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
A noteworthy feature of the Recusant Rolls is that they invariably cite authorities for their statements, most of the references being to another series of Exchequer records known as the Memoranda Rolls of the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer (2). The latter are the official record of the business of the Court of Exchequer (L.T.R. side) in each Law term, and provide a rich but largely unexplored field of inquiry for the student of recusant biography.
(1) Hanged at Durham in 1600, for harbouring the priest-martyr, Ven. Thomas Palaser (Challoner: M.M.P.). Cf. Hist. MSS. Com.. Salisbury MSS., X, 202.
(2) Public Record Office. At this period an almost complete series in excellent preservation.
(3) All these records are, of course, in Latin.
(4) P.R.O. E. 368/473, rotulet 2, dorse.
(5) Sic for Otterington, N.R., Yorks.
(6) Normally, regnal dating is used throughout in originals.
(7) And also of two other North Riding recusants, Christopher Danby of Scruton, and Robert Bowes of Angram Grange (? nr. Coxwold).
(8) P.R.O.: E. 377/2 (Michaelmas 1593 – 1594), under “Ebor”’.
(9) By a conservative estimate, Elizabethan money was worth at least fifteen times its modern value.
(10) It seems certain that he could have seen neither the original verdict nor the entry in the Recusant Roll until his subsequent visit to London.
(11) Roger never appears as a recusant.
(12) Which declared void, as against the Queen, all gifts, grants, conveyances, alienations and leases made by convicted recusants from the beginning of the reign, unless proved bona fide.
(13) E. 368/478, rot, 176.
(14) Not “22 Eliz. (1580)”, as stated in the verdict. (3 miles S.W. of Ripon)
(15) Skelton-on-Ure is the nearest parish of this name to Otterington. There are several Skeltons in Yorkshire.
(16) Hot “Otteringham”, as given in the verdict, estreat of conviction and Recusant Roll, South Otterington is 4 miles S. of Northallerton. (Ottringham is 13 miles E. of Hull – about 80 miles away from this vicinity.)
(17) The roll is giving only a Latin précis of the original deed.
(18) Over £400 in modern money. The dates of these payments were: 5 Nov., 1595; 8 Nov., 1596; 14 Nov., 1597; 24 Nov., 1598; 7 May, 1599 (£1–16–8) and 6 Nov., 1599 (£1–16–8).
(19) E. 368/488, rotulet 111. Reference given in the 6th Recusant Roll (see below in text).
(20) Cf. John's second conviction for recusancy (below in text).
(21) The names are given in Memoranda Roll, 41 Eliz., Hilary term. (E. 368/494, rotulet 38).
(22) So far, the only recorded conviction against John had been the one referred to earlier in the text.
(23) The verdicts regarding the lands of John Brett on and of Rich-Talbot proved similarly worthless.
(24) and his fellow recusants, Bret ton and Richard Talbot.
(25) As also in the oases of Bretton and Richard Talbot.
(26) E. 377/6 (Michaelmas 1597 –1598).
(27) E. 368/489, rotulet 195.
(28) Nine days later, Richard Talbot made a similar appeal and received his discharge on the same grounds (the two cases adjoin each other in the roll). Before his appeal was made, however, a new extent had been executed (on 16 September, 1597) on Richard's property, supervised this time by Mauleverer himself. It proved unexceptionable, and was recorded (in the 6th Recusant Roll, under “Item Adhuc Res’ Ebor’”) as follows; “… Richard Talbot, late of Thornton in le Street owes £4–8–10 & two-thirds of 
d. per ann. for two-thirds of a messuage or tenement, 4 cottages and 4 oxgangs of arable, meadow & pasture land lying in South Ottrington, Yorks., of the annual value of £6–13–4”. He paid this rent to the Exchequer Receipt for some years. The whole episode seems to suggest that John was sharing Richard's house at this time. Was he now a widower?
(29) E. 377/8 (Michaelmas 1599 – 1600).
(30) E. 377/9 (Michaelmas 1600 – 160l).
(31) E. 368/504, rotulet 99.
(32) It would Seem that young John, like his father, was no recusant.
(33) No proof is quoted in this record for his own identity, nor for the deaths of his father and grandfather. Apparently, Coke and the Barons had been previously satisfied on these points out of court.
(34) I give here a precis of the Latin text, which itself is only a summary of the original deed.
(35) The remainder of this paragraph offers a tentative interpretation of the following technical passages “Ac eciam prefat’ Johannes Talbot modo comparens dicit quod possessio & seisina eapt’ fuer’ per pred’ Johannem Talbot recusan’ defunct’ tricesimo die Augusti anno vicesimo secundo supradicto tune deliberat’ prefat’ Anthonio Bierley & Christophero Fawconberge secundum (? veram) formam & essen’ scripti supradicti in presentia Rogeri Talbot Ricardi Talbot & alior’prout indorsamen’ eiuadem scripti plenius liquet & apparet Virtute eiusquidem scripti & possession’ ac seisine superinde ut prefertur capt’ et deliverat” ac pretextu cuiusdam Actus Parliamenti in Parliament’ tent’ apud Westm’ in Com’ Midd’ quarto die Feb’ Anno regno domini Henrici nuper Regis Anglie octavi vicesimo septimo de usibus in possession’ transferend’ edit” prefat’ Johannes Talbot recusans defunct’ fuit de omnibus & singulis pred’ messuag’ sive tenementis & ceteris premlssis in pred’ scripto superius specificat’ seisit’ in dominico suo ut de feodo talliato viz sibi & hered’ masculis…”. The grant was, of course, of a fictional nature. John’s aim was merely to alter the legal character of his estate to fee-tail. Bierley and Fawconberge obliged him by acting as “men of straw” in the legal device necessary for the achievement of this. No doubt they were suitably recompensed.
(36) As an official reference to the martyr’s death (the first, it seems, so far discovered), the following passage is important. The original text runs: “Ipsoque sic inde seisito existen’ postea scilicet sexto die Augusti anno regni prefat’ domine Regine nunc quadra ge simo secundo ad deliberac’ dicte domine Regine Castri Episcopi Dunelm’ apud Dunelm’ ibidem tent’ coram Reverendo in Christo patre Tobia Episcopo Dunelm’ Johanne Savile uno Baron’ Scaccarii domine Regine & Christophero Yelverton servien’ ipsius doraine Regine ad legem & socils suis Justio’ dicte domine Regine ad gaolam illam de prison’ in ea eiisten’de tempore in tempus deliberand’ assign’ prefat’ Johannes Talbot de felonia indict’ convict’ & adjudioat’ fuit Ac postea pro eadem felonia scilicet VIII vo die Septembr’ anno XLIIdo supradicto idem Johannes Talbot suspensus fuit habens tempore mortis sue nullu’ hered’ maculinu’ de oorpore suo leglttimo procreat’ prout per oopiam pred’ indictamen’ & conviccionis exeaminat’ per Johannem Barnes Ar’ Clerieu’ Assis’ com’ pred’ ac per divers’ deposiciones divers’ (personarum) fidedign’ in hac parte capt’ post mortem pred’ Johannis Talbot in forma pred’ testificantur cur’ hic prolat’ & ostens’ plenius liquet & apparet”.
(37) Full possession, of course, would have reverted to him after the lease to Roger had been terminated by the latter’s death – presuming (as the above words “ipsoque sic inde seisito existente” seem to imply) that Roger predeceased him.
(38) The traditional date (Challoner) is 9th of August.