No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Exercise of the Probate Jurisdiction of the Medieval Archbishops of York
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2016
Extract
The development of testamentary jurisdiction by the English Church authorities has already received considerable attention, and it is generally held that by the close of the thirteenth century the basic probate procedures had been well established, even if some administrative practices continued to be refined. This paper aims to look at the practical evidence of the York archiepiscopal records from the thirteenth century to the Reformation from an archival and administrative viewpoint - the concern is not so much with the canon law touching wills and testaments, or with the testamentary disputes and litigation in the archiepiscopal court, the Curia Eboracensis, or indeed with the contents of the wills proved before the ecclesiastical authorities, but with the routine practicalities of the exercise of probate and intestacy administrations.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Studies in Church History Subsidia , Volume 12: Life and Thought in the Northern Church , 1999 , pp. 123 - 144
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical History Society 1999
References
1 For the development of testamentary jurisdiction and the canon law of wills see Sheehan, M. M., The Will in Medieval England: from the Conversion of the Anglo-Saxons to the End of the Thirteenth Century, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. Studies and Texts, 6 (Toronto, 1963)Google Scholar; Ferme, B. E., Canon Law in Late Medieval England: a Study of William Lyndwode’s Provinciale with Particular Reference to Testamentary Law, Pontificia Studiorum Universitas Salesiana, studia et textus historiae iuris canonici, 8 (Rome, 1996)Google Scholar. For testamentary disputes at York see Smith, D. M., Ecclesiastical Cause Papers at York the Court of York 1301-1309, Borthwick Text and Calendar, 14 (York, 1988)Google Scholar; for the practical procedures of probate sec Jacob, E. F. and Johnson, H. C., eds, The Register of Henry Chichele, Archbishop of Canterbury 1414-1443, 2, CYS, 42, (1937), pp. ix–xxxvGoogle Scholar. A useful version of the York probate practice dating from 1416 and taken from church court proceedings is to be found in BI, CP.F.69, printed in Smith, D. M., Medieval Latin Documents, series 2: Probate Records, Borthwick Wallet, 7 (York, 1984), pp. iii–iv.Google Scholar
2 For the geographical boundaries of the medieval diocese of York, see Smith, D. M., Guide to Bishops’ Registers of England and Wales: a Survey from the Middle Ages to the Abolition of Episcopacy in 1646, Royal Historical Society Guide and Handbook, 11 (London, 1981), p. 232Google Scholar and n. 1, and for more details of parishes and jurisdictions within the Yorkshire portion of the diocese, Lawton, G., Collectio Rerum ecclesiasticarum de diocesi Eboracensi; or, Collections Relative to Churches and Chapels within the Diocese of York (London, 1840)Google Scholar. For testamentary jurisdictions, including peculiars, see Gibson, J. S. W., Wills and Where to Find Them (Chichester, 1974), pp. 44–5, 100–3, 150–75Google Scholar; Camp, A. J., Wills and their Whereabouts (London, 1974), pp. 100–4, 152–76Google Scholar. A study of the formation of the peculiar jurisdiction of York Minster is to be found in Brown, Sandra, ‘The peculiar jurisdiction of York Minster during the Middle Ages’ (York D.Phil, thesis, 1980), esp. pp. 213–25Google Scholar for testamentary matters. For the probate records of the archdeaconry of Richmond see Gibson, Wills, pp. 73-5, 170-2. Of course, the archbishop of York exercised probate jurisdiction in the Richmond arch-deaconry when the latter was vacant (e.g., BI, Prob. Reg. 5, fol. 248r-v).
3 BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fol. 138r, will of William Revetour, chaplain, 1446: ‘nota pro jurisdictione domini in capella sancti Willelmi super pontem Use, civitatis Ebor’, contra capitulum ecclesie cathedralis.’
4 BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fol. 261v, administration of Alice Thorp, tenant of the abbey of Selby in Stillingfleet, 1453: ‘nota pro jurisdictione domini contra abbatem de Selby’.
5 BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fol. 279v, administration of John Langton of York, tailor, a tenant of William Roose, esquire: ‘nota pro jurisdictione in Petergate contra capitulum Ebor’.
6 Brown, W., ed., The Register of William Wickwane, Lord Archbishop of York, 1279-128$, SS, 114 (1907), pp. 236–7Google Scholar, in a letter to the provost of Beverley Minster, 1280.
7 BI, Prob. Reg. 1. On fol. 29V is the annotation ‘IX Registrum’. For the earlier probate registers, now lost, see Borthwick Institute Bulletin, 1 (1975-8), p. 37. The extant Exchequer probate records for the medieval period are indexed in Index of Wills in the York Registry, 1389 to 1514, YASRS, 6 (1889).
8 Smith, D. M., A Guide to the Archives of the Company of Merchant Adventurers of York, Borthwick Text and Calendar, 16 (1990), p. 62Google Scholar, no. 19 (1325); BL, MS Cotton Nero D. III, fol. 182v (1331); ibid., fol. 181r (1334); Clay, C. T., ed., Yorkshire Deeds, 7, YASRS, 83 (1932), nos 553–4Google Scholar (1336); Smith, Company of Merchant Adventurers, p. 67, no. 39 (1348); Clay, C. T., ed., Yorkshire Deeds, 6, YASRS, 76 (1930), no. 576 (1356)Google Scholar; Percy, J. W., ed., York Memorandum Book, 3, YASRS, 134 (1973), pp. 146–7 (1362)Google Scholar; Tringham, N. J., ed., Charters of the Vicars Choral of York Minster: City of York and its Suburbs to 1546, YASRS, 148 (1993), no. 247 (1363).Google Scholar
9 BI, Prob. Reg. 7, fol. 8v. Note also entries in BI, Prob. Reg. 7 (fols 30v, 37r, 43r) stating after a probate act summary ‘nihil sol[utum] pro registracione’.
10 E.g., William Garton’s 1430s inventory (BI, Exch. Inv.) notes that 4d. was charged for the making of his testament, 3s. 4d. for the writing of the inventory and making a copy, 2s. 6d. for probate of the testament, 6d. for its registration, and 2s. for the acquittance. Compare William Kexby’s inventory of 1409 (BI, D/C. Inv.) where the probate fee was 2s. 8d., registration 3s. 4d., the making of the inventory cost 3s. 4d. and the acquittance 9s. 2d. For fees at probate see Lyndwood, William, Provinciale (Oxford, 1679), p. 181Google Scholar, gloss insinuationes huiusmodi. He mentions 6d. as a registration fee but the clerk was to be suitably recompensed if the will was lengthy. Note also the entry in the office book of Thomas Water, registrar of the dean and chapter of York (d. 1540), when writing of fees payable to his jurisdiction:‘item registrario pro registracione cuiuslibet testamenti prout executor concordaverit secum’ (BI, D/C.R.Reg., fol. 17Av).
11 For these registers see Smith, Guide to Bishops’ Registers, pp. 232-53.
12 Brown, W. and Thompson, A. H., eds, The Register of William Greenfield, Lord Archbishop of York, 1306-1315, 5 vols, SS, 145, 149, 151–3 (1931-40), 5, no. 2912.Google Scholar
13 BI, Reg. 10, fol. 301r.
14 For fifteenth-century examples see BI, Reg. 18, fols 345r, 352r, 352v; Reg. 5A, fol. 408v. The term ‘chancery’ is of course found earlier, e.g. the following examples from the register of Archbishop Zouche (1342-52): (fol. 347v) ‘infra manerium domini Ebor’ archiepiscopi apud Burton’ iuxta Beverl’ in domo dericorum ibidem cancellarla vulgariter nuncupata’; (fol. 27v) ‘in manerio nostro Rypon’ et in cancellarla nostra ibidem’; (fol. 88v) ‘in cancellaria dicti domini archiepiscopi apud Scroby’; (fol. 159v) ‘in cancellaria dicti venerabile patris apud Cawode’, cf. fols 355r, 356r.
15 To add to the confusion, the editors of the printed index of probate material registered in the archiepiscopal registers erroneously called them ‘Consistory’ wills. They are no such thing: Crossley, E. W., Index of the Original Documents of the Consistory Court of York, A.D. 1427 to A.D. 1658, and also of the Probate and Administration Acts in the Court of the Dean of York, A.D. 1604 to A.D. 1722, YASRS, 73 (1928)Google Scholar; Charlesworth, J. and Hudson, A. V., Index of the Wills and Administrations Entered in the Registers of the Archbishops of York, Being Consistory Wilis, etc., A.D. 1316 to A.D. 1822, Known as the Archbishops’ Wills, YASRS, 93 (1937).Google Scholar
16 See Marchant, R. A., The Church under the Law: Justice, Administration and Discipline in the Diocese of York 1560-1640 (Cambridge, 1969)Google Scholar for a discussion of the probate activities of Chancery and Exchequer in the early modern period.
17 BI, Reg. 18, fol. 344v.
18 BI, Reg. 5A, fol. 408v.
19 See Churchill, I. J., Canterbury Administration, 2 vols (London, 1933), 1, pp. 380–423.Google Scholar
20 Canterbury Administration, 1, pp. 397 and n., 412n.
21 See Marchant, The Church under the Law, pp. 103-7.
22 For approbatio see Lyndwood, Provinciale, p. 181.
23 Reg. Wickwane, p.83.
24 BI, Reg. 10, fol. 327r.
25 BI, Prob. Reg. 1, fol. 56v.
26 See Brentano, R., York Metropolitan Jurisdiction and Papal Judges Delegate (1279-1296), University of California Publications in History, 58 (1959)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Late medieval changes in the administration of vacant suffragan sees: province of York’, YAJ, 38 (1952-5), pp. 496-503.
27 BI, Reg. 10, fol. 345r.
28 BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fol. 496r.
29 BI, Reg. 18, fol. 382v.
30 BI, Prob. Reg. 3, fol. 17r.
31 Brown, W. and Thompson, A. H., eds, The Register of Thomas of Corbridge, Lord Archbishop of York, 1300-1304, 2 vols, SS, 138, 141 (1925-8), 2, p. 163.Google Scholar
32 BI, Prob. Reg. 3, fols 264r, 280r.
33 BI, Reg. 10, fol. 317v.
34 BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fol. 213v.
35 BI, Prob. Reg. 5, fol. 421v.
36 BI, Prob. Reg. 3, fols 375v-376r.
37 BI, Prob. Reg. 3, fol. 492v.
38 Bishop Bek of Lincoln died on 15 February 1347, and his will was proved by the archbishop of Canterbury in respect of the late bishop’s goods ‘in nostra Cantuar’ provincia’ - unfortunately no day or month is given - and then subsequently approved by Archbishop Zouche on 3 March (BI, Reg. 10, fol. 311v). Master Henry Sever died in 1471, and the Canterbury prerogarive jurisdiction dealt with probate on 20 September, and the Official of the court of York approved it on 5 October (BI, Prob. Reg. 4, fol. 168r-v). The will of John Vavasour, justice of common pleas, was proved before the archbishop of Canterbury on 21 December 1506 and approved by the commissary-general of York on 3 March 1507 (BI, Prob. Reg. 6, fol. 182r).
39 Among some examples of original wills from the York diocese, with probate endorsements or attachments, are the following (with dates given in brackets): BI, PR.Y/MS.F.141 (1467); 142 (1475); Durham County Record Office, Salvin deeds D/Sa/D/1556-7 (1342); Hull City Archives, D.57A (1342); D.67A (1344); D.81 (1349); D.126 (1369); D.229A (1414); D.430 (1460); D.438 (1468); D.473 (1491); Lincolnshire Archives Office, Lincoln D&C, Dij/60/3/10 (1382); North Yorkshire County Record Office, Lawson of Brough, ZRL3/45 (1390); Baildon, W. P. and Margerison, S., eds, The Calverley Charters, Thoresby Society, 6 (1904), pp. 157–9 (1342), 280–2 (1489)Google Scholar; Hebditch, M. B., ed., Yorkshire Deeds, 9, YASRS, III (1948)Google Scholar; Price, M. J. Stanley, ed., Yorkshire Deeds, 10, YASRS, 120 (1955). no. 64 (1385).Google Scholar
40 For the Official see Smith, D. M., ‘The Officialis of the Bishop in twelfth- and thirteenth-century England: problems of terminology’, in Franklin, M. J. and Harper-Bill, C., eds, Medieval Ecclesiastical Studies in Honour of Dorothy M. Owen (Woodbridge, 1995). pp. 201–20Google Scholar; for the commissary-general see W. Brown, ed., The Register of Walter Giffard, Lord Archbishop of York, 1266-1279, SS, 109 (1904). p. 270.
41 For early evidence of the receiver of York see Reg. Greenfield, 1, pp. 125, 202; 2, p. 70; 3, p. 44; 4, pp. 94, 98, 100, 102, 251-5. His office was distinct from that of receiver of the archbishop’s chamber, cf. BI, Reg. 11, fols 310r, 315r-v, 316r, 317r, 325v, 327r, also styled on fol. 320r ‘receptor denariorum nostrorum et aliorum bonorum quorumcumque et thesaurarius camere nostre’, mentioned in 1362. Note also the reference to ‘clericus receptorie Ebor” in 1369 (BI, Reg. 11, fol. 325v).
42 BI, Reg. 9A, fol. 101v (Beverley); ibid., fol. 103r (Southwell); Reg. Greenfield, 1, pp. 188, 191; 4, p. 251 (Ripon).
43 BI, Reg. 11, fol. 311v.
44 Hill, R. M. T., Robinson, D. B., and Brocklesby, R., eds, The Register of William Melton, Archbishop of York, 1317-1340, 4 vols, CYS, 70–1, 76, 85 (1977-97), 2, no. 272.Google Scholar
45 Thompson, A. H., The English Clergy and their Organization in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1947), p. 189Google Scholar; the full commission is BI, Reg. 12, fol. 14r.
46 At one period during the archiepiscopate of the turbulent Alexander Neville (1374-88), the Exchequer and the receiver-general were physically removed from York and located in Beverley, they returned to York in 1386 (BI, Reg. 12, fol. 51Av).
47 BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fol. 26r.
48 BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fol. 107v.
49 BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fols 176v, 170v, 191r-v, 194r-v, 201v.
50 BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fol. 274r - this was not ‘Chancery’ business since Old Malton was within the archbishop’s jurisdiction and therefore no inferior jurisdiction had been inhibited.
51 BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fol. 198v.
52 E.g., BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fols 54r, 60r, 67r, 156r, 161r, 172r, 178r, 196r, 202v, 517r; Prob. Reg. 3, fol. 598v.
53 E.g., BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fols 143r. 160v, 169v, 171v, 196r, 202r-v, 208r; Prob. Reg. 5, fol. 239v.
54 BI, Prob. Reg. 4, fol. 249r.
55 BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fol. 1r. For further examples of such headings see Prob. Reg. 1, fols 54v, 89r; Prob. Reg. 2, fols 8v, 109v, 219r, 378r, 492r, 663r; Prob. Reg. 3, fol. 610r.
56 For these officials see Storey, R. L., Diocesan Administration in Fifteenth-century England, Borthwick Paper, 16, 2nd edn (1972), pp. 7–8Google Scholar; Dunning, R. W., ‘Rural deans in England in the fifteenth century’, BIHR, 40 (1967), pp. 207–13.Google Scholar
57 Reg. Giffard, p. 115.
58 Brown, W., ed., The Registers of John le Romeyn, Lord Archbishop of York, 1286-1296, part II, and of Henry of Newark, Lord Archbishop of York, 1296-1299, 2, SS, 128 (1917), p. 260.Google Scholar
59 Reg. Corbridge, 1, p. 99.
60 BI, Reg. 12, fol. 88v.
61 BI, Reg. 10, fols 35r, 39v, 51r, 115v, 123v, 155v, 17Ov, 182v, 202r, 244r.
62 Ibid., fol. 155v.
63 Ibid., fol. 202r.
64 Hull City Archives, D.126.
65 Hull City Archives, D.129.
66 Reg. Melton, 2, p. 183.
67 BI, Reg. 9A, fol. 232v; Reg. Melton, 1, no. 95.
68 Reg. Corbridge, 2, p. 177.
69 BI, Reg. 10, fol. 158r.
70 Lichfield Joint Record Office, MS D30 M4, ed. Jill Hughes, in Camden Miscellany, 34 (London, 1997), pp. 105-39. I am grateful to Dr Hughes for allowing me to consult her edition prior to publication.
71 Reg. Corbridge, 2, pp. 99-101.
72 Reg. Romeyn, 2, p. 260.
73 Reg. Corbridge, 1, p. 75.
74 Swanson, R. N., ed., A Calendar of the Register of Richard Scrope, Archbishop of York, 1398-1405, Borthwick Texts and Calendars, 8, 11 (1981-5), 1, nos 93, 137, 462.Google Scholar
75 By comparison the Coventry and Lichfield sequestrator-general could prove wills with goods valued under the sum of £30, and the rural deans of the Coventry, Derby, Shropshire, and Stafford archdeaconries could grant probate within their ruridecanal jurisdictions of those dying with goods valued below £5. The £5 limit is also found at York in a 1424 commission for the rural dean of Retford and Laneham (BI, Reg. 5A, fol. 392v).
76 BI, Prob. Reg. 1, fol. 20r.
77 BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fol. 642r.
78 BI, Reg. 10, fols 301r-346v.
79 BI, Reg. 9A, fol. 167r (for deanery of Doncaster 1320); ibid., fol. 167r (for deanery of Pontefract 1320); Reg. 11, fol. 238v (for deanery of Bingham 1357). Cf. Reg. 11, fol. 34r, commission to examine the excesses of rural deans and apparitors, 1353.
80 See BI, Reg. 12, fol. 102r for a 1376 commission for the office of apparitor-general, and Reg. 17, fols 16v-17r for a commission of 1475.
81 BI, Prob. Reg. 3, fol. 280r.
82 One apparitor is found acting as an executor of a testament, BI, Prob. Reg. 3, fol. 388v.
83 Reg. Romeyn, 2, pp. 68-9.
84 Reg. Corbridge, 1, p. 162.
85 For cancelled wills because the alleged testator was still alive see BI, Prob. Reg. 2, fols 120v, 512v; Prob. Reg. 3, fols 45v, 452r; for intestacy grants revoked because a will was later found see Prob. Reg. 2, fols 114v, 142r; Prob. Reg. 3, fols 449r, 479v, 506r, Prob. Reg. 4, fols 177v, 202v, 205v.
86 The format of these probate act books changes in the mid-sixteenth century. As indicated, the earlier ones record outgoing commissions from the Exchequer to rural deans, e.g. ‘Item xxvj die mensis Julii emanavit commissio decano de Craven ad probandum testamentum Roberti Dobson de parochia de Bynglay…’ (Prob. AB. 1, fol. 56r). By the middle of the century the Exchequer clerks record the business at the final stage of the process, e.g. ‘xiij die mensis Decembris anno domini quo supra decanus de Rydall certificavit se approbasse testamentum Alani Watson parochie de Thometon defuncti per dominum Charolum Clerkson presbiterum, Anthonium Banke et Martinum Sollit testes in dicto testamento nominates iuratos …’ (Prob. AB. 6, fol. 477v).
87 BI, Prob. AB. 1. Within the confines of the sources much work remains to be done on those testators whose wills were not registered.
88 BI, Inst. AB. 1, fols 12r-34r, passim.
89 BI, Cav. Bk 1, fols 11r-33r.