the Patent Rolls; see, for example, CPR, Eliz., iii, nos. 2106, 2114, 2154, 2166, 2273, 2655, 2810, 2880. No quantitative assessment could be given without identifying all the Particulars for Leases relating to concealed plots.

27 Strype, , Annals, II, i, p. 313Google Scholar; CPR, Eliz., v, no. 194, et seq.

28 See above, n. 12.

29 C 66/1074, m. 41. Charges of ½ mark for searching and 4d. per line copied were a forminable deterrent; see McKisack, M., Medieval History in the Tudor Age (Oxford, 1971), pp. 93–94Google Scholar.

30 Three years later he was authorized to tackle the records of Edward's reign: see Exchequer Entry Books of Decrees and Orders, E 123/4 (insert between fos. 179 and 180), E 123/5, fo. 158.

31 The problem of informers was repeatedly discussed in Parliament and was the subject of more than one statute, see Hurstfield, , The Queen's Wards, p. 42Google Scholar, and statutes 18 Eliz., c. 5 and 31 Eliz., c. 5.

32 Tudor Royal Proclamations, ed. Hughes, P. L. and Larkin, J. F., ii (London, 1969)Google Scholar, no. 584.

33 Acts of the Privy Council, 1571–1575, p. 211.

34 C 66/1136, m. 42. See Hurslfield, , The Queen's Wards, pp. 39–40, 86–87Google Scholarand references there cited.

35 Peter Grey, whose warrant to search antedated this order, was given a dispensation, E 178/3191, no. 4.

36 Tudor Royal Proclamations, ii, no. 644.

37 British Museum, Lansdowne MS. 47/23, fo. 50.

38 C 66/1208, m. 26.

39 He also ran into legal difficulties with Stafford, see SP 12/159, no. 37; SP 12/149, no. 24; SP 12/159, nos. 38–43; SP 12/157, no. 87; SP 12/190, no. 96 and E. St. Brooks, J., Sir Christopher Hatton (London, 1946), p. 222Google Scholar.

40 C 66/1270, m. 7; Brooks, , Sir Christopher Hatton, p. 228Google Scholar; Sargent, , At the Court of Queen Elizabeth, pp. 132–140Google Scholar; Hill, L. M., ‘Sir Julius Caesar's Journal’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xlv (1972), pp. 318–19Google Scholar. One Patent Roll, C 66/1310, is entirely taken up with grants to Dyer, and there are many more references.

41 Hurstfield, , The Queen's Wards, p. 42Google Scholar.

42 C 66/1228, m. 11.

43 Though not in his name. All the grants passed in the name of agents, though they are registered as promoted by Croft.

44 B. M., Lansdowne MS 56/39.

45 C 66/1334, m. 21; C 66/1377, m. l; B.M., Lansdowne MS 59/29.

46 SP 12/244, no. 688.

47 Stow, J., Survey…of London, ii (6th edition, London, 1754), pp. 336–342Google Scholar. C 66/1219, m. 28; B.M., Lansdowne MS 38 passim. The incident is taken up in the histories of many of the city companies.

48 Burne, R. V. H., ‘Chester Cathedral in the reigns of Mary and Elizabeth’, Journal of the Chester and North Wales Architectl., Archaeol., and Hist. Society, xxxviii (1951), pp. 91–92Google Scholar. But the problem here was part of a wider dispute over the fec-farm of the cathedral lands.

49 Strype, J., The Life and Acts of John Whitgift (Oxford, 1822), i, p. 171Google Scholar.

50 Ibid., ii, pp. 196–98.

51 Cross, Claire, The Puritan Earl (London, 1966), p. 173CrossRefGoogle Scholar; York Civic Records, viii (Yorks. Rec. Ser., cxix, 1953), pp. 78–79, 87, 120. The corporations of Beverley and Hull also became involved in similar transactions: C 66/1254 m. 1; C 66/1293, m. 7.

52 Strype, , Annals, III, i, pp. 161–69Google Scholar. He was stopped by a supersedeas from the Exchequer.

53 35 Eliz., c. 3 and 39 Eliz., c. 22. These are discussed in Strype, , Whitgift, i, p. 173Google Scholar, and particularly in Coke, E., Institutes, iv (London, 1797), pp. 76Google Scholar, 256 and Reports (London, 1635), iii, p. 72Google Scholaret seq.

54 SP 12/146, no. 128.

55 E 123/1A, fo. 53v, 58r; E 178/2474. In one case the failure of the commissioners to sign and seal their return invalidated their findings: E 123/4, fos. 99v–100, and in another the failure to state explicitly that the lands had once been used superstitiously invalidated the suit: E 123/4 fo. 288..

56 E 123/4, fo. 222v–223.

57 Hist. MSS., Cssn. Reports, Salisbury, xiii, pp. 397–398.

58 For example, E 123/4, fo. 196: an order banning the grant of property occupied by Thomas Norwood, until concealment was proved.

59 SP 15/19, no. 50; SP 12/75, no. 28; E 123/4, fo. 178v. Hist. Mss. Cssn. Reports, Salisbury, xi, pp. 206–207.

60 For example, E 123/5, fo. 109, by Thomas Miller, an agent of Middlemore.

61 SP 12/103, no. 64.

62 E 123/4, fo. 90.

63 CPR, Eliz., iii, p. 250.

64 Tudor Royal Proclamations, iii, no. 202; C 66/1529, m. 14d.

65 SP 12/275, no. 128.

66 See, for example, the complaints of Seymour, Edward in Hist. Mss. Cssn. Reports, Salisbury, xi, pp. 206–207Google Scholar.

67 Stow, , Survey…of London, p. 342Google Scholaret seq. Cal. State Papers Dom., 1603–1610, p. 505.

68 SP 14/35, no. 38. Hugh Hurleston, principal clerk in the alienations office, was said to have discovered under Elizabeth concealments worth £25,000 but was thwarted in his attempt to claim them by James's pardon, cf. SP 14/44, no. 83 and SP 14/68, no. 126. The whole question of concealments was under review, however; see SP 14/89, no. 113, 123, and Cal. State Papers Dom., 1623–25, pp. 6, 32.

69 21 Jac. I, c. 2. Described by Coke (Institutes, iv, p. 76) as giving a ‘plenary salve for the whole mischief’.