Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:15:37.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Imprisonment of Papists in Private Castles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Geoffrey de C. Parmiter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

IT is well known that during the latter part of the reign of Elizabeth I prominent papists were, from time to time, imprisoned in castles or large houses. That was done whenever the privy council felt that there were dangers threatening England which would become more dangerous if influential papists were allowed to remain at liberty. It was a cheap way to restrain the liberty of papists, as the owners of the buildings used as prisons were required to put them into repair and maintain them at their own expense, while the prisoners were required to pay for their board and lodging. Although the practice is a commonplace, its origins and development are less well known.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , May 1988 , pp. 16 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1988

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

Notes

1 Thomas, Digges Humble motives for association to maintaine religion established ([London] 1601) pp. 24–5.Google Scholar

2 See G., R. Elton ed., The Tudor Constitution: documents and commentary (Cambridge, 1960) pp. 210–1.Google Scholar

3 A.P.C., 8, p. 73 (11 March 1572). For a copy of the council's letter to the bishop of Ely, dated 11 March 1572, see Br. Lib., Add. MS.32323, ff. 135, 135v. Nothing now remains of Wisbech castle, save for some vaults beneath a house.

4 cf. McGrath, P. Papists and Puritans, under Elizabeth I (London, 1967) pp. 100, 101.Google Scholar

5 cf. McGrath, Papists and Puritans, pp. 100, 112.

6 A.P.C., 9, pp. 13, 15, 17-20, 46-7. One of them, Brian Fowler, was later sent to the Fleet, and another, Hugh Erdeswicke, to the Gatehouse: ibid., pp. 56, 83.

7 David, Knowles The Religious Orders in England (3 vols., Cambridge, 1948–59) 3, p. 435.Google Scholar

8 Four seminary priests came to England in 1574; 7 in 1575; 18 in 1576; 15 in 1577, 20 in 1578; 20 in 5579; and 29 in 1580; see The First and Second Diaries of the English College. Douay, ed. Knox, T. F. (London, 1878) pp. lxii and 24 el seq. Google Scholar

9 It was not until 10 Jan. 1581 that the queen issued a proclamation ordering all those who had children, wards or kinsfolk in the seminaries abroad to bring them back within four months, and declaring that any person who received or assisted a Jesuit or seminary priest, or failed to report such assistance, would be treated as a maintainer and abettor of “rebellious and seditious persons” (T.R.P., 2, pp. 481-4).

10 John Aylmer, bishop of London, to Secretary Walsingham, 21 June 1577 (P.R.O., S.P. 12 114 22; printed in C.R.S. 22, pp. 1-2).

11 See P.R.O., S.P. 12/45, p. 21 (printed, with modernized spelling, in Thomas, Watson Holsome and Catholyke doctryne concerninge the seven sacraments of Chryste's Church, ed. Bridgett, T. E. London, 1876, pp. lviii–lix).Google Scholar The copy is not dated and the signatory is not stated, but as it is in Walsingham's letter book it seems reasonably certain that it was from Walsingham. It was written, presumably, late in June or early in July 1577; it was certainly written before 28 July when, as a result of the conference, the council wrote to the dean of Canterbury (see A.P.C., 10, p. 4) with instructions resulting from one of the decisions taken about the detention of Thomas Watson, John Feckenham and others, a matter that was specifically mentioned in Walsingham's letter. The reference to “Mr. Doctor Hammon, your chancellor” (see next note) shows that the letter was addressed to the bishop of London, John Aylmer. Presumably similar letters were sent to each of those invited to take part in the conference.

12 John Hammond, L.L.D. (1542-1589) was a distinguished civilian lawyer who had been a fellow of Trinity Hall, Cambridge. He was appointed chancellor of the diocese of London in 1575. and later was one of the commissioners who examined Edmund Campion, S. J., under torture. See D.N.B.

13 Thomas Watson, formerly bishop of Lincoln, was deprived on 26 June 1559; John Feckenham was the last abbot of Westminster; John Harpsfield, brother of Nicholas Harpsfield, had been Bonner's chaplain and later archdeacon of London and dean of Norwich. Ail of them had spent long periods in prison.

14 See P.R.O., S.P. 12/45, p. 10. The document is not signed or dated. The reasons for assuming the document to be a record of the conclusions of the conference are: that it occurs in Walsingham's letter book; that one of the conclusions reached was the treatment of Thomas Watson and the others, which was a matter specifically stated by Walsingham to be one of the matters to be discussed at the conference; and that the decision relating to Watson and the rest was implemented by the letter of the council to the dean of Canterbury dated 28 July 1577 (A.P.C., 10, p. 4). There are copies of the document in Br. Lib., Lansd. MS. 155, no. 13 (ff. 59-60), and in P.R.O., 12 127 6 (wrongly assigned by the calendar to Dec. 1578).

15 The words in square brackets are omitted in S. P. 12/45, p. 10, a space being left; they aresupplied from the copy in Lansd. MS. 155, f. 59v.

16 For those orders see Parmiter, G. de C. Elizabethan Popish Recusancy in the Inns of Court (Bull, of the Inst, of Hist. Res., Special Supplement no. 11, 1970) pp. 12–19.Google Scholar Watson, Feckenham and others were soon dealt with. Letters in identical terms (save for the name of the prisoner) were sentto several bishops, to each of whom one of the prisoners was committed, with instructions as to how they were to be kept; see privy council to certain bishops, [? July) 1577 (P.R.O., S.P. 12 114 69); A.P.C., 9, pp. 370, 388; 10, p. 4.

17 See P.R.O., S.P. 12/116, 15 (amended draft). Those letters are not registered in A.P.C. The court was then at Windsor.

18 The bishops’ certificates are scattered through volumes 116, 117 and 118 of the State Papers, Domestic, Elizabeth; they are printed in C.R.S. 22, pp. 1-114. For a discussion of them see Trimble, W. R. The Catholic Laity in Elizabethan England (Cambridge, Mass., 1964) pp. 81–8.Google Scholar There is an analysis and summary of the certificates in P.R.O., S.P. 12 T19/20 (printed in C.R.S. 22, pp. 6-9).

19 See pp. 16-17, ante.

20 Br. Lib., Harl. MS 360, art. 38 (ff. 65 r & v). The paper is undated but it appears to relate to this time; it was written before 20 Feb. 1579, the date of the death of Sir Nicholas Bacon who is mentioned in it as the custodian of Wisbech castle. See also Simpson, R. The Life of Edmund Campion (pp. 234–5 of 1896 edition).Google Scholar

21 The MS. has “The Vize, Wylt.” which has been interpreted as Devizes.

22 The MS. has “Barney Castill” which can be interpreted either as Barnard Castle in co. Durham, or Barnsley in the West Riding of Yorkshire; the former has been adopted as the MS. names the custodian of the castle as Sir George Bowes whose family resided at Streatlam in co. Durham.

23 The Act of Uniformity did not provide a penalty for failure to communicate.

24 That is, that the proposed fines should be inflicted on papists and puritans alike.

25 P.R.O., S.P. 12/144/22 (printed in C.R.S. 22, pp. 1-2).

26 David Lewes, D.C.L., was a learned civilian lawyer who had been admitted at Doctors’ Commons in 1548; he was judge of the Admiralty Court from 1558 to 1575 when he was appointed joint commissioner of the Admiralty. See D.N.B. The list of persons attending the meeting appears at the end of Gerard's letter.

27 “eccleasticall” in the MS.

28 For John Hammond, L.L.D., see note 12.

29 Gilbert Gerard to Sir Francis Walsingham, 3 Dec. 1578 (P.R.O., S.P. 12/127/7). There are copies of the letter in Br. Lib., Lansd. MS.27, art. 25, and Lansd. MS. 155, art. 13.

30 A.P.C., 11, p. 446 (14 April 1580). cf Peck, I, lib. iii, p. 13, and A.P.C., 12, pp. 103-4. For Annesley as farmer of recusant fines, see Leatherbarrow, J. S. The Lancashire Elizabethan Recusants (Chetham Soc., 2nd ser., vol. 110, 1947) p. 72.Google Scholar

31 23 Eliz. I. c. 1 (Statutes of the Realm, 4, pp. 657-8). For the parliamentary history of the Act, see Neale, J. E. Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, 1559-1581 (London, 1955) pp. 386–406.Google Scholar

32 Michel de Castelnau, Seigneur de la Mauvissiere, to the king of France, 29 May 1579 (translation quoted from Pollen, J. H. The English Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, London, 1920, p. 316)Google Scholar. The Spanish ambassador, Bernardino de Mendoza, however, thought that the relaxation of severity towards Catholics was due to the queen's desire to conciliate English Catholics in order to prevent their joining the first “papal” invasion of Ireland when Dr. Nicholas Sander landed in Dingle Bay with 80 men in July 1579; see Mendoza to Philip II, 23 March 1580 (Cal. Span., 1580-1586, 20, at p. 22). Mauvissiere replaced Bertrand de Salignac de la Mothe Fenelon as French ambassador in England in August 1575. For the Alencon courtship, see Read, C. Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth (London, 1960) ch. xii;Google Scholar Neale, J. E. Queen Elizabeth I (London, reprint 1962) ch. xv.Google Scholar and J. H. Pollen, op. cit., pp. 314-27.

33 cf. Hughes, P. The Reformation in England (London, 3 vols., 1950–54), 3. p. 354;Google Scholar Read, C. Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth, p. 235 Google Scholar et seq. In the autumn of 1579 Burghley, in papers he prepared relating to the marriage, was urging more stringent action against recusants; see, e.g., Murdin, W. Burghley Papers (London, 1759), pp. 325, 326, 331.Google Scholar

34 P.R.O., S.P. 12/45, p 27. The letter occurs in the letter book already mentioned; no signature or date is given. As it occurs in Walsingham's letter book there is a presumption that he signed it. It is not easy to assign a date to it, but its position in the book, and the fact that the Spanish ambassador (in the letter cited in note 32) reported that a relaxation of severity towards Catholics had occurred “recently” (Cal. Span., 1580-1586, p. 22) suggests that the letter was written in the later part of 1579.

35 It is not without significance that, when the preliminaries for an Anglo-French alliance were set on foot in the summer of 1595, there was again a diminution of the persecution of Catholics; see Meyer, A. O. England and the Catholic Church under Queen Elizabeth (re-issued, with introduction by J. Bossy, London, 1967) p. 371.Google Scholar

36 Although the queen had declined to proceed with the proposed marriage, she still wished for an alliance with France. The French, however, rejected the terms of the alliance but continued to press for the marriage, negotiations for which were not finally broken off until Feb. 1582 when Alençon left England after his second visit. See the works cited in note 33; for a calendar of the negotiations, see H.M.C., Salisbury MSS., 2, p. 291 et seq.

37 A.P.C., 11, pp. 415-6 (11 March 1580).

38 See A.P.C., 12, passim. On 23 Oct. 1580 the council ordered the despatch of 24 letters, addressed to the bishops, requiring them to report all those persons within their respective dioceses who refused to go to church; see A.P.C., 12, p. 236; also pp. 241, 242.

39 Privy Council to the earl of Huntingdon, 10 June 1580; printed in Peck, I, lib. iii, p. 8. The effect of the new commission on the old one was questioned, and for various reasons the commissioners continued to act under the old commission and kept back the new one, a proceeding that was approved by the council (see Privy Council to archbishop of York and others, 29 June 1580, and Privy Council to archbishop of York, 7 Aug. 1580; printed in Peck, I, lib. iii, pp. 10, 18).

40 A.P.C., 12, p. 59 (18 June 1580). For an illuminating description of a meeting of the ecclesiastical commission at Richmond, Yorks., on 2 Aug. 1580, see the minutes of that meeting in P.R.O., S.P.12/141/3.

41 A.P.C., 12, p. 68 (26 June 1580).

42 Bernardino de Mendoza to Philip II, 28 June 1580 (Cal. Span., 1580-1586, 37, at p. 38.

43 See p. 22, ante.

44 A.P.C., 12, p. 77 (3 July 1580). The council's letter of 3 July 1580 and the judges’ opinion are printed in Peck, I, lib. iii, pp. 11-13, from which the quotations are taken.

45 cf. K. Wark, R. Elizabethan Recusancy in Cheshire (Chetham Soc., 3rd ser., vol. 19, 1971), p. 21. note 2.Google Scholar

46 A.P.C., 12, pp. 270-1 (1 Dec. 1580); see also Wark, op. cit., p. 21, note 2.

47 A.P.C., 12, pp. 82-3 (5 July 1580).

48 A.P.C., 12, p. 124. A copy of this minute is to be found in Huntington Lib., Ellesmere MS. 2080, printed in The Egerton Papers, ed. Collier, J. (Camden Soc., vol. 12, 1840), pp. 84–6,Google Scholar and in Recusancy Documents from the Ellesmere Manuscripts, ed. Petti, A. G. (C.R.S. 60, 1968), p. 3.Google Scholar

49 Letter from Privy Council to the earl of Huntingdon, archbishop of York and bishop of Durham, 27 July 1580 (Huntington Lib., Hastings MS. 4139).

50 A.P.C., 12, pp. 166-7 (16 Aug. 1580).

51 P.R.O., S.P. 15/27/21, printed (not quite accurately and with modernized spelling) in Bridgett, T. E. and Knox, T. F. The True Story of the Catholic Hierarchy deposed by Queen Elizabeth (London, 1889) pp. 191–2.Google Scholar

52 Statutes of the Realm, 4, pp. 657-8; Neale, J. E. Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, 1559-1581 (London, 1953) p. 386.Google Scholar

53 A.P.C., 12, p. 142 (8 Aug. 1580).

54 A.P.C.. 12, pp. 157-8 (15 Aug. 1580).

55 P.R.O., S.P. 12/143/17 (16 Oct. 1580); printed, with modernized spelling, in Bridgett and Knox, op.cit., pp. 197-8. Included in the eight was John Young who had held a prebendal stall in Ely cathedral during Mary's reign.

56 See V.C.H., Cambs., 4, p. 252. For the Wisbech Stirs, see Law, T. G. An historical sketch of the conflicts between Jesuits and Seculars in the reign of Queen Elizabeth (London, 1889);Google Scholar The Archpriest Controversy; documents relating to the dissensions of the Roman Catholic Clergy, 1597-1602, ed. T. G. Law (Camden Soc., new ser., vols. 56, 58, 1896, 1898); The Wisbech Stirs, 1595-1598, ed. P. Renold (C.R.S. 51, 1958).

57 The prison lists of 1580 for London alone show a considerable increase in the number of recusant prisoners; see C.R.S. 1, pp. 61-72. In a letter to Sir Edward Horsey, dated 13 Dec 1580, the agent provocateur, William Herle, wrote: “The Queen's Majesty is sharper bent against the papists” (P.R.O., S.P. 12/144/49). For a summary of much of the anti-Catholic activity, see Trimble, W. R. The Catholic Laity in Elizabethan England, pp. 97–102.Google Scholar

58 A.P.C., 13, pp. 40-1 (7 May 1581); cf. C.R.S. 60, p. 4.

59 A.P.C., 13, p. 189 (31 Aug. 1581); cf. C.R.S. 60, pp. 4-5, 7.

60 See, e.g., Privy Council to Lord Lieutenant of Sussex, 4 Jan. 1588 (Br. Lib., Harl. MS. 703, f. 52); Lodge, E. Illustrations of British History … (London, 3 vols., ed. of 1838) 2, pp. 338–44Google Scholar (proceedings by Lord Lieut, of Derbyshire against papists, Jan.—Feb. 1588); Wright, T. ed., Queen Elizabeth and her Times … (London, 2 vols., 1838) 2, pp. 358–9Google Scholar (Privy Council to Lords Lieuts, of Sussex, 4 Jan. 1588); Petti, pp. 24-31 (proceedings of Lord Lieut, of Staffs., Jan.-Feb. 1588). In April the lords lieutenants were ordered to disarm the recusants in their respective counties (A.P.C., 16, pp. 38-9; 12 April 1588).

61 P.R.O., S.P. 12/211/22.

62 Lord North to Sir Francis Walsingham, 30 June 1588 (P.R.O., S.P. 12/211/67). North said, 'I do not name Wisbitch to you for that you know yt alredy’. Except for Wisbech, none of places mentioned were in Walsingham's list.

63 A.P.C., 16, p. 167. Sir Alexander Colepeper, of Bedgebury in Kent, was one of the gentlemen who were regularly imprisoned in the manner described in this paper. He composed a terse account of his various imprisonments (naming his fellow prisoners on each occasion), the manuscript of which is in the Bodleian Library (Tanner MS. 118, ff. 127-135v). He was imprisoned at Ely on this occasion; see ff. 129v-l30v.

64 A.P.C., 16, p. 317 (18 Oct. 1588); the six were Walter Norton, Edward Downes, Robert Lovell, Ferdinando Paris, Humphrey Bedingfield and Robert Gray.

65 A.P.C., 16, pp. 370, 382 (1, 12 Dec 1588); Bodl., Tanner MS. 118. f. 131. Each bond was for £2,000, the usual figure in such cases.

66 A.P.C., 18, pp. 406-7, 414-7 (8, 13 March 1590); Privy Council to archbishop of Canterbury, 13March 1590 (Lambeth Palace Lib., Fairhurst Papers, Lambeth MS. 2008, f. I); V.C.H., Oxon., 9, p. 91; 10, pp. 40, 41. When, in 1580, Banbury castle was being considered as a prison for selected recusants, Leicester recommended Anthony Cope as a suitable person to be keeper: ‘I hear of one Cope greatly commended’ (earl of Leicester to Lord Burghley, 20 July 1580;. P.R.O., S.P. 12/140/23). He subsequently occupied that post. Cope, of Hanwell Castle, a few miles from Banbury, was a fanatical puritan. He was high sheriff of Oxfordshire in 1581 and M.P. for Banbury 1586-1607. He was imprisoned in the Tower in 1587, on the queen's orders, for introducing into parliament a bill to repeal all existing ecclesiastical laws and the introduction of a new form of common prayer. He was knighted in 1590.

67 A.P.C., 19, pp. 10, 26-7 (5, 7 April 1590). Farnham castle was not in Walsingham's list.

68 See, e.g., A.P.C., 20, pp. 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 62, 73-4, 96, 129-30. 142-3, 252, 263, 415; Bodl., Tanner MS. 118, ff. 132v, 133; Lambeth Palace Lib., Fairhurst Papers, Lambeth MS. 2008, ff. 12,14. John Thimelby and Thomas Throckmorton had been set at liberty on bonds at the beginning of October 1590, for personal reasons (A.P.C., 20. pp. 6, 7; Lambeth Palace Lib., Fairhurst Papers, Lambeth MS. 2008, f. 11).

69 T.R.P., 3, pp. 86-93; the proclamation is dated 18 Oct. 1591, but was not promulgated until 29 Nov. It is also printed in Harleian Miscellany, ed. Oldys, W. (London, 8 vols., 1744–6) 3, pp. 93–7,Google Scholar and in Robert, Southwell An Humble Supplication to her Majestie, ed Bald, R. C. (Cambridge, 1953) pp. 59–65,Google Scholar where the heading is given, cf. the articles for the commissioners set up by the proclamation which initiated the ‘bloody questions’, printed in T.R.P., 3, pp. 93-5 (not a royal proclamation).

70 A.P.C., 22, pp. 375-6; see p. 28, ante, for North's letter to Walsingham.

71 A.P.C., 23, pp. 106-13 (7 Aug. 1592). A copy of the council's letter conveying their instructions to Lord Huntingdon, dated 13 Aug. 1592, is in P.R.O., S.P. 12/242/105. Similar instructions were sent to the commissioners in Notts, on 19 Sept. 1592 (A.P.C., 23, pp. 202-3). For a list, dated 8 Aug. 1592 and drawn up by the privy council, of the prisoners detained at Ely and Banbury or Broughton respectively, see Lambeth Palace Lib., Fairhurst Papers, Lambeth MS. 2008, f. 43. For instructions given by the lord lieutenant of Kent (23 Aug. 1592) to his deputy lieutenant for carrying out the orders of the privy council, see Staffs. R. O., MS. D 593/S/4/34, vii (Leveson papers).

72 Petti, p. 59.

73 Bodl., Tanner MS. 118, f. 133v. Sir Alexander Colepeper was in custody in Ely Palace on 20 Sept. 1592.

74 Bodl., Tanner MS. 118, f. 134. The Acts of the Privy Council for the period 26 Aug. 1593 to 1 Oct. 1596 are missing.

75 See Br. Lib., Add. MS. 11402, f. 60v (printed in A.P.C., 25, p. 517).

76 Bodl., Tanner MS. 118, f. 135v.

77 A.P.C., 25, pp. 322-3, 327, 362, 363-4, 367, 372-3, 377, 522, 523-4, etc.

78 A.P.C., 26, pp. 362, 363-4, 372-3, 377, 523-4.

79 See, e.g., H.M.C., Var. Coll., vol. 3, p. xix. A.P.C., 26, pp. 428-9, 523-4, 538-9; 27, pp 64, 80, 229; 28, pp. 14-5, 18-9, 102, 167, 172, 183.

80 A.P.C., 29, pp. 740, 741.

81 V.C.H., Oxon., 9, p. 91, and 10, p. 41; V.C.H., Cambs., 5, p. 253; A.P.C., 25, p. 517 (5 March 1594).

82 See, e.g., the instructions sent in Aug. 1592 to Richard Fiennes and Anthony Cope for Broughton and Banbury, and to Thomas Medley for Ely (A.P.C., 23, pp. 108-110); cf. the instructions issued in Nov. 1592 to Thomas Gray, keeper of the recusants in Wisbech castle (where the prisoners were mostly ecclesiastics), fixing the weekly charges for ‘doctors’ at 16s. for the diet (knights’ commons) and 6s. 8d. for lodging, and for ‘the other not being doctors’, 10s. for diet (gentlemen's commons) and 2s. 4d. for lodging (A.P.C., 23, pp. 303-8). According to Sir Alexander Colepeper, in 1588 the prisoners in Ely Palace paid for their diet as follows: a knight 33s. 4d. per week; an esquire 26s. 8d. per week; others 20s. per week. Each knight was allowed a pint of wine at every meal, and each esquire half a pint (Bodl., Tanner MS. 118, f. 130v).

83 Lord Burghley to the archbishop of Canterbury, 14 Feb. 1593 (Lambeth Palace Lib., Fairhurst Papers, Lambeth MS. 2004, f. 46). Sir Alexander Colepeper, who was a prisoner at Ely from March 1594 to May 1595, when Sir John Higham was the keeper, recorded that the prisoners ‘paid for their diet for themselves and one man apiece, twenty shillings a week and were allowed every meal half a pint of wine apiece’. (Bodl., Tanner MS. 118, f. 135v).

84 A.P.C., 26, pp. 327, 367.

85 A.P.C., 28, pp. 40, 154.

86 Some examples, out of many, may be forund in A.P.C., 16, p. 362; 17, p. 383; 18, p. 239; 19, pp. 102, 139, 159, 194, 294, 295-6, 313, 365, 416, 428; 20, pp. 6, 7, 9, 73-4, 96, 142-3, 252. cf. Lambeth Palace Lib., Fairhurst Papers, Lambeth MS. 2008, f. 11.

87 A.P.C., 19, pp. 167, 318, 369, 366.

88 A.P.C., 19, p. 62 (15 April 1590). Sir Alexander Colepeper recorded that, in April or May 1594, the keeper of Ely Palace, Sir John Higham, received orders from the council to disarm the prisoners there (Bodl., Tanner MS. 118, f. 135v). cf. the proposal of Burghley in July 1580 (see note 51) and relevant text) that recusants’ ‘armour be seized’. And see note 60.

89 A.P.C., 19, p. 11.

90 See letter dated 9 April 1592 from Richard Fiennes to Lord Burghley (P.R.O., S.P. 12/241/120).

91 A.P.C., 19, pp. 170, 410, 420-22; 23, pp. 302-8; Law, T. G. An historical sketch of the conflicts between Jesuits and Seculars in the reign of Queen Elizabeth … (London, 1889) p. xliii.Google Scholar In the summer of 1600 the council was once more concerned about the slack administration of Wisbech castle, because there had occurred a number of escapes and the prisoners had been allowed frequent visitors; see A.P.C., 30, pp. 462-3.

92 A.P.C., 12, pp. 144, 145.

93 P.R.O., S.P. 12/141/34. A few years earlier, the Battersea property (which included about 80 acres of land) had been the subject of a dispute between the archbishops of Canterbury and York, and Edmund Plowden was one of the lawyers who brought about a settlement without recourse to litigation; see Parmiter, G. de C. Edmund Plowden (C.R.S., monograph ser., vol. 4, 1987) pp. 138–9.Google Scholar