⁸⁵ See letters patent dated 10 December 1585 (P.R.O., C. 66/1267, m. 39). The grant, which was expressed to be made on the advice of Lord Burghley and Sir Walter Mildmay, was a lease of two distinct properties: first, the mansion house of the manor of Shiplake in Oxfordshire (Shiplake Court) with its appurtenances and certain lands, which had formerly been in the tenure or occupation of Edmund Plowden (‘Tradimus concedimus et ad firmam dimittimus … totum ilium Scitum Capitalis mesuagij mansionis sive firme Manerij de Shiplake cum Juribus membris et pertinenciis universis in Comitatu nostri Oxonie parcellam Manerij nostri de Shiplake in eodem Comitatu modo vel nuper in tenura sive occupacione dicti Edmundi Plowden Armigeri…’); secondly, a tenement known as Permans, and its appurtenances, at Streatley in Berks. The whole of those lands at Shiplake and Streatley were stated in the letters patent to have been formerly part of the lands and possessions of Sir Francis Englefield. The rent reserved in the lease was £2 3s. p.a. for Permans, and £13 6s. 8d. p.a. plus two quarters of oats or (at the election of the tenants) 8s. for Shiplake. The oats were, presumably, for use in the Queen's stables at Reading Abbey. Edmund, the eldest son, only survived his father for two years; he died unmarried and was succeeded in the family estate by his brother Francis (cf. B.M.P., Records of the Plowden Family, 16).

⁸⁶ George Fitton was an uncle of young Francis Englefield, being the brother of Margaret Englefield (John's wife) and of Francis Fitton. Humphrey Foster was a landowner in Shropshire, whose lands were subsequently seized for recusancy: C.R.S. 57, p. 134. Miss Climenson (History of Shiplake, Oxon, p. 219) identified Humphrey Foster as Sir Humphrey Foster, of Harpsden Court, near Henley-on-Thames, who was Sheriff for Berkshire; that identification seems unlikely, especially in view of the terms of the grant which were ‘concedimus … Humfrido Foster Armigero [not militi] et Georgio Fiton generoso …’ (P.R.O., C. 66/1279, m. 11); and see note⁸⁸. Two manors at South Morton were granted to Humphrey Foster for twenty-one years in 1587; see note⁶⁵.

⁸⁷ P.R.O., C. 66/1279, mm. 11–14. The lease was subject to certain exceptions, among which was a reservation of oaks and beeches.

⁸⁸ See Blakeway, Isle, 114, note 2: ‘In 29 Eliz., 14 August was a Court Baron holden, entitled Uprossall cum Yeaton and Yagdon. Curia baronum cum curia supervis’ Humfridi Foster arm. et Georgii Fitton gen’, firmariorum domine Regine Manerii predicti ad specialem instantiam Francisci Englefield arm.’

⁸⁹ See 27 Eliz. I, c. 1. For the relevant parliamentary history, see Neale, Elizabeth I and her Parliaments: 1584–1601, 28–57.

⁹⁰ 29 Eliz. I, c. 1 Statutes of the Realm, 4, 766, 767). Lord Paget (Thomas, third baron) was a Catholic who fled to the Continent on the discovery of the Throckmorton Plot, and obtained a Spanish pension; he died at Brussels in 1590.

⁹¹ As to ‘office found’, see note⁶³.

⁹² 29 Eliz. I, c. 2 (Statutes of the Realm, 4, 767).

⁹³ 29 Eliz. I, c. 3 (Statutes of the Realm, 4, 767, 768).

⁹⁴ That is, the first day of the second session of the fourth parliament of Elizabeth's reign; the session lasted from 8 February to 15 March 1576.

⁹⁵ A ‘bargain and sale’ was a conveyancing device. At common law, where there had been a contract for the sale of land, the vendor was held to be seised of the property to the use of the purchaser who, accordingly, became beneficially entitled. The Statute of Uses of 1536 (27 Hen. VIII, c. 10) executed the use in favour of the purchaser who thereby acquired a legal estate. A bargain and sale thus enabled land to be conveyed secretly as no formalities were required before 1536, but in that year the Statute of Enrolments (27 Hen. VIII, c. 16), required bargains and sales of any estate of inheritance to be by deed enrolled, within six months, in the King's Courts at Westminster. The device of a lease and release was then developed to avoid enrolment.

⁹⁶ Blunden’s MS., 127.

⁹⁷ Blunden’s MS., 129.

⁹⁸ Blunden’s MS., 129–31. Blunden felt considerable affection and respect for his uncle whom he described as ‘so good a man, so great a benefactor to me, and so near me in blood’ (ibid., 134). At a later stage of the dispute, accusations were also made about Blunden's supposed breaches of professional propriety; those were accusations which much angered him and which he indignantly denied (ibid., 140–3). The suggestion that Plowden's birth was illegitimate does not bear examination.

⁹⁹ ‘The word “Farm” or “Ferme”, called in Latin firma, is a compound word and doth comprehend many things. And therefore by the grant of a Ferme, will pass a messuage and much land, meadow, pasture, wood, &c., thereunto belonging or therewith used; for this word doth properly signify a capital, or principal, messuage and a great quantity of demesnes thereunto appertaining. Also by the grant of all Farms, or all Ferms, it seems leases for years do pass’ (Shepherd's Touchstone, 93); cf. Co. Litt. 5a; [John Rastell], Les Termes de la Ley, s.v. Farme or Ferme. On the other hand, ‘fee farm lands’ were those which were held in fee simple subject to a fee farm rent; cf. Les Termes de la Ley, s.v. Fee Farme.

¹⁰⁰ Blunden’s MS., 129. The Lacons (a Catholic famliy) lived at Kinlet, near Cleobury Mortimer. Roland Lacon was one of the commissioners who held the inquest of office on Sir Francis's lands in Shropshire (see vol. 13, p. 167). Francis Englefield did not marry ‘Mr. Lacon's daughter’; he married, some time before 1600, Jane Browne, daughter of Anthony Browne and grand daughter of the first Viscount Montague, by whom he had ten children.

¹⁰¹ Blunden's MS., 134, 135.

¹⁰² Blunden's MS., 135, 136.

¹⁰³ See the letter from Francis Englefield to Mr Vachell, printed after Blunden's account (Blunden's MS., 146–8); Blunden's comments on the letter are extremely sarcastic (ibid., 148, 149).

¹⁰⁴ Blunden's MS., 135, 137. Young Englefield appears to have been of an arrogant and domineering nature, and it is of interest to note that about 1632, when he was a baronet and living at Wootton Bassett in Wiltshire, the inhabitants of Wootton Bassett prepared a petition to Parliament (which was never presented) complaining that Englefield had deprived them of their rights of common when he enclosed the park, and that he had removed the shambles in the market place contrary to their wishes, and they also complained that he had confiscated their charter; see V.C.H., Wiltshire, 9, pp. 195, 197, 199. As Mr Williams observed, the behaviour of young Englefield at Wootton Bassett, which was emulated by his son, ‘can hardly have endeared the Englefields (or their religion) to the people of Wootton Bassett and this, plus the fact that the third baronet's widow had married the anti-Catholic Sir Robert Howard, who in 1676 sold Vastern to Laurence Hyde, may account for the small number of Popish recusants reported in the parish in that year — only three’ See Anthony Williams, J., Catholic Recusancy in Wiltshire, 1660–1791 (C.R.S., Monograph Series No. 1), p. 238.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Blunden's MS., 138.

¹⁰⁶ Blunden's MS., 138, 139.

¹⁰⁷ Blakeway, Isle, 116, 117; ‘The survey of the manors of Up Rossalle and Udlington by John Lovell, steward for Mr. Francis Englefield, 1587, states the former to lie within the hundred of Forde within the liberties of Shrewsbury, and parish of St Chad, to be surrounded by the Severn, except about twelve score yards, and therefore to be called the Isle of Rossall, and to be in circuit about three miles, and to contain about 410 acres and a half of the statute of Winchester, accompting fyve score to the hundreth.’

¹⁰⁸ See 29 Eliz. 1, c. 3, s. 6 (Statutes of the Realm, 4, 768): ‘Provided also, That this Act or any Thing therein contained shall not in any wise extend to nor prejudice nor hinder any person or persons, for touching or concerning any Conveyance or Assurance made bona fide upon good consideration, and without Fraud or Covin, by any of the said persons so attainted, at any time before their several Treasons committed, other than only the Wives Children and Heirs Apparent of the persons so attainted’. The last words of this section would have been sufficient to prevent the conveyance of 1576 being excepted from the operation of the Act.

¹⁰⁹ The lands were set out as follows (cf. Statutes of the Realm, 4, 850): Berkshire: the manors of Englefield, Tidmarsh, Tilehurst, Sindlesham, Brimpton, Ilsley, Morton, Speenhamland and Hartridge; and the grounds called Kittendens and Permans. Oxfordshire: the manors of Shiplake, Lashbrook and Dunsdon; and the ground called Exlade. Wiltshire: the manor of Wootton Bassett. Buckinghamshire: the manor of Edgecote. Warwickshire: the grounds and pastures called Broughton, and the reversion and remainder of Fulbrook Park. Shropshire: the reversion and remainder in the manor and Isle of Up Rossall and in the manors of Yeaton and Yagden. This is, however, by no means a complete list of the possessions of Sir Francis Englefield.

¹¹⁰ See the preamble to the 35 Eliz. 1, c. 5, ‘An Act confirming the Queen's Title to the Lands of Sir Francis Englefield’ (Statutes of the Realm, 4, 849, at p. 850).

¹¹¹ See vol. 13, p. 160.

¹¹² A possible explanation is that young Englefield was trying to improve his chances of obtaining an absolute estate in Sir Francis's lands. By the proviso to the deed of 1576, young Englefield's estate (then in expectancy only) could be brought to an end at any time by the tender of a ring; but under the terms of the deed of 1559 the lands would revert to Sir Francis only if he should have lawfully begotten male children, and it was virtually certain that no such children would be born, as Sir Francis was living abroad while his wife remained in England.

¹¹³ See vol. 13, p. 168.

¹¹⁴ See the preamble to the 35 Eliz. 1, c. 5 (Statutes of the Realm, 4, 849, at p. 850), Englefield's Case (1591), 7 Co. Rep. 11b, at p. 12, and Sir Francis Englefield's Case (1591), Poph. 18, at pp. 18, 19. The statement that Sir Francis was still alive was required because the deed provided for the delivery of a ring by Sir Francis, or by someone on his behalf, at any time during his lifetime.

¹¹⁵ See Englefield's Case (1591), 7 Co. Rep. 11b, at p. 12. The report specifically refers to ‘certain trees of elm and ash, and certain underwood’ (p. 12); the grant of the lease included ‘omnes et singulos boscos, subboscos et arbores et terras boscales’ but reserved to the Queen certain oaks and beeches.

¹¹⁶ Intrusion was a form of wrongful entry upon lands. Coke defined an intruder as, inter alia, ‘he that entereth upon any of the King's demesnes, and taketh the profits, is said to intrude upon the King's possession’ (Co. Litt. 277a, b). Where an intrusion had occurred, the Crown obtained satisfaction in the Court of Exchequer by the filing of an ‘information’.

¹¹⁷ Thomas Crompton, Robert Wright and Gelly Meyrick were three of Essex's stewards. Crompton, through Essex's influence, was elected M.P. for Radnor in 1593, and for Leominster in 1597 (Neale, cf. J. E., The Elizabethan House of Commons [London, 1949], 238–40).Google Scholar Wright, in 1571, had been elected a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was Essex's tutor; and he was Clerk of the Stables when Essex was Master of the Horse; through the influence of Essex he was elected M.P. for Tamworth in 1588, and for Shrewsbury in 1593 (cf. Neale, op. cit., 237, 238; D.N.B., 63, 124). Meyrick was Essex's Welsh steward through whom the Earl organised his power in Pembrokeshire and the neighbouring counties; Sir John Neale described him as ‘a malign influence in [Essex's] career’. He was elected M.P. for Carmarthen Boroughs in 1589 (Official Return, i, 426), and for Pembrokeshire in 1597 (information supplied by Dr A. Davidson, History of Parliament Trust). He accompanied Essex on various expeditions and was knighted at Cadiz in 1596; he was involved in the downfall of Essex and was hanged at Tyburn in 1601 (cf. Neale, op. cit., 119, 238, 240; D.N.B., 37, p. 318).

¹¹⁸ See letters patent dated 9 January 1589 (P.R.O., C. 66/1325, mm. 1–9), and letters patent dated 30 March 1589 (P.R.O., C. 66/1334, mm. 1–4); for abstracts of these grants, among others, see the document dated 26 June 1595, in P.R.O., S.P. 12/252/90 (cf. Cal. S. P. Dom., 1595–1597, p. 61).

Garbled memories of all these events seem to have lingered in the Temple for a long time. Young John Manningham, then a student in the Middle Temple, noted in his so-called ‘Diary’, under the date October 1602, the following story which had been told to him by a friend: ‘Sir Francis Englefield's house overthrown by the practice of Mr. Blundell of the Middle Temple, who, being put in a special trust, took a spleen upon a small occasion against the heir, and presently in his heat informed the Earl of Essex that such a conveyance was made of so goodly an inheritance in defraud of the Queen, and so animated him to beg it, to the utter ruin of that house’. (Bruce, J., ed., Diary of John Manningham, Camden Soc., vol. 99 [1868], p. 54).Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Sir John Perrot, who was born about 1527, had recently returned from Ireland where he had been Lord Deputy, and had been elected M.P. for Haverfordwest in the election of July 1588 (see Neale, The Elizabethan House of Commons, 255–60). He was commonly reputed to be the son of Henry VIII and Mary Berkeley who afterwards married Thomas Perrot. As a result of his career as Lord Deputy, he was convicted of treason and died in the Tower of London in 1592 (see D.N.B., 45, p. 20). It is of interest to note that Penelope Drummond, the daughter of Sir Maurice Drummond, who in 1661 married Edmund Plowden (great-great-grandson of the Elizabethan lawyer), was the great-grand-daughter of Sir John Perrot; see B. M. P., Records of the Plowden Family, 167–74. There is a portrait of Perrot, dated 1583, at Plowden Hall; it was brought there by Penelope Drummond.

¹²⁰ P.R.O., S.P. 12/229/9 (Cal. S. P. Dom., 1581–1590, p. 631).

¹²¹ There were several members of the Middle Temple at this time whose name was ‘Moore’ or ‘More’, and the individual referred to cannot be identified with certainty, but it seems likely that he was Francis Moore with whom young Englefield had been bound on admission to the Middle Temple; see note⁷⁴.

¹²² P.R.O., S.P. 12/229/10 (Cal S. P. Dom., 1581–1590, p. 631).

¹²³ In support of this argument, much reliance was placed upon the words which introduced the proviso containing the condition; those words stated that the reason for the condition was that Sir Francis did not think it convenient to settle the inheritance upon his nephew absolutely, so long as Sir Francis himself were alive, without a bridle to restrain his nephew who might later be found to be prodigal or given to intolerable vices. It was argued, with some force, that that phrase involved a personal judgment by Sir Francis, which could not be made by any other person. It is possible that young Francis Englefield's knowledge of this phrase (drafted by Edmund Plowden, and which young Englefield may well have regarded as offensive and belittling) and of the condition that it introduced, was a contributory cause of his animosity towards the Plowdens and Sandfords, and played a part in his attempts to keep the proviso secret.

¹²⁴ 27 Hen. VIII, c. 10 (‘An Act concerning uses and wills’).

¹²⁵ Englefield's Case (1591), 7 Co. Rep. 11b. The proceedings in the Court of Exchequer are also reported in a MS. report in Cambridge University Library MS. Ff. 5. 26, if. 85–11 v.

¹²⁶ A.P.C., 22, pp. 569, 570.

¹²⁷ 35 Eliz. I, c. 1 (the Act against sectaries), and 35 Eliz. I, c. 2 (the Act against Popish Recusants). For the parliamentary history of these statutes, see Neale, Elizabeth I and her Parliaments: 1584–1601, 280–97.

¹²⁸ On 20 March 1593, the Commons were hearing counsel on both sides on a bill to prevent aliens selling by way of retail any foreign commodities, and ‘Mr Francis Moore (of the Middle Temple)’ appeared at the bar of the House to speak on behalf of the city of London (D'Ewes, Journal, 505). See notes⁷⁴ and ¹²¹.

¹²⁹ Lords Journals, 2, 173, 175; D'Ewes, Journals, 462.

¹³⁰ See note ¹²³.

¹³¹ 29 Eliz. I, c. 1; see note ⁹².

¹³² For inquest of office, see note ⁶³.

¹³³ I.e., two years after the end of the session in which the Act (29 Eliz. I, c. 3) had been passed; the session ended on 23 March 1587.

¹³⁴ See vol. 13, p. 160.

¹³⁵ For the foregoing, see Sir Francis Englefield's Case (1591), Poph. 18.

¹³⁶ Lords Journals, 2, 176, 179, 185, 190; D'Ewes, Journals, 462, 465, 505, 508–13; 35 Eliz. I, c. 5 (Statutes of the Realm, 4, 849–52). There is a gap in the printed journals of the Commons between 18 March 1580, and 19 March 1603 (cf. Commons Journals, 1, 135–9).

¹³⁷ This provision was wholly without practical effect, since the title of young Englefield under the deed of 4 May 1559 was to lands which had been declared forfeited to and vested in the Queen; thus there were no lands to which he could establish title under the deed.

¹³⁸ V.C.H., Berkshire, 3, p. 407.

¹³⁹ See note¹⁰.

¹⁴⁰ See the quotation from the grant in note ¹⁴¹. The Queen was, in effect, claiming a base fee. Among other things, a base fee was a fee simple determinable on the failure of issue of an original donee of an estate in tail. It was limited by the failure of the heirs of the body of that donee to take, and upon that failure the persons next entitled in remainder became entitled to the remainder in tail or in fee simple, as the case might be. Cf. Walsingham's Case, 2 Plowden 547, at p. 557: ‘… as if a Man at this Day makes a Gift in Tail, and the Donee is attainted of Treason, the Queen and her Heirs shall have the land as long as there are any Heirs of the Body of the Donee, and in that Case there are two Fees, for the Donor has his ancient Fee, which is a Fee-simple, and the Queen has another Fee in the same Land, which is such a Fee as shall descend, and such as the Queen may grant to another in Fee … but yet it is but a base Fee, for it is younger in Time than the Fee of the Donor, and it shall not endure longer than there continue to be Heirs of the Body of the Donee, and if such Heirs fail, this Fee is gone, whereas the Fee of the Donor shall never perish….’ In the case of Vastern, the donee, Sir Francis Englefield, died without male issue and so the base fee came to an end.

¹⁴¹ The letters patent of 9 January 1589 recited the grant by Queen Mary of Little Park to Sir Francis Englefield, after which there was a further recital setting out the interest claimed by Queen Elizabeth (P.R.O., C. 66/1325, mm. 3, 4): ‘Cumque eciam predictus parcus [Little Park), lezura, pastura et cetera ultime recitata premissa … modo in manibus nostris existunt ac existere debent racione attincture dicti Francisci Englefield Militis … ac racione vi et pretextu cuiusdam Actus de Parliamento editi et provisi in ea parte Anno regni nostri vicesimo octavo [sic] ac nos inde seisiti in dominico nostro ut de feodo in iure Corone nostre Anglie de absoluto Statu feodi simplicis vel ad minus de Statu in feodo simplici quamdiu predictus Franciscus Englefield Miles vel aliquis exitus masculus de corpore ipsius Francisci Englefield Militis fuerit vel extiterit et de ulteriore Statu et interesse ut de feodo et iure dicto Corone nostre Anglie de et in revercione aut iure et interesse revercionis eorundem premissorum dependente et expectante de et super determinacione predicti Status talliati ad et in eadem ultime recitata premissa… concessa per dictas litteras patentes in remanere ut prefertur predicto Johanni Englefield et heredibus masculis de corpore suo legittime procreatis, si idem status talliatus sic concessus predicto Johanni Englefield et heredibus masculis de corpore suo legittime procreatis in remanere ut prefertur nondum determinaverit seu finirrit [sic]’. After granting such interest as the Queen had the letters patent proceeded (m. 4): ‘Et si idem Status talliatus inde prefato Johanni Englefield et predictis heredibus masculis de corpore suo legittime procreatis in remanere concessa, ut prefertur, tempore confeccionis harum litterarum nostrarum patentium fuerit determinatus seu finitus deficiente exitu masculo de corpore ipsius Johannis Englefield legittime procreato vel alio quocumque modo Tunc volumus … damus et concedimus prefato Thome Crompton, Roberto Wrighte et Gelly Meyrick, heredibus et assignatis suis predictum parcum, lezuras et cetera premissa… per presentes eis et heredibus eorum concessa libere, absolute et exonerata omni revencione, exaccione, servicio et demaundo preter redditum et servicia in hijs litteris nostris patentibus inde eis confectis postmodum nobis, heredibus et successoribus nostris reservata’. Where the tenant in tail died without issue capable of inheriting and there were no further limitations, the land reverted to the original donor or his heirs (in this case, the Queen); see Co. Litt. 19a.

¹⁴² See V.C.H., Berkshire, 3, p. 409. This is the property referred to as ‘the farm of Englefield’ by Brigadier Trappes-Lomax (Biographical Studies, 1 [1951], pp. 131–48). He was, however, mistaken in suggesting (p. 131), that ‘the farm’ was ‘either saved by Sir Francis [i.e. the nephew] from the general ruin or later bought back’, as the account in the text shows.

¹⁴³ See Loomie, The Spanish Elizabethans, 49, 50.

¹⁴⁴ Blakeway, Sheriffs of Shropshire, 224; cf. Blakeway, Isle, 114, 115 (the particulars, especially the dates, given are not wholly reliable).

¹⁴⁵ I am indebted to Mrs D. M. Clarke for making transcripts for me of the relevant letters patent.