Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T04:48:53.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protector Somerset and Requests*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

M. L. Bush
M. L. Bush
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is commonly thought that one of the ways in which Protector Somerset expressed his idealistic consideration for the lower orders was by his involvement with a court of requests - either a private court supposedly established in his own house, or the official court of requests - which he used not merely to safeguard against injustice but also to implement social views out of keeping with the aristocratic assumptions of the age, particularly in the interests of agrarian reform. This paper examines the evidence for the existence of a private court and for Somerset's connexion with the official court. Its aim is to question the persisting view, to redefine the Protector's social concerns and to illuminate the operation of Requests in the early years of Edward VI's reign.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 1974 , pp. 451 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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

1 See Pollard, A. F., England under Protector Somerset (London, 1900), p. 233.Google Scholar

2 See Jordan, W. K., Edward VI, the Young King (London, 1968), vol. I, p. 365;Google ScholarOgilvie, C., The King's Government and the Common Law, 1471–1641 (Oxford, 1958), pp. 88–9;Google ScholarTawney, R. H., The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1912), p. 367;Google Scholar and Jones, W. R. D., The Tudor Commonwealth, 1520–1559 (London, 1970), p. 211.Google Scholar Comment on Somerset's connexion with Requests matters is a patchwork of opinion, some of it contradictory and therefore at times in agreement with my conclusions. But, in the absence of proper research on the subject, a pattern of assumption has persisted which can be conveniently labelled the established view and which is quite contrary to the conclusions of this paper.

3 The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe, ed. Pratt, J. (4th ed., London, 1877), vol. VI, p. 290.Google Scholar

4 Dewar, M., Sir Thomas Smith: a Tudor Intellectual in Office (London, 1964), p. 27;Google ScholarConyers Read, Mr. Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth (London, 1955), p. 471, n. 8.Google Scholar

5 See Table A.

6 Only two of these letters have survived (P.R.O. Req.2/18/154 and Req.2/15/54); and the likely existence of three more is implied in the surviving evidence (Req.2/16/9 and Req.2/18/113 and 143).

7 See Table B, col. 1.

8 See Table B, col. 2. In addition there is surviving evidence of two private commissions to be found outside the proceedings of the court of Requests (Tytler, P. F., England under the Reigns of Edward VI and Mary (London, 1839), vol. I, p. 75Google Scholar and Ellis, H., Original Letters Illustrative of English History (London, 1846), 3rd series, vol. III, pp. 301–2).Google Scholar

9 Req.2/14/36, 62 and 85, and Req.2/16/3.

10 Req.2/14/85 and Req.2/16/3. Certification, of course, was not necessary if setdement happened to be reached. Therefore the cases preserved in Requests proceedings which feature a commission appointed by Somerset, are only those where commissions could not make a final order acceptable to both parties.

11 E.g. Req.2/18/62.

12 P.R.O. SP15/III(50 and 50/I) and Req.2/15/101.

13 See Table C.

14 Req.2/17/40 and Req.2/19/45.

15 In Chancery proceedings there is evidence of Somerset transferring a case from King's Bench, but to the official Requests and with the consent of both parties (P.R.O. Cl/1209/63); a further case was transferred from Star Chamber to await the judgment of the Protector, but here Somerset was acting as arbiter upon the request of the defendant and the consent of the plaintiff (Cl/1197/52).

16 E.g. Req.2/18/39 and Latimer, H., Works, ed. Corrie, G. E. (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1844–1845), vo1. I. p. 127.Google Scholar

17 Surprisingly, he is found interfering in a bill addressed to the king in 1550 (Req.2/18/130). As Protector he also steered clear of meddling on the rare occasion when the bill was addressed to him and the other councillors (see Req.2/17/24 and Req.2/18/114). There are, however, several cases of lost supplications with which Somerset became involved, and some of these may have been addressed to the king (see Req.2/14/36 and 181, Req.2/15/33 and 74, Req.2/18/154, Req.3/30 (two) and 33 (in packages marked ‘thrown out of volume 14’), Tytler, , op. cit., p. 75,Google ScholarEllis, , op. cit., pp. 301–2, and P.R.O. SP10/IV(27) and VII (13 and 36)).Google Scholar

18 E.g. Req.2/12/36 and 81.

19 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, 1509–1547, ed. Brewer, J. S., Gairdner, J. and Brodie, R. H., vol. XII (I), no. 250; see Req.2/12/36 and 81.Google Scholar

20 See Table B, and for the nature of the complaints, below pp. 455–7. Approximately one third of the bills filed in Requests which can be identified with the period of the protectorate were addressed to Somerset. The rest were addressed for the most part to the king and very rarely either to Nicholas Hare, master of Requests, or to the lords of the privy council. Normally Requests bills were addressed to the monarch, and very infrequendy to his ministers. In this respect the number of Requests bills addressed to Somerset is outstanding.

21 Latimer, H., op. cit., p. 122; SP10/VIII(4).Google Scholar

22 Jordan, , op. cit., p. 365.Google Scholar

23 See Tables A and B.

24 Req.2/14/32, 104 and 153, Req.2/16/3 and Req.2/18/97; Req.2/18/114 and 150.

25 Req.2/14/12 and 177, Req.2/15/33, 74 and 101 Req.2/16/3 and Req.2/18/62.

26 Req.2/14/92.

27 Req.2/15/4 and 49.

28 Req.2/18/8 and 144.

29 Req.2/18/114 and Req.2/17/73.

30 Amounting to twenty bills of complaint (Req.2/14/32, 70 and 94, Req.2/15/40, 54, 74 and 88, Req.2/16/9 and 17, Req.2/17/24 (2 bills), 40 and 79, Req.2/18/35, 73, 102, 122 and 147, and Req.2/19/34 and 51).

31 See Holdsworth, W. S., A History of English Law (London, 1922–1952), vol. V, pp. 287–8, 292 and 294,Google Scholar and Plucknett, T. F. T., A Concise History of the Common Law (5th ed., London, 1956), p. 689.Google Scholar

32 Fifteen of the eighty-one defendants involved in lands and tenements cases, and four in the twenty cases involving goods and chattels.

33 Thirty-six of the eighty-one cases involving lands and tenements, and nine of the twenty cases involving goods and chattels. In fourteen of the cases Che plaintiff was a widow; in five cases the plaintiff was a spinster or estranged wife.

34 Fourteen cases fall into this category, eight involving female interests, of those relating to lands and tenements. A further three cases, all involving female interests, among the goods and chattel cases also belong to it.

35 See Table D. A further letter survives expressing favour. This is quite different from the other letters in that Somerset has come to possess evidence strongly suggestive of the justness of the petitioner's cause, and therefore conveys it to local gentlemen concerned with the case (Req.3/33 (in package marked ‘thrown out of volume 14’)).

36 E.g. Req.2/15/4. For references to surviving letters of commission and others now lost, see Table B, col. 2.

37 See Table D.

38 Req.2/17/40.

39 See Table C.

40 See f.n. 12. The case involving wardship was only possibly a Requests matter (see Table A, f.n. 4).

41 Req.2/15/49; Req.2/18/157; Req.3/33 (op. cit.); and Req.2/16/9.

42 See f.n. 29. In the case of the first bill Somerset's non-intervention might well lie in the fact that the bill was addressed to himself and ‘all others of the lords of the king's majesty's council’.

43 Req.2/17/47.

44 Req.2/18/144.

45 See Jordan, W. K., op. cit., p. 365.Google Scholar

46 P.R.O. St.Ch. 3/IV/80, and see Table A, f.n. 2.

47 Gray's remark that ‘Requests bills by copyholders are indistinguishable from Chancery bills except in the form of address’ is dubious, although the distinction is by no means clear-cut (Gray, C. M., Copyhold, Equity and the Common Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), p. 51).Google Scholar

48 Only three which alleged riot were possibly cognizable in Star Chamber (Req.2/17/40 and Req.2/18/121 and 157).

49 In Chancery, ‘in most cases there is nothing to indicate that the award of a commission was at the election of the plaintiff’ (Jones, W. J., The Elizabethan Court of Chancery (Oxford, 1967), p. 225).Google Scholar

50 Fourteen in all (see f.ns. 24 and 25).

51 Later in the century a distinction was imposed, in theory at least, by orders of Chancery (see Allsebrook, W. B. J., ‘The Court of Requests in the Reign of Elizabeth’ (unpublished London M.A. thesis, 1938), pp. 112, 114–15 and 125,Google Scholar and Jones, , op. cit., pp. 197–8 and 382).Google Scholar It is possible that this was the outcome of a customary distinction never rigidly applied but called upon at times in order to place a bill. At the same time, while values of lands and tenements and goods and chattels in dispute tended to be low, among the complaints addressed to Somerset two involved disputes over manors (Req.2/14/153 and Req.2/t5/49) and others involved goods worth §1,000 and §400 (Req. 2/18/122 and Req.2/17/24) and debts of §119 and §120 (Req.2/18/147 and Req.2/15/40). In addi tion, convention did not prevent three gendemen from featuring among the plaintiffs (Req.2/15/49, Req.2/17/36 and Req.2/18/122).

52 See Table A.

53 Req.2/14/62.

54 This theme featured in the Lenten sermons of 1548, now lost but with their subject indicated in the Lenten sermons of 1550 (Latimer, , op. cit., p. 262);Google Scholar it also occurred in the 1549 Lenten sermons (ibid., pp. 126–8, 155–61, 170–80 and 190), and in the 1550 Lenten sermons (ibid., p. 255).

55 See unpaginated copy in University Library, Cambridge; see unpaginated copy in British Museum.

56 Ridley, N., Worlds, ed. Christmas, Henry (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1841), p. 59.Google Scholar

57 In ‘A Declaration of the Ten Holy Commandments’ (1548), printed in Hooper, J., Early Writings, ed. Carr, Samuel (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1843), p. 366.Google Scholar

58 Becon, Thomas, The Catechism … with other Pieces Written … in the Reign of King Edward the Sixth, ed. Ayre, John (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1844), pp. 429–30.Google Scholar

1 For references, see Table B.

2 See P.R.O. Cl/1187, with the exception of Cl/1187/10 which was not addressed to Somerset; and with the addition of P.R.O. St.Ch. 3/IV/80 which was first directed to the Great Master, who acted as Lord Chancellor between the dismissal of Wriothesley and the appointment of Riche, and only later found its way to Star Chamber.

3 Sec St.Ch. 3/1/14 and 54.

4 There is no certain connexion between these complaints and a court of equity, although the lack of connexion might be due, where the bills have survived (P.R.O. SP15/III(50) and P.R.O. SP10/II(26) ) to evidence straying from the proceedings of a court of equity, and, if the whereabouts of dispersed Requests proceedings is any guide (see SP15/III(22) and (48)), probably from Requests. Where bills have failed to survive, and receive but a mention in private correspondence (Ellis, H., Original Letters Illustrative of English History, 3rd series, vol. III, pp. 301–2,Google ScholarTytler, P. F., England under the Reigns of Edward VI and Mary, vol. I, p. 75,Google Scholar SP10/IV(27), and SP10/VII(13) and (36)), the lack of connexion may only stem from the inadequacy of the surviving evidence. Alternatively the lack of connexion may simply result from a setdement having been reached with the consent of both parties (see f.n. 10).

1 1547: Req.2/12/187, Req.2/14/70, Req.2/15/21, 33, 61, 74 and 88, Req.2/17/24 and 79, Req.2/18/84 and 97, and Req.2/19/34. 1548: Req.2/14/26, 64 and 153, Req.2/15/59 and 91, Req. 2/16/15, 46 and 50, Req.2/17/73, Req.2/18/73, 114, 122, 139, 150 and 162, Req.2/19/9 and Req.3/33 (in package marked ‘thrown out of volume 14’).1549: Req. 2/14/97, Req.2/15/29, 30, 38 and 54, Req. 2/16/9, Req. 2/17/47, 77 and 103, Req.2/18/8, 62, 113 and 154. Undated: Req.2/14/12, 94, 104 and 136, Req.2/15/40, 44 and 52, Req. 2/16/14 and 17, Req.2/17/24, 36, 74 and 119, Req.2/18/35, 39, 61, 86, 143, 144 and 147.

2 1547: Req.2/14/62 and Req.2/16/3. 1548: Req.2/:4/8, 32 and 92, Req.2/15/3 (with Req.2/14/85), 4 and 49, Req.2/16/3 and 105, Req.2/18/62, 120 and 157, Req.2/19/45, and Req.3/30 and 33 (two commissions and two bills) (in packages marked ‘thrown out of volume 14’). 1549: Req.2/14/36 and 177 (two commissions and two bills), Req.2/15/31, 86 (with SP15/III/48) and 101, Req.2/16/24, Req.2/17/35, 40, 53 and 96, Req.2/18/102 and 121, Req.3/30 (in package marked ‘thrown out of volume 14’) and sp15/III(22). Undated: Req.2/14/12 and 181, and Req.3/33 (op. cit.).

3 See Table C.

4 Req.2/15/101.

1 SP10/IV(27).

2 Tytler, , op. cit., p. 75.Google Scholar

3 SP10/VII(36).

4 Req.2/15/74.

5 Req.2/14/32.

6 Req.2/15/33.

7 Req.2/19/51.

1 Req.2/14/62.

2 Req.2/14/85 and Req.2/15/3.

3 Req.2/14/92.

4 Req.2/15/54.

5 Req.2/18/62.

6 Req.2/15/86 and SP15/III(48).

7 Req.2/17/40.

8 Req.2/18/121.