Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-29T07:38:50.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Bishops and the Act of Exchange of 1559

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Felicity Heal
Felicity Heal
Affiliation:
Newnham College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is well known that the Tudor monarchs exerted highly effective control over the financial resources of the English Church, particularly in the years after the Henrician Reformation. So marked a feature of the sixteenth century were the demands which the Crown, followed by the rest of the leading laity, made upon the Church in order to gain easy profit, that the period has on occasions been characterized as the ‘ age of plunder ’ The dissolution of the monasteries, and its economic and social consequences, have long been the subject of scholarly attention and debate. The fortunes of the secular church, in contrast, have roused relatively little interest, except as a background to the Laudian revival. This is, of course, in part because the crisis which the parochial clergy, cathedral chapters and bishops, experienced, was less dramatic than that of the monks and chantry priests, and, perhaps partly because demands upon the secular church were often for taxation rather than for outright gifts of lands. None of the Tudors showed the slightest inclination to disturb the fundamental tithe relationship within the parishes, and there were very few, even among the most ardent advocates of reform, who spoke openly for the old Lollard concept of making tithe dependent upon the quality of the incumbent.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 1974 , pp. 227 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 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 See for example M. W. Beresford, The Age of Plunder (forthcoming).

2 For a recent consideration of this topic see J. Youings, The Dissolution of the Monasteries, 1971.Google Scholar

3 Hill, C., Economic Problems of the Church from Archbishop Whitgift to the Long Parliament (Oxford, 1956)Google Scholar, remains the major work on the subject. There are several detailed studies of the economic conditions of bishoprics: Hembry, P. M., The Bishops of Bath and Wells, 1540–1640, 1967;Google ScholarBoulay, F. Du, ‘ Archbishop Cranmer and the Canterbury Temporalities,’ Eng. Hist. Rev., Ixvii (1952), pp. 19–36;CrossRefGoogle ScholarCross, C., ‘ The Economic Problems of the See of York,’ Agrarian Hist. Rev. (supplement 1970), pp. 64–81.Google Scholar

4 B[ridsh] M[useum], Cott. MS. Cleo E iv, fos. 207–8. Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII, XIV, i, 871.Google Scholar

5 House of Lords Record Office, original acts, I Eliz. no. 40.

6 the act is discussed briefly in Hill, pp. 14–15; J. E. Neale, [Elizabeth I and Her] Parliaments, paperback ed. 1965, i, pp. 74–5; Haugaard, W. P., Elizabeth I and the English Reformation (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 154–6. Hembry, pp. 128–32, offers a fuller account, but one which is primarily concerned with the impact of the act upon Bath and Wells.Google Scholar

7 27 Henry VIII, c. 45; c. 49; 28 Henry VIII, c. 33; 33 Henry VIII, c. 47.

8 Hembry, pp. 105–23.

9 5 Edward VI, c. II (private acts); 7 Edward VI, c. I (private acts).

10 I Eliz. I, c. 4. Neale, Parliaments, i, p. 45.

11 Journals of the [House of] Commons, 1803, i, pp. 54–5.

12 House of Lords Record Office, original acts, 1 Eliz. I, no. 4.

13 Journals of the Commons, i, pp. 54–8.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., i, p. 57. 1 Eliz. I, cc. 5 and 25 (private acts).

15 Journals of the Commons, i, p. 56.Google Scholar

16 C[alendar of] St[ate] P[apers] Ven[ctian] 1559–80, p. 53.

17 Neale, J. E., ‘ The Elizabethan Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity ’, Eng. Hist. Rev., LXV (1950), pp. 304–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Neale, Parliaments, i, p. 73, points out that the preamble, with its full-blooded attack on Catholicism under Mary, is unlikely to be the work of the government. Journals of the [House of] Lords, 1846, I, pp. 570–71.

19 Journals of the Commons, I, p. 60.Google Scholar

20 There does, however, seem to have been some question about the legal validity of the exchanges, for in the 1562 Parliament a ‘ Bill for the Assurance of certain Lands assumed by the Queen's Majesty during the Vacation of their Bishopricks ’ was read twice in the Lords and committed. Journals of the Lords, I, pp. 583 and 587.Google Scholar

21 PRO, LR 6, 114/1; 115/1.

22 PRO, LR 6, 105/6. These figures are for various years between 1556 and 1560.

23 Ely held about £2,100 worth of temporalities at this period, while its diocese contained only 150 parishes, and was relatively poor. Canterbury had a much larger area under its jurisdiction, but many of the spiritual possessions of the monasteries had already been granted away, not least to the archbishops themselves.

24 C.St.P. Ven. 1559–80, p. 66.

25 For the details of these programmes see Stone, L., ‘ The Political Programme of Thomas Cromwell,’ Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., xxiv (1951), pp. 1 rf.;Google Scholar G. R. Elton, ‘ Parliamentary Drafts, 1529–40,’ ibid., xxv (1952), pp. 117ff.

26 C.St.P. Ven. 1559–80, p. 73.

27 Z[urich] L[etters], ed. Robinson, H. (Cambridge, 1842), i. p. 20.Google Scholar

28 ZL, i, p. 74.

29 Neale, Parliaments, I, p. 74.

30 Haugaard, p. 154, offers this as an important alternative explanation of the Commons opposition to the measure. It seems unlikely, however, that men whose sole concern was the danger that episcopal patronage would be more rigidly controlled would have opposed the government bill unless given active leadership and encouragement by the Protestant group in the House.

31 See, for example, BM, Cott. MS. Cleo E iv, fos. 174–175V. PRO, SP I/, 86/, fo. 145.

32 PRO, SP 12/, I/66.

33 Thomas Cranmer, Miscellaneous Writings and Letters, ed. Cox, J. E. (Cambridge, 1846), p. 437.Google Scholar

34 C.St.P. Foreign 1558–59, no. 1086.

35 Dunkley, E. H., The Reformation in Denmark (1948), pp. 71–6 and 85–6.Google Scholar

36 For Cecil's views on the need to guard England against the threats posed by Catholicism, see Bruce, J. and Perowne, T. T. (Cambridge, 1853), pp. 97–101.Google Scholar

46 Inner Temple, Petyt MS. 538/54, fo. 53. Richard Cox seems to have taken much of the initiative in preparing the general letter which the bishops sent to the Crown, for much of the Inner Temple draft is in his hand, and he also prepared a list of scriptural justifications for not alienating the lands of the church.

47 ZL, i, p. 51.

48 C.St.P. Spanish 1558–67, p. 90.

49 Diary of Henry Machyn, 1550–63, ed. J. G. Nichols, 1848, p. 214.

50 Ibid, p. 227.

51 PRO, SP 12/17/4.

52 ZL, ii, p. 39

53 PRO, SP 12/7/19.

54 C.St.P. Foreign 1559–60, p. 137.

55 CPR Eliz. I, I, pp. 440–42.

56 CPR Eliz. I, I, pp. 440–41. The value of the lands to be taken from the first five bishoprics was recorded on this occasion. In the commission of 4 October no values were given, and the totals have therefore been calculated from earlier episcopal accounts and the Valor Ecclesiasticus.

57 Taken from CPR Eliz. I, II, pp. 33–4, 191–8, 224, 285–9, 306.

58 PRO, SP 12/17/32

59 PRO, SP 12/20/17; SP 15/II/38.

60 CPR Eliz. I, I, p. 355, 444. On the earlier problems of Bath and Wells see Hembry, ch.IV.

61 CPR Eliz. I, II, pp. 323–5. The original plan had been to take thirteen manors from Worcester. CPR Eliz. I, I, pp. 354–5.

62 CPR Eliz. I, II, pp. 120. 146.

63 BM, Lansdowne 8/81 and 84.

64 Ibid. PRO, LR 8/61.

65 The Durham pension was almost exactly what the bishop gained in rents from the lands which the crown had appropriated, so for some years the bishops only had advantage from casualties. At Winchester the pension was always less than the rental value of the Taunton lands: in the 1590s, for example, they yielded the bishops about £700 per annum. PRO, SC 6, Eliz. I/806.

66 This percentage is calculated from the author's own count of the number of manors actually held by the bishops in 1559. Since there are no general figures available on the amount or value of episcopal property after 1535, and the Henrician and Edwardian periods witnessed massive exchanges and grants by the bishops, it is very difficult to arrive at an accurate manorial count. The figure from which the percentage is calculated is based upon all the evidence available from government sources about the number of exchanges, and upon detailed accounts or lists from twenty of the twenty-six bishoprics, including all the wealthy sees except Salisbury and Lincoln. Further research may alter the figures slightly, but seems unlikely to affect significantly the interpretation here given.

67 PRO, SP 12/4/39. The same qualifications as above must be applied to these figures.

68 E[ly] D[iocesan] R[ecords], A/8/1, pp. 1–9.

69 The Hereford grant was not finally agreed until March 1562. London's had been settled in February of that year. CPR Eliz. I, II, pp. 285, 306. The last of the agreements to appear in the patent rolls was that for Bath and Wells, finally settled in June 1564. CPR Eliz. I, III, no. 803.

70 For example, the lands formerly held by Ely in Norfolk and Suffolk yielded the Crown £638 in 1560, as compared with the £3,049 which it received from the rest of the royal estates in those countries. Dietz, F. C., English Public Finance, 1558–1640 (New York, 1932), p. 294.Google Scholar

71 PRO, LR 8/158; LR 8/165. The exceptionally high figures for this period explain the discrepancy between the totals given in Table n and those to be found in Dietz, pp. 294–5.

72 CPR Eliz. I, v, no. 1401.

73 CPR Eliz. I, II, p. 103. PRO, LR 8/165.

74 The sources for the table are PRO, LR 8/158; LR 8/165; LR 8/243. There are no figures for Essex for the 1590s. Sources for the episcopal figures are Ely accounts, 1549, BM, Add. Roll, 34274; London accounts 1550, PRO, SC 6, Edward VI/306; valuations of Norwich lands, 1559, CPR Eliz. 1,1, p. 444.

75 Parker Correspondence, p. 100. There are detailed records of this use of sequestration at Ely in EDR, G/2/18.

76 The Seconde Pane of a Register, ed. A. Peel, Camb. 1915, i, p. 87.

77 BM, Add. Roll, 34274. CPR Eliz. 1, II, p. 224.

78 CPR Eliz. I, II, p. 289.

79 Valor Ecclesiasticus, 1825–34, i, p. 7. PRO, SP 12/4/39.

80 F. Du Boulay, p. 36. Camb. Univ. Lib. MS. Mm/1/42, p. 326.

81 PRO, SC 6, Edward VI/306; SC 6, Eliz. I, 1468.

82 Valor Ecclesiasticus, i, pp. 293ff. PRO, SC 6 Eliz. I, 2219. West Sussex Record Office, Ep.VI/4/i, fos. 75ff.

83 PRO, SC 6, Eliz. I, 1468; PRO, SP 12/107/96; F. M. Heal, ‘ The Bishops of Ely and their Diocese, 1515–ca. 1600,’ unpublished Cambridge Ph.D. dissertation (1972), ch VI.Google Scholar

84 Lord North's household accounts. Archeologica, xix (1821), p. 293.Google Scholar

85 Browne Willis, Survey of the Cathedrals, 1742, II, pp. 416–7.

86 Heal, p. 289 ff.