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.
page xvij note 1 Vol. x. 1. Sheringham Pier.
page xvij note 2 The Private Life of Nathaniel Bacon.
page xvij note 2 Intro, iii, IIth Report, Appendix, Part IV.
page xvij note 3 Several have been lost among which are the papers on Musters and a bundle of commitments to prison.
page xviij note 1 Lestrange (Hamon), Norfolk Official Lists.
page xviij note 2 The first mention in these papers of Bacon as “Collector ” is in Jan. 9, 1590. But see Stow's Collection, B.M. 150, fol. 69, a letter endorsed “To my very lovinge frende Nathaniell Bacon Esquire Collector to her Matie for the loane in the Countie of Norff,” and dated 1589.
page xviij note 3 He was, however, acting in the collection of Fifteenths in 1608.—Stow's Collection, fol. 220.
page xviij note 4 See under date July 8, 1611, p. 18.
page xviij note 5 “Stifikey: a sketch.” Mrs Herbert Jones. Norff &o Norwich Arch. Trans. 1878.
page xix note 1 Thus, the first of the P.C. letters on Recusants is dated May 28, 1585, and the Register is lost between June, 1582, and February, 1585/6: the second letter of the same series is dated Sept. 24, 1594, and from August 26, 1593, to October 1, 1595, there is another gap in the Register: volume 29 closes with April 21, 1599, and vol. 30 opens with Jan. 25, 1599, and the third of the Council's letters on Recusants is dated Dec. 23, 1599.
The “Additional MSS.,” B.M 11402, which is given as an appendix to vol. 25, gives very scant entries, and does not allow of the exclusion of any of the Council's letters from this volume.
page xx note 1 PP 41–42. 45–47
page xx note 2 pp. 27–8.
page xx note 3 pp. 16–17.
page xx note 4 Document not included in this collection.
page xx note 5 id.
page xx note 6 p. 21.
page xx note 7 Document not included
page xx note 8 p. 184.
page xx note 9 p. 60.
page xx note 10 PP 53, 116, etc.
page xx note 11 P 95.
page xx note 12 pp. 64–65.
page xx note 13 p 25.
page xxj note 1 Thus there was, during the period covered by this volume, what practically amounted to a revolution in the activities of the Justices, for we witness the duties of the collection of subsidies, the collection of loans, the hunting of Recusants, the supervision of musters, the impressing of seamen and the control of the export of certain commodities, all passing from the Justices of Peace, as such, and being entrusted to specified Commissioners.
page xxj note 2 It may be difficult to clearly distinguish in all matters between the work of the Chief and the Petty Constables. On Sept. 26, 1608, C. Cons. Thurlowe seems to be engaged in an action we generally associate with the Petty Constables —p. 23–24 : “the c. constable setting him by the heeles, Hopkins threw both stones and a stoole at the c. constable wherew he stroke him upon the side of the heade.”
page xxij note 1 p. 10.
page xxij note 2 P 13–14.
page xxij note 3 p. 26—“insufficient to discharge such an office, or want such parts as are requiered in that officer.”
page xxij note 4 P 30.
page xxij note 5 p. 42.
page xxij note 6 p. 60.
page xxij note 7 P 50.
page xxij note 8 p. 26.
page xxiij note 1 p. 53.
page xxiij note 2 pp. 42–3. Port officials engaged in such matters as wreckage, transportation of corn, wool, leather, etc. Their services may also have been utilized in the crusade against Jesuits. The office was evidently lucrative.
page xxiij note 3 p. 131.
page xxiv note 1 Wm. Halman, Richd. Jervys and John Rust are so supported. The only licence included in this volume is that of Dunne. In this case the injunctions are appended to the licence itself.
page xxiv note 2 This was the suggestion of N. Bacon, June 2, '08. He also distinctly states that the sureties are to be taken at the discretion of three Justices.
page xxiv note 3 P 63.
page xxiv note 4 P 58–9.
page xxv note 1 P 59.
page xxv note 2 p. 62.
page xxv note 3 p. 60–61.
page xxv note 4 B.M. 150, fols. 69, 71, 102, 110.
page xxvj note 1 I find no support for the statement made in an anonymous pamphlet, published 1641. “Considerations touching trade with the advance of the King's revenues.…” B.M., E. 148 (i), p. 11: “For twenty subsidies amounts to 20 markes to him that is rated at 51. goods, and to 20 l. to him that is rated at 4 l. lands,“according to which the subsidy would be 2s. 8d. on goods and 5s. on lands.
page xxvj note 2 Sir Walter Raleigh in the 1593 Parliament, protesting against the notorious under-assessing, said, “Our estates that be £30 or £40 in the queenes Books are not the hundredth part of our wealth.”
page xxvj note 3 See first of papers on Loans, p. 96.
page xxvj note 4 Letters and Papers, H. 8, 1544, ii, 689 (Pollard's Pol. Hist.).
page xxvij note 1 The subsidies were generally collected in two parts and usually in successive years. The machinery consisted of a Commissioner to each hundred, assisted, for purposes of assessment, by about six “assessors.” The actual collection of the money was made by the Constables.
page xxvij note 2 pp. 82–84.
page xxvij note 3 pp. 85–89.
page xxviij note 1 “A humhle remonstrance against the tax of Ship money,” 1636, pp. 6–14.
page xxviij note 2 Miss M. D. Gordon in Royal Hist. Soc. Transactions, 3rd series, vol. iv, pp. 149–150.
page xxix note 1 Excepting one of South Erpingham, the Subsidy rolls have been excluded.
page xxx note 1 A very interesting point appears in one of the letters in Stow's Collection, fol. 69 ; the Queen postponed repayment of a Loan until such time as the subsidy had been collected.
page xxx note 2 Note 5, intro., p. 1.
page xxxj note 1 p. 101. A warrant of Ap. 30, 1598.
page xxxj note 2 But as a definite sum was laid upon the county, £5,000 for Norfolk, probably liberty was allowed in extending the number of “bearers.”
page xxxj note 3 Stow, fol. 71.
page xxxj note 4 An explanation of this function can be found in 2nd Report of Public Records Comm (1914), Parts I. and II. s.v. Sewars : see index in Part III.
page xxxj note 5 Norff. Arch. Trans., vol. x.
page xxxij note 1 Growth of English Industry and Commerce. Vol. II, p. 48.
page xxxij note 2 See P.C. Register, xxii, p. 87. On Nov. 26, 1591, on renewing the grant, that is, the second commission, Sr Ar. Heveningham, Sr Wm. Paston, Sr Tho. Woodhouse, Sr Jno. Peyton Knights, Nath. Bacon and Clem. Paston are ordered to search into accounts, to view the pier and report progress ; in the meantime collections were to be stayed. The collections, however, seem to have been uninterrupted.
page xxxij note 3 Probably this was based on an actual view of the departure, e.g., the Subsidy Rolls show the hundreds paying as follows : Laundich, £64 16s. od. ; Gallow, £42, 12s. od. ; S. Erp., £182 12s. od., and N. Erp., £146 2s. 8d. Comparing these figures with the Constable's accounts we see there was no idea of proportionate assessment.
page xxxiij note 1 Cromer Past and Present. W. Rye.
page xxxiv note 1 See Remembrances re Sr Hen. Sydney, Jan. 9, '09. pp. 126–7.
page xxxiv note 2 Note that England denies he was a Pier-reeve and yet claims to have disbursed £20 19s. od. about the pier. He also says he paid Calliard £10, yet, when the case was on before, Calliard said that he never received above 2s.
page xxxv note 1 Cf. Corn papers, Jan. 31, '78, transfer of licence to Ric. Peererson. pp. 135–6.
page xxxv note 2 Regarding Fen drainage, Cunningham says (Industry and Commerce, vol. n, 115): “Public works of the kind contemplated could not, as a matter of fact, be carried through by the mere pressure of authority urging neighbours to co-operate for the common good ” : they therefore fell back on private effort. For the whole subject see Kennedy & Sandars on “Land Drainage,” and 2d Report of Royal Commission on Public Records Appx. p. 99.
page xxxv note 3 The Commissioners of Sewers complained, in 1620, that they had no power to take land without consent and that “the authority which they had by their commission (to which they were strictly bound) was only to rate the charge of every particular man towards any such general work, according to the profit which every person should receive from the same. And forasmuch as twas impossible to be discerned, before the work were finished, who should have profit thereby, or how much, they could not legally procure any such assurance beforehand.” Dugdale, The History of Imbanking and Drayning (1662), p. 406.
page xxxvj note 1 “The great law of Marshland ” was not passed until Oct. 5, 1519. It is a code of procedure, each township being represented by two who were to oversee the dike-reeve. Norff. Arch. Trans., xii, 325–6.—Ed., M. Beloe.
page xxxix note 1 Norff.Arch. Trans., vol. xviii, 78–104 and vol. x, p. 1, et seq., p. 166 et seq.
page xxxix note 2 The writing also points to a date close on 1600.
page xxxix note 3 The Norfolk Arch. Soc. has printed one of this collection in vol. xviii. It throws much light on the status of the clergy in Norfolk in 1593. There it is seen there were 484 ministers in the Archdeaneries of Norfolk and Norwich. Of these, 198 were graduates and 112 pluralists. Of the 198 there were 2 D.D.'s, 3 LL.D.'s, 22 B.D.'s, 108 M.A.'s, 59 B.A.'s, 3 LL.B's. and 1 Mus. Bac; and of the remaining 286, only 4 are mentioned as in any way incapacitated.
page xl note 1 Cf. Fuller, Bk. ix, sect, iv, § 2, and Archbishop Grindal's letter to Elizabeth “In defence of prophecies and Church jurisdiction.”
page xl note 1 Dated Apr. 27, ′78; July 19, ′99; July 7, ′00; May 24, ′ 0 1 ; Sept. 23, ′03; Oct. 21, ′09; July 8, ′ 11 ; June 29/12; July 16, ′14; July 18, ′14; July 12, ′20.
page xli note 1 The points at issue are too many to allow of condensation and the documents must be read in full.