Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:26:49.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. The Lisle–Seymour Land Disputes: a Study of Power and Influence in The 1530s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2010

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

Abstract

In February and March 1539 Edward Seymour, earl of Hertford, visited Calais on a commission for examining the town's fortifications. Returning to England, he promised Arthur Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle, the lord deputy of Calais, who had entertained him during his stay, his goodlordship and a horse with saddle and harness. In exchange, Lisle's wife dispatched from Calais a present of a stole and a linnet, and she also asked the Seymours if her daughter by a previous marriage might be placed in their care. The exchange of gifts derived partly from the amicability struck up during Seymour's visit; but it was also part of an act of reconciliation. In the previous five years or so, the Lisles and Seymour had clashed, bitterly but not violently, in two land disputes. In the first dispute, the ageing, grossly inefficient, heavily indebted, blue-blooded and heirless Lisle was the victim; in the second dispute, it was Lady Lisle's son by her first marriage. In each dispute, Edward Seymour was the aggressor, unmercifully exploiting legal loopholes. In each case, in the first instance, when the matter came before the law, Seymour was thwarted: by an award in Chancery in the first dispute, and by the king's intervention in the Court of Common Pleas in the second; and then, by more devious means, he managed to have his way. The disputes shed light on the personality of Edward Seymour, the future protector Somerset, and also upon the power and influence open to certain subjects within the Tudor system of government.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , 1966 , pp. 255 - 274
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

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 L.P. XIV(I), 398; ibid. 762. For the life of Viscount Lisle, the principal sources are the Lisle Papers (SP 3) and the State Papers, Henry VIII (SP 1 and SP 2), both of which are deposited in the Public Record Office, and calendared in the L(etters and) P(apers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, 1509-1547), ed. J. S. Brewer, J. Gairdner and R. H. Brodie. Other Public Record Office sources which have provided information are the Close Rolls (C 54), the Miscellaneous Books of the Court of Augmentations (E 315), and Ancient Deeds (E 326). For the life of Edward Seymour, the same sources have been used. Additional information has been gathered from the Seymour Papers which, as the property of the marquis of Bath, are lodged at Longleat; from the Miscellanea of the Court of Exchequer (E 163), and from the St(ate) Piapers, King Henry VIII).

2 L.P. XIV(I), 784; ibid. 877 and 1069.

3 L.P. XIV(I), 762.

4 This clashes with the impression of Seymour given by A. F. Pollard in England under Protector Somerset. Pollard wrote of Seymour, for example, ‘in the whole of his correspondence and reported sayings there is scarcely to be found a brutal word, and his personal morality seems to have been singularly pure’ (ibid. p. 319).

5 E 315/163, fo. 24.

6 The manors of which Seymour acquired the reversion were those of Avill, Tarnuc, Lympsham, Norton Beauchamp, Chedder Hanham, Sandford and Bridgwater (E 315/163, fo. 10b).

7 See below, p. 265; see below, p. 271, n. 160; L.P. XII(I), 353; L.P. XIII(2), 990.

8 For the reversion of the Somerset estate, Seymour made over to Dudley the sum of £950, and two manors in Northamptonshire which he had purchased in the previous year for £2,160, but for which he had evidently paid only £1,000 (E 315/163, fos. 12, 16b).

9 L.P. XII(I), 353.

10 E 315/164. fo. 26.

11 SP 2/Fol. O (L.P. VI, 1551(1)).

12 SP 3/IV(30) (L.P. xi, 573).

13 For the marquis of Exeter, see L.P. XIII(2), 990; for William Hide, see below, p. 265; for Thomas Cromwell, see below, p. 271, n. 160.

11 SP 3/XIII(83) (L.P. VI, 814).

15 L.P. vi, 1414; L.P. VII, 985; SP 2/Fol O (L.P. vi, 1551(1)). In this latter indenture, Dudley, Lord Delaware and Sir Henry Guilford, Dudley's guardian, were bound in the sum of £10,000 to respect the terms of the release.

16 SP 3/XIII(83) (L.P. vi, 814).

17 L.P. vi, 1436.

18 Ibid. 1551(1).

19 L.P. VII, 159, 160.

20 L.P. VII, 959, 979. For Cromwell and Audeley's part in the proceedings, see also ibid. 917, 1014, 1471. They may have been acting in their capacity of master of the rolls and lord chancellor, respectively. But in view of Seymour's proposal in February 1534 that the case be referred to two judges, of whom each party should appoint one—a proposal to which Lisle agreed (ibid. 159, 160)—it is almost certain that the matter was determined by arbitration with the master of the rolls and the lord chancellor acting as the arbitrators, the one appointed by Lisle, the other by Seymour (see ibid. 917 and L.P. XI, 573). The lack of evidence for Cromwell performing as a judge in chancery as master of the rolls gives further weight to this (see G. R. Elton, The Tudor Revolution in Government, pp. 132-3).

21 L.P. viii, 176.

22 E 315/163, fo. 23b. Information about the statute is given in the surviving indenture whereby Sparre conveyed his interest to Seymour (ibid. fos. 23—23 b).

23 SP 3/IV(101) (L.P. viii, 178).

24 L.P. vii, 929.

25 E 315/163, fo. 27b.

26 E 315/163, fo. 26. For the fact that it was a loan, see L.P. XI, 573.

27 E 326/B 8406.

28 William Popley and Ralph Sadler, both servants of Cromwell, received Lisle's fee (L.P. X, 339 and L.P. VIII, 124). Leonard Smith, one of Lisle's counsel, entered Cromwell's service in 1535 (ibid. 434).

29 They were John Graynfield (L.P. vi, 668), and Robert Dynne (L.P. xi, 1385).

30 L.P. vii, 461; ibid. 612.

31 Ibid. 620.

32 L.P. vi, 1026; L.P. vii, 24.

33 SP 3/vi(67) (L.P. vii, 350).

34 L.P. VII, 977.

35 Ibid. 1167.

36 L.P. VIII, 24. In this instance, Cromwell remitted Lisle's legal charges in return for the mule (ibid. 65).

37 In March 1535, for example, Cromwell received a puncheon of wine (ibid. 422); in October 1537 he received another puncheon of wine, a falcon, cheeses and a mastiff (L.P. xii(2), 807).

38 SP 3/11(47) (L.P. VII, 1274).

39 L.P. VII, 461.

40 L.P. VI, 949.

41 Ibid. 1044.

42 L.P. VII, 324, 718; L.P. VIII, 902; L.P. VII, 228.

43 Ibid. 627; ibid. 24; see above, p. 259.

44 In 1528 the king requested his bastard son, the duke of Richmond, to grant a stewardship in Somerset to Edward Seymour. At first Richmond refused to do so, having already bestowed it upon someone else (see L.P. IV(2), 4536). Edward's enjoyment of the royal favour is evident in the royal request, and also in the fact that the stewardship was finally granted to him (L.P. IV(3), 5406(5)).

45 SP 3/XIV(51) (L.P. VII, 917).

46 SP 3/XIII(126) (L.P. VII, 959).

47 L.P. VII, 1014.

48 Ibid. 544.

49 Ibid. 491.

50 See above, p. 259.

51 SP 3/VII(III) (L.P. VII, 159).

52 L.P. VIII, 176.

53 SP 3/IV(101) (L.P. VIII, 178).

54 See above, p. 257.

55 L.P. IX, 767.

56 L.P. x, 668 and L.P. XIII(1), 345.

57 L.P. Add. 1099.

58 SP 3/IV(30) (L.P. XI, 573).

59 SP 1/129 (L.P. XIII(1), 34s).

60 L.P. x, 668.

61 E 315/163, fo. 24b.

63 L.P. Add. 1092; ibid. 1144; L.P. XI, 414.

63 See above, p. 258.

64 SP 1/104 (L.P. x, 1208).

65 L.P. XIII(1), 344.

66 SP 1/129 (L.P. XIII(1), 34s).

67 Lisle's methodical high-living was commented upon in this way by Lord Montague (L.P. VI, 834). Bryan made a similar comment upon it a year later (L.P. VII, 1220).

68 Particularly Henry Norris and Richard Page, see below, p. 264.

69 SP 1/240, fo. 187 (L.P. Add. 1137).

70 L.P. Add. 1151.

71 E 163/10(18).

72 L.P. v, 1205.

73 E 326/B 5716.

74 L.P. XII(2), 714.

76 On 10 March 1537 Seymour dined at Riche's house (Seymour Papers, vol. XIV, fo. 38 b); on 18 and 24 April 1537 and also on 2 May 1537 Riche dined at Seymour's house in the Strand (ibid. vol. XV, fos. 4s, 49, 55). On 26 November and 14 December 1539 Riche dined again at Seymour's house (ibid. vol. XVIII, fos. 36b, 49b), and on 26 May 1540 he dined with Seymour at Sheen, the latter's other London residence (ibid. fo. 146b).

76 L.P. Add. 1245.

77 L.P. XI, 413.

78 Ibid. 264.

79 L.P. Add. 1150.

80 L.P. xi, 264.

81 L.P. Add. 1154; L.P. XI, 573.

82 SP 3/IX(54) (L.P. Add. 1142).

83 Dictionary of National Biography (reissue of 1908–1909), vol. XIII, p. 886aGoogle Scholar; Elton, G. R., ‘Thomas Cromwell's decline and fall’, Historical Journal, X (1951), 182Google Scholar.

84 SP 3/V(47) (L.P. XII(1), 457); L.P. XII(1), 299.

85 L.P. Add. 1116.

86 L.P. X, 33.

87 L.P. X, 919; L.P. X, 994.

88 SP 1/116 (L.P. XII(1), 492).

89 L.P. XII(2), 555.

90 Ibid. 807.

91 L.P. X, 952.

92 L.P. XI, 413.

93 SP 3/XI(79) (L.P. XI, 467).

94 SP 1/240, fo. 10 (L.P. Add. 1077).

95 Ibid. fo. 202 (L.P. Add. 1149).

96 L.P. Add. 1099.

97 L.P. VIII, 765; L.P. Add. 894.

98 L.P. XI, 467.

99 Ibid. 31, 46, 47, 467; L.P. Add. 1090, 1092.

100 L.P. XI, 467.

101 L.P. Add. 1144.

102 L.P. VIII. 765.

103 L.P. XI, 413, 414.

104 L.P. Add. 1090.

106 In August 1536, through the mediation of Heneage, Hussee was seeking a loan of 1,000 marks from the king. But Heneage would only act through the mediation of Cromwell, and consequently Hussee could only visualize a lengthy suit for it. As Michaelmas was looming, he suggested that the idea of a loan should be dropped, and that they should place their faith in Hide (L.P. xi, 264; L.P. Add. 1092).

106 See below, p. 268.

107 While the suit for Frithelstock Priory remained solidly impeded by Riche, negotiations for the sale of Kingston Lisle had finally broken down by 16 December (L.P. Add. 1150).

108 SP 3/XI(79) (L.P. XI, 467).

109 L.P. Add. 1100.

110 L.P. XI, 573.

111 L.P. Add. 1100; ibid. 1101.

112 Ibid.

113 L.P. XI, 491.

114 SP 3/IV(30) (L.P. XI, 573).

115 L.P. XI, 1222; see also L.P. Add. 1145 and L.P. XI, 1358.

116 L.P. Add. 1116.

117 Ibid.

118 L.P. Add. 1137.

119 L.P. XI, 1282 (misdated, see the original MS. (SP 3/XII(74)), which is dated 8 September).

120 L.P. XI, 1181; L.P. Add. 1144.

121 L.P. XI, 1282.

122 SP 3/XIII(128) (L.P. VI, 1414).

123 L.P. Add. 894.

124 SP 3/XIII(88) (L.P. VII, 929).

125 L.P. V, 435.

126 Early in November 1535 Seymour released the pressure upon Lisle and his servants by promising after ‘muche suite’ to allow £60 to be paid for Lisle's acquittal (SP 3/V(s7) (L.P. IX, 767)).

127 L.P. Add. 1099 and L.P. XI, 491; ibid. 573.

128 Ibid.

129 Ibid.

130 SP 3/IV(30) (L.P. XI, 573).

131 L.P. Add. 1116.

132 Ibid. 1123.

133 SP 1/240, fo. 187 (L.P. Add. 1137).

134 L.P. XI, 1181.

135 L.P. Add. 1145.

136 L.P. XII(1), 86.

137 Ibid. 345.

138 L.P. XIII(2), 732.

139 They were the manors of Frampton Cotterell, Sandhurst, Ablington, Weston Birt and Purton.

140 L.P. XIII(1), 1286; ibid. 1489.

141 C 54/99 (mm. 9-12).

142 SP 3/XIII(74) (L.P. VII, 1009).

143 L.P. VIII, 678.

144 L.P. X, 866.

145 L.P. Add. 1365, L.P. XIII(1), 1023.

146 L.P. IX, 892; L.P. X, 416.

147 Ibid. 1058.

148 L.P. XIII(1), 1023.

149 SP 3/XII(14) (L.P. XIII(1), 1286).

150 SP 3/XIV(6a) (L.P. XIII(1), 1489).

151 C 54/417 (mm. 3-4).

152 SP 3/XII(14) (L.P. XIII(1), 1286). This was a reference to the writ formedon in descender ‘that lieth where tenant in tail infeoffs a stranger, the heir shall have this writ to recover the land’ (Giles Jacob, A New Law Dictionary (1733) under Formedon).

153 SP 3/XII(14) (L.P. XIII(1), 1286).

154 L.P. X, 1193.

155 L.P. XIII(1), 1333; ibid. 1519(61).

156 Ibid. 1407.

157 C 54/417 (m. 3).

158 SP 3/IV(34) (L.P. XIII(1), 1285).

159 SP 3 XII(14) (L.P. XIII(1), 1286).

160 SP 3/IV (35) (L.P. XIII(1), 1333). By July 1538 Cromwell had also acquired an interest in the Lisle estate. Like Seymour he acquired the reversion from Dudley (L.P. XIII(1), 1498), and then set about acquiring the fee-farm from Lisle. Consequently, his favour for Lisle's causes in 1538 may have had a self-interested motive, and was possibly intended to place Lisle under an obligation to him so that he might in return secure his interest in the Lisle estate. Evidently the lands of which he had acquired the reversion were not simply Lisle's to bestow; for they were part of his second wife's jointure. She had in them an interest worth £1,000 (L.P. XIII(2), 763, 798), which the Lisles insisted upon preserving (L.P. XIII(2), 703, 798, 885). Cromwell claimed, however, that Lady Lisle's interest should be overlooked in return for the favour shown towards Lisle in his various causes (L.P. XIII(2), 898, 899, 926).

161 SP 3/IV(37) (L.P. XIII(1), 1389).

162 L.P. XIII(1), 1407.

163 C 54/417 (m. 3).

164 L.P. XIII(2), 397.

165 According to Hussee, on 12 October Cromwell had ‘askyd me who derst be so bold to medle with any of thosse lands seing the kings grace had stayde the matter’ (SP 3/XI(115) (L.P. XIII(2), 591)). At this point, however, the king's letters were still unstamped, and had not been dispatched (see ibid.).

166 SP 3/XIII(73) (L.P. Add. 1365).

167 L.P. XIII(2), 841.

168 Evidently the king's action, in this instance, was unprecedented. Earlier, legal opinion had claimed ‘that a lyke mater had not be sayne that the kyng sholde stopp the corsse of his comen Lawes’ (SP 3/IV(35) (L.P. XIII(1), 1333)).

169 SP 3/I(37) (L.P. XIII(2), 898).

170 L.P. XIII(2), 926; C 54/414 (m. 27); C 54/417 (m. 23).

171 The Basset inheritance was safeguarded by the king's intervention. But in the agreement which Seymour had made with Dawbeney in July 1538 a saving clause had specified that, in the event of being debarred from the Gloucestershire estate, Seymour should enjoy a similar estate in Somerset and Dorset (C 54/417 (m. 3)). But, at some point, Dawbeney failed to honour this part of the agreement, the outcome of which was a further agreement made in July 1540 in which ‘for the advoiding of the danger and parell which the said Erie of Brydge-water hath fallen in and incurred unto the said Erie of hertford by and through the breache of certayne concaunts’, Seymour was assured an extensive estate out of Dawbeney's landed possessions in Somerset (C 54/423 (m. 55)).

172 St.P. I, 578 (L.P. XIII(1), 1375).

173 Seymour Papers, vol. XVI, fo. 32.

174 L.P. XIII(2), 884.

175 Following upon the royal marriage, the king dined with Seymour at his house of Elvetham, Hampshire, in August 1536 (Seymour Papers, vol. XIII, fo. 9), at Beauchamplace, the Seymour residence in the Strand, in November 1537 (ibid. vol. XVI, fo. 27b), and in June 1538 (ibid. fo. 31b).

176 Ibid. vol. XVII, fo. 7; ibid. vol. XVIII, fo. 44.

177 See above, p. 255.

178 L.P. XIV(1), 947.

179 Ibid. 762, 838; also ibid. 713.

180 Ibid. 762.

181 Ibid. 947, 1030.

182 SP 3/IV(30) (L.P. XI, 573).

183 SP 3/V(83) (L.P. IX, 682).