Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:26:04.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presidential Address: The Rise and Fall of English Landed Families, 1600–1800: III. Did the Gentry Rise?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

John Habakkuk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I want first to consider some of the statistical evidence that there was an increase in activity in the land market during the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth. It has long been known that there was a substantial increase in fines levied during this period, i.e. in the fictitious suits which were, in substance, conveyances of land. Mr. Meeking observed in his introduction to the Surrey Feet of Fines for the period 1509–1558 that ‘the average number of Fines levies each Term rose so steeply that the number of Surrey Fines levied in the years 4 & 5 Ph & M (1557–8) is more than five times as great as those levied during an average year of the period 1509–1530’. Professor Stone's calculations based upon the fines for three counties suggest that the number more than doubled between 1560 and 1620. A rough count for the country as a whole shows as one would expect a more moderate but still considerable increase; the annual number in the 1580s was under 3,000; in the 1590s it was over 3,000; and by the early seventeenth century it has risen to over 4,000. Besides the evidence of the fines, some information can be derived, though for a shorter period, from the returns of the income received by the Receiver-General of the Alienation Fines; this consisted of the fees payable on the writs which initiated the fictitious suit and also on licences and pardons connected with the alienation of property held in capite. This income bore a relation to the value of the property; though the value for this purpose was not the true value, the income gives some clue to the fluctuations in the aggregate value of transactions, and not merely in their number.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 31 , December 1981 , pp. 195 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1981

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 Abstracts of Surrey Feet of Fines, 1509–1558, ed. Meekings, C. A. F., Surrey Rec. Soc, xix, 1946Google Scholar.

2 Stone, L., The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558–1641 (Oxford, 1965), p. 37Google Scholar.

3 The termly accounts of the Receiver-General of the Alienation Fines for the seventeenth century are in P.R.O., E 101. The income is specified under three heads: the fees paid on writs of covenant, the writ most commonly used to initiate the fictitious legal suit; fees paid on writs of entry for lands not held in chief; income from licences to alienate (and pardons for alienation without licence) and writs of entry for lands held in chief. The receipts are total receipts, i.e. before the payment to the Hanaper of the rents reserved under the leases to the Lord Treasurer from 1590 onwards.

4 For examples of their use, see Calendar of Antrobus Deeds before 1625, ed. Pugh, R. B. (Wiltshire Archaeological Soc., iii, 1947), pp. xlvii–xlviiiGoogle Scholar; Stone, , Crisis, pp. 36–67Google Scholar. See also the exchange between Russell, Conrad and Stone, Lawrence on feet of fines and licences to alienate in Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., xxv (1972), 117–23Google Scholar.

51 I have attempted to ascertain which of the fines for the period 1571–1602 (listed in A Calendar of the Feet of Fines relating to the County of Huntingdon, ed. Turner, G. J. (Cambridge Antiquarian Soc., xxxvii, 1913)) were used in tracing the manorial descents in the V.C.H. for Huntingdonshire, and the interpretation placed on each of them. The great majority of these fines relate to small properties but of the forty-seven which were relevant to manorial descents, twenty-one appear to relate to sales and twenty-six to settlements and other transactionsGoogle Scholar.

6 The popularity of fines was enhanced by the two Statutes of Fines, 4 Henry VII (1488–9), c. 24, and 32 Henry VIII (1540), c. 36, which provided certain safeguards.

7 Devon Monastic Lands: Calendar of Particulars for Grants, 1536–1558, ed. Youings, Joyce (Devon and Cornwall Rec. Soc., new ser., i, 1955), p. xGoogle Scholar; Youings, , ‘Landlords in England: the Church’, The Agrarian History of England and Wales, IV, ed. Finberg, H. P. R. (Cambridge, 1967Google Scholar ); Woodward, G. W. O., ‘A Speculation in Monastic Lands’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lxxix (1964), 778–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Slavin, A. J., Politics and Profit; a Study of Sir Ralph Sadler, 1507–1547 (Cambridge, 1966), p. 201. The king could not be a cognizor of a fine, and therefore the sales by the Crown of the former monastic lands did not involve a fine, whereas a resale might and probably would do soGoogle Scholar.

8 Habakkuk, H. J., ‘The Market for Monastic Property, 1539–1603’, Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., x (1958), 362–80Google Scholar.

9 Rogers, J. E. Thorold, History of Agriculture and Prices (7 vols., Oxford, 1866–1902), IV, p. 100Google Scholar; Six Centuries of Work and Wages (London, 1884), pp. 287–8Google Scholar; McFarlane, K. B., The Nobility of Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1973), p. 57Google Scholar.

10 Slavin, , Politics and Profit, p. 200Google Scholar.

11 Virgoe, R., ‘The Recovery of the Howards in East Anglia, 1485 to 1529’, Wealth and Power in Tudor England. Essays presented to S. T. Bindoff, ed. Ives, E. W., Knecht, R. J. and Scarisbrick, J. J. (London, 1978), p. 20Google Scholar.

12 McFarlane, , Nobility, p. 55Google Scholar.

13 The Letters of John Chamberlain, ed. McClure, N. E. (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1939), II, 328Google Scholar, quoted by Prestwich, Menna, Cranfield: Politics and Profit under the Early Stuarts (Oxford, 1966), p. 384Google Scholar.

14 The Autobiography of Sir Simon D'Ewes, ed. Halliwell, J. O. (2 vols., London, 1845), I, p. 180Google Scholar; Commons Debates, 1621, ed. Notestein, W., Relf, F. H. and Simpson, H. (7 vols., New Haven, 1935), IV, pp. 314–15, VII, p. 209Google Scholar; Cliffe, J. T., The Yorkshire Gentry from the Reformation to the Civil War (London, 1969), pp. 47, 146Google Scholar.

15 The fluctuations were more marked in the income from alienations than in that from writs of covenant, but they were considerable in both. The combined total did not exceed the 1619 level until 1633, and it was exceptionally high in 1637 (£10,202).

16 The attempt to sell a large amount of Crown land in 1599 and in 1601 gradually depressed the price of this property, and further investigation may show that these sales also affected the private land market (Outhwaite, R. B., ‘The Price of Crown Land at the Turn of the Sixteenth Century’, Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., xx (1967), 229–40)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 The Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer, ed. Wilson, D. H. (Minneapolis, 1931), p. 151Google Scholar; The Works of Francis Bacon, ed.Spedding, J., Ellis, R. L. and Heath, D. D. (14 vols., London, 1857–1874), VI, pp. 473–7Google Scholar; Letters and Life of Bacon, ed. Spedding, J., VII, p. 417Google Scholar; Culpepper, Sir Thomas the Elder, Tract against the High Rate of Usurie (1621)Google Scholar.

18 Habakkuk, H. J., ‘The Long-term Rate of Interest and the Price of Land in the Seventeenth Century’, Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., v (1952), 26–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Haigh, C., The Last Days of the Lancashire Monasteries and the Pilgrimage of Grace (Chetham Society, 3rd ser., xvii, 1969), p. 138Google Scholar; Williams, Glanmor, ‘The Dissolution of the Monasteries in Glamorgan’, Welsh History Review, iii (1966), 23–43Google Scholar; Williams, P., ‘The political and Administrative History of Glamorgan, 1536–1642’, Glamorgan County History, IV, ed. Williams, G. (Cardiff, 1974), p. 656, n. 132Google Scholar; Pierce, T.Jones, ‘Landlords in Wales’, Agrarian History, IV, ed. Finberg, , p. 386Google Scholar; Youings, J., ‘The Terms of the Disposal of the Devon Monastic Lands, 1536–58’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lxix (1954), 31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Cliffe, , Yorkshire Gentry, p. 95Google Scholar; H.M.C., Buccleuch, iii, p. 182Google Scholar.

21 The Particulars for Grants for the later years of Elizabeth are in P.R.O., LR 2/70 seq.

22 P(rimatt), S(tephen), The City and Country Purchaser and Builder (2nd edn., 1680)Google Scholar. The first edition was in 1667. See also Habakkuk, H. J., ‘The Price of Land in England, 1500–1700’, Wirtschqft, Geschichle und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Festschrift zum 65Google Scholar. Geburtstag von Friedrich Ltitz, ed. W. Abel, K. Borchardt, H. Kellenbenz and W. Zorn (Stuttgart, 1966).23ClifTe, Yorkshire Gentry, pp. 93 seq., 145, 161–2; Stone, Crisis, pp. 156–64.

24 Blackwood, B. G., The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion (Chetham Soc., 3rd ser., xxv, 1978), p. 23Google Scholar.

25 Tawney, R. H., ‘The Rise of the Gentry, 1558–1640’, Econ. Hist. Rev., xi (1941Google Scholar ); Batho, G., ‘Landlords in England’, Agrarian History, IV, ed. Finberg, , pp. 291–7Google Scholar; Cliffe, , Yorkshire Gentry, p. 48Google Scholar.

26 See, for example, the case of Robert Taylor (Stone, L., An Elizabethan: Sir Horatio Palavicino (Oxford, 1956), pp. 271–2)Google Scholar.

27 Stone, , Crisis, pp. 522, 539–40Google Scholar.

28 Ashton, R., The Crown and the Money Market (Oxford, 1960), p. 185Google Scholar.

29 Tawney, , ‘Rise of the Gentry’, 33, n. 3Google Scholar.

30 Stone, , Crisis, pp. 152, 156, 159, 197Google Scholar.

31 Cliffe, , Yorkshire Gentry, p. 158Google Scholar.

32 Mousley, J. E., ‘The Fortunes of Some Gentry Families of Elizabethan Sussex’, Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., xi (1959), 477Google Scholar; Cliffe, , Yorkshire Gentry, pp. 96, 117Google Scholar.

33 Wake, Joan, The Brudenells of Deene (London, 1953), pp. 27–8Google Scholar.

34 Finch, M. E., The Wealth of Five Northamptonshire Families, 1540–1640 (Northants Rec. Soc., xix, 1956), ch. iv.Google Scholar

35 Slavin, , Politics and Profit, pp. 193–4, 200Google Scholar.

36 Ormerod, G., History of Cheshire, ii, p. 456Google Scholar; V.C.H., Herts., ii, pp. 145, 212, 451; V.C.H., Bucks., iii, p. 407; Falk, B., The Bridgewater Millions (London, 1942), pp. 33, 39, 49Google Scholar.

37 Simpson, A., The Wealth of the Gentry, 1540–1660 (Cambridge, 1961), pp. 26, 46–50Google Scholar.

38 James, C. W., Chief Justice Coke, his Family and Descendants at Holkham (London, 1929). PP. 143, 3O5–6Google Scholar.

39 For the main Craven purchases, see V.C.H., Berks., iv, pp. 105, 312; Bigland, R., Historical…Collections relative to the County of Gloucester (2 vols., London, 1791–1792), i, pp. 71, 221 and supplement, p. 320Google Scholar; The History and Antiquities of Northamptonshire. Compiled from the Manuscript Collections of John Bridges (2 vols., 1791), i, pp. 544, 604Google Scholar; V.C.H., Warwicks., vi, p. 74; V.C.H., Sussex, vii, p. 224; Trans. Shropshire Archaeological Soc., 2nd ser., viii (1896), 3Google Scholar.

40 Cockayne, A. E., Cockayne Memoranda (2 vols., Congleton, 1869–1873); P.R.O., SP 19/198, pp. 265–8, 269–71; 19/97, p. 32Google Scholar.

41 Tawney, R. H., Business and Politics under James I: Lionel Cranfield as Merchant and Minister (Cambridge, 1958), p. 195Google Scholar.

42 Upton, A. F., Sir Arthur Ingram (Oxford, 1961), pp. 44–5Google Scholar.

43 Especially Holderness, B. A., ‘The English Land Market in the Eighteenth Century: the Case of Lincolnshire’, Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., xxvii (1974), 557–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 The sustained fall in the number of fines did not occur until about the Restoration. It took place mainly in two stages, in the 1660s and in the 1710s. The annual average between 1654 and 1663 was 4,815; there was then a sharp fall, for between 1664 and 1673 the average was 3,738; between 1684 and 1693 (excluding 1688 for which the figures are defective) it was 3,489 p.a. In 1696 the number for the first time fell below 3,000 and (though the number in that year, viz. 2,363, was exceptionally low and in the four immediately following years the annual average was 3,311) in the eighteenth century it was almost invariably below 3,000, and no trend is apparent. This fall of forty per cent in forty years exaggerates the long-term change, since the figures were unusually high around 1660; but there clearly was some long-term change which requires explanation. It is, however, difficult to attribute the fall in the 1710s to diminished activity in the land market, because (a) it occurs at a time when the evidence of private acts suggests that, at least so far as estates are concerned, there was an increase of sales, and (b) it is not easily reconcilable with evidence for some geographical extension of the land market. In Lancashire, if the change in the composition of the gentry is a guide, the land market in the sixteenth century was inactive and became much livelier in the later seventeenth century; for between 1665 and 1695 more families entered and left the gentry than at any other time in the century (Blackwood, , Lancashire Gentry, p. 161)Google Scholar.

45 Between 1783 and 1787 (the year in which the post-war fall in interest rates finally occurred) the income of the Receiver-General of the Alienations rose from £4,501 6s. 8d. to £6,239, the highest figure for any year between the years investigated, 1731 to 1793 (P.R.O., E 105/2). See also the figures of receipts from auction duties cited in Thompson, F.M. L., ‘The Land Market in the Nineteenth Century’, Oxford Economic Papers, 9 (3) (1957), p. 288CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Erskine-Hill, H., The Social Milieu of Alexander Pope: Lives, Example and the Poetic Response (Yale, 1975), p. 109Google Scholar.

47 Fifoot, C. H. S., Lord Mansfield (Oxford, 1936), p. 50Google Scholar.

48 Yorke, P. C., The Life and Correspondence of Philip Yorke, Earl of Hardwicke (Cambridge, 1913), i, pp. 107–8; ii, p. 307Google Scholar.

49 Coleman, D. C., Sir John Banks (Oxford, 1963), ch. 3Google Scholar; Clay, C., Public Finance and Private Wealth: the Career of Sir Stephen Fox (Oxford, 1978), pp. 171–2Google Scholar.

50 Turner, M. E., ‘Parliamentary Enclosure and Landownership Change in Buckinghamshire’, Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd ser., xxviii (1975), 574Google Scholar.