No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2016
So little has been published on this martyr (1) that it will be convenient to begin by referring to a recently discovered document which (although not having an Exchequer origin) throws some light on his family and helps us to understand, in particular:, the subsequent history of his wife's recusancy. This is a Chancery inquisition-post mortem. (2) drawn up at Leeds on 29 April, 1598 – within a month after his execution – by William Holmes, the Escheator for Yorkshire, its object being to ascertain the character of the estate held by him at the time of his death, and whether any legal obstacle lay in the way of the forfeiture, of the property to the Crown by reason of his attainder for felony.
(1) Challoner's brief notice (M.M.P., ed. 1924, p.233) is as follows: “This year (1598), on the 1st of April, John Britton, gentleman, was executed at York as in cases of high treason. He was born at Britton in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and being of old a zealous Catholic, was, for a great part of his life, exposed to persecutions on account of his conscience, and generally obliged to be absent from his wife and family to keep himself further from danger. At length, being now advanced in years, he was falsely accused by a malicious fellow of having uttered some treasonable words against the Queen, for which he was condemned to die. He refused to save his life by renouncing his faith, and thereupon was put to death”. Gillow (B.D.E.C.) adds that he finds a “Frances Bretton, widow, and Dorothy, her daughter” in a list of Yorkshire papists of 1604.
“Britton” is a variant of the family name, occurring not infrequently in local records. All contemporary official documents (including signatures on later family deeds) give the form “Bretton”.
(2) P.R.O.: C.142/279/304.
(3) Selected by reason of their acquaintance with him. They were “…Fawkingeham, Gent., Thos. Preman, Robt. Killingbecke, Gent., Alex. Robinson, John Pomfrett, Sen., Nicholas Netherwood, Thos. Denison, John Domfrett, Jun., James Vavasor, William (? Westwood), John More, George Foster ana Alex. Pawkenor, Yeomen”. One or two recusant family names are noticeable in this list.
(4) 6 m. S.W. of Wakefield. West Jetton was a chapelry, partly in the parish of Sandal Magna (Wapentake of Agbrigg) and partly in that of Silkstone (Wapentake of Staineross). Bretton’a property lay in the former pariah. Bretton Hall with the adjacent chapel (the aeat of the Wentworths of Bretton), lay in the latter.
(5) 3 
m. S.E. of Wakefield. Foster (pedigree of the Wentworths of Bretton) describes this Richard as “of Hollinghurst, in the pariah of Thornhill”.
(6) “Et quod predictus Johannes Bretton attinctatus fuit de fellonia ultimo die Mareii ultimo preterite ante capoionem huius inquiaicionis et executus fuit pro eadem fellonia prime die Aprilia proximo sequente”. This brief statement appears to be the first official reference to John Bretton’s execution so far discovered. Bearing in mind the purpoae of the document, we need not ascribe any particular significance to the use of the word “fellonia” instead of “alta prodltio” (high treason). All treaaona are felonies.
(7) Approximate value only (aa is usual in these escheats). The low figure aeema to imply that the two-third a of the property, at thia time in the Queen’a hands for recusancy, waa not included in the valuation.
(8) With one exception. “Michael Wentworth, esq., of Adel” – probably to be identified with Michael of Woelley, a close neighbour of the Bret tons – appears once in the Recuaant B011s (E. 377/5) convicted of recuaancy for 7 months from Feb. 1597/8. His wife, Frances of Woolley (nee Downes of Paunton, Hereforda.) waa also a recusant, and must have been an intimate friend of her namesake at West Bretton, 2 mile a away.
(9) Including Ven. John Talbot (cf. p.4 above).
(10) Great Pipe Roll, 29 Eliz.
(11) After 1581, therefore, both methods of prosecution (ecclesiastical and criminal) operated concurrently.
(12) Act of 28 Eliz., cap. 6.
(13) Only 7 Yorkshire convictions of 1596, and 8 of 1597 found their way to tiie Exchequer. Responsibility for these gaps can be assigned only after a comparison of the estreated convictions with the original indictments in the local sessions files.
(14) L.T.R., Trinity term, 31 Eliz. (P.R.O.: E. 368/456, rot.ll).
(15) Of Wentworth Woodhouse. Sheriff 1601–2. Father of the first Earl of Strafford, who was executed in 1641.
(16) Of Elmahall. Both he and William were distant kinsmen of Frances Bretton.
(17) The scope of the inquiry was limited to the West Riding.
(18) Of. C.R.S., XVIII.
(19) E. 372/434, under “Adhuc Item Ebor’”.
(20) C. 142/561, no.16.
(21) All these lands are stated to have been held “of Sir Gervase Clifton, in free socage, as of his manor of Wakefield”, to whom he paid a rent of 3 shillings, with fealty, for all services. The value of the property had notably diminished, being now worth only £2 per annum.
(22) The first enrolment of this lease is in the Great Roll of 31 Eliz., under “Res’ Ebor’”. The entry is repeated in subsequent Exchequer (Recusant) Rolls until John’s death.
(23) “Unus nunciorum earnere domine Regine”. A notable member of this family was Bishop of Worcester in 1689.
(24) Recusant Roll, E. 377/3, under “Res’ Ebor’”.
(25) About £230 in modern money.
(26) E.363/9, under “Ebor’”.
(27) “Over and above the £30 already seized for the Queen”. (Memoranda Roll: E. 368/481, rot. 162).
(28) Recusant Rolls E. 377/6, under “Adhuc Res’ Ebor’”.
(29) No records of the N.E. Circuit earlier than 1607 are preserved at P.R.O.
(30) York Diocesan Registry (R. VI, A. 16; fol. 80v: under “Sandall Magna”). For this and other references I am indebted to Dom Hugh Aveling of Ampleforth.
(31) in the visitation book of 1594 the same members of the family are described as “obstinate recusants”. (Ibid. A.13, fol.7l).
(32) “XXVIIIo Septembr’ 1597 ven’ vir mr Jo’ Benet legura doctor absolvit eandera Lucam Brytane a sententia excom’…”
(33) C.R.S.: X., p. 284. Luke and his wife are here referred to as “Catholici ac generosi parentes”.
(34) On 7 Sept., 1595, in “the Chapel of Bretton” (Memoranda Roll, E. 368/481, rot. 164). She had died 3 months ago, on 5 Jan., 1598. Buried at Silkstone (Foster).
(35) Neighbouring her father’ s estate. He married, in 1607, a sister of Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, and was grandfather of the first Marquis of Halifax (D.N.B.) He appears (see above) as one of the original, but inactive, commissioners for the seizure of the Bretton property.
(36) So the Memoranda Rolls testify. Cf. the case of Ven. John Talbot, (p. 12, above).
(37) A Richard Reynell of Middle Temple (later knitted) was an officer in the Exchequer about this time (D.N.B., s.n. Reynell, Edward).
(38) Memoranda Roll, E. 368/494, rot. 38.
(39) Statute 28 Bliz., cap.6, clause 1.
(40) Statute 23 Eliz., cap.1, clause 10.
(41) Writs of commission were always sent out in Hilary and Trinity terms.
(42) The Exchequer's final dealings with Prances Bretton are re-counted in Memoranda Roll, E. 368/504, rot.137.
(43) Under Elizabeth, two and a half days riding (travelling by day only) was regarded as good progress for this particular run (H.Robinson: “The British Post-Off ice”, chap. 2).
(44) I suspect that much Wentworth money was behind this petition.
(45) The rolls in which the following estreats were found are cited in the record. They ares 1. and 2. – Great Pipe Rolls of 29 and 32 Eliz.: 3., 4. and 5. – Recusant Roll, no.1 (C.R.S., XVIII): 6. – Reousant Roll, no. 2: 7. – Recusant Roll, no.1.
(46) The reader will notice the freedom with which a “month” was computed (a common feature in these estreats). Some overlapping is also observable. The courts were careless of such errors, even though recusants’ debts were thereby increased. Any grievance had to be carried to the Court of Exchequer by the recusant himself – a by no means inexpensive method of redress.
(47) “Regine Protestantissime Majestati”: so runs the official Exchequer record. The words are eloquent of the Exchequer view regarding the nature of the Elizabethan Settlement of Religion. It is noticeable, however, that they do not occur in the actual certificate.
(48) The statutory (as distinct from the ecclesiastical) form of submission did not require the reception of communion (cf. statute 35 Eliz., cap,2, clause 16).
(49) A revealing observation. Since her younger son, Mark, was born sometime after 1576 (the date of Luke's birth), she could not have been much older than 70. She was still alive in 1615 (see below), apparently her experiences had left their mark upon her.
(50) The “Act for the Queen's Majesty's most gracious and general pardon” of 39 Eliz., cap.28, formally excludes all offenders against the Act of Uniformity and of 23 Eliz., cap.1, but states that if they conform and submit “they shall have and enjoy the full benefit of this general pardon as largely and fully in all reapecta aa any other of her Majesty's good subjects”.
(51) Recusant Roll, E.377/13, under “Item Adhuc Item Item Item-Ebor’”.
(52) E. 377/15, under “Item Adhuc Item Item Item Ebor’”.
(53) York Diocesan Registry: R.VI. A.18; fol.113. The date of her death ia at present unknown.