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: 12 February 2009
It is perhaps surprising that no systematic study of the lord keeper's or chancellor's ecclesiastical patronage has been produced. In 1927 Jean Wilson dealt with the office of lord chancellor in the early seventeenth century but devoted a very few pages only to the exercise of his patronage. Professor Jones scarcely touched upon the matter. Yet at the very least there is a need to establish how the lord keeper administered his ecclesiastical patronage and to assess its importance. Did the various lord keepers adopt a policy? What influenced their distribution of patronage? The sources available have imposed limitations of their own: central records of presentations exist in overlapping blocks for the years 1559 to 1603; 1596 to 1616/17; and 1627 to 1640 alone. These papers are not of uniform format and the information which they can be made to yield varies in type. The papers of lord keeper Coventry, for example, are not lists of presentations but loose docquets of presentation, and these make no mention of petitioners or commenders other than the presentee. Wherever possible, however, the somewhat barren nature of the formal documentation has been supplemented by the use of diocesan and private papers.
1 The titles ‘Lord Keeper’ and ‘Lord Chancellor’ have been used interchangeably although not everyone fulfilling the office was given the superior title of Lord Chancellor, e.g. Nicholas Bacon.
2 Wilson, Jean Strachan, ‘The Administrative Work of the Lord Chancellor in the Early Seventeenth Century’ (unpublished London Ph.D. thesis, 1927)Google Scholar.
3 Jones, W. J., The Elizabethan Court of Chancery (Oxford, 1967), p. 165Google Scholar.
4 See Barratt, D. M., ‘Conditions of the Parish Clergy from the Reformation to 1660 in the Dioceses of Oxford, Worcester and Gloucester’ (unpublished Oxford D.Phil, thesis, 1950)Google Scholar; and Owen, H. G., ‘The London Parish Clergy in the Reign of Elizabeth I’ (unpublished London Ph.D. thesis, 1957)Google Scholar, for some perceptive comments on the patronage of the lord keeper as it affected their own areas of study.
5 British Museum, Lansdowne MSS 443–45; Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 179; B[irmingham] R[eference] L[ibrary], Croome Court Collection, vols 901, 902. As all three collections are chronologically arranged, folio numbers have not been provided in the footnotes. Full dates have been included to facilitate location of specific instances.
6 See Wilson, , op. sit., p. 45Google Scholar. Working from the Patent Rolls alone, she estimated that the lord keeper presented to an average of 15 livings per annum.
7 The patron of a living had six months in which to fill a vacancy; if he failed to do so the right to present fell to the bishop of that diocese for a further six months; at the end of this time the living fell in lapse to the archbishop for six months and then to the Crown.
8 This figure is based upon British Museum, Lansdowne MS. 443, for the years 1560 to 1580. The lord keeper also sealed an average of 34 crown presentations per annum.
9 Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 179.
10 B.R.L., Croome Court Collection. This drop may be attributable to the fact that these are loose docquets and not necessarily a full listing.
11 The bishops could not present to crown livings in lapse.
12 Fisher, F. J., ‘Influenza and Inflation in Tudor England', Economic History Review, 2nd ser, xviii (1965), pp. 120–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoskins, W. G., ‘Harvest Fluctuations and English Economic History, 1480–1619’, Essays in Agrarian History, ed. Minchinton, W. E., vol. i (London, 1968), p. 105Google Scholar.
13 For example, of 33 vacancies occurring in the archdeaconry of Coventry from 1557 to 1559, 29 were caused by death. Even when one considers that death was necessarily the chief factor in causing vacancies this seems too high a proportion to be normal. Lichfield Joint Record Office, B/A/2ii/1.
14 Calendar of State Papers Domestic, James I, 1623–25, pp. 96–97, letter of Robert Tanfield to Lord Zouch, 16 October 1623.
15 See appendix 3.
16 British Museum, Lansdowne MS. 443; Calendar of Patent Rolls, Elizabeth I, 1558–60, Pardon Roll, I Elizabeth, , part 2, p. 209Google Scholar.
17 Aylmer, G. E., The King's Servants (London, 1961), p. 217Google Scholar.
18 Jones, , The Elizabethan Court of Chancery, p. 165Google Scholar.
19 Ibid., pp. 163–64.
20 Ibid.
21 Spedding, J., The Letters and Life of Francis Bacon, vi (London, 1872), pp. 336–38Google Scholar; chaplains: Mr Oates, Mr Lewis; chief secretaries: Mr Yonge, Mr Thomas Mewtys; remembrancers for benefices: Mr Harris, Mr Jones.
22 Maxwell-Lyte, H., Historical Notes on the Use of the Great Seal of England (London, 1926), pp. 2, 115, 220–22Google Scholar.
23 Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 50.
24 Jones, , op. cit., p. 165Google Scholar.
25 Numerous examples of such letters are to be found in County of Hereford Record Office, Hereford Benefice Papers (unsorted presentations), and W[orcester] R[ecord] O[ffice], 778.7324 BA2442, Index, vols 1 and 2.
26 Camden, William, The History of the Most Renowned and Victorious Princess Elizabeth (London, 1688), p. 528Google Scholar; British Museum, Harleian MS. 6997 (Puckering Papers) sheds little light on the problem.
27 Hacket, J., Scrinia Reserata: A Memorial … of John Williams, D.D … (London, 1693), Part i. p. 29Google Scholar.
28 Spedding, , op. cit., vi. p. 172Google Scholar.
29 Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 179
30 C[ambridge] U[niversity] L[ibrary], Ee.2.34. Parkhurst Correspondence, letter 57, Bishop Parkhurst to lord keeper.
31 See G[uildhall] L[ondon] M[anu] S[cript] 9535/1; C[heshire] C[ounty] R[ecord] O[ffice], EDA 1/3; C.U.L.E.D.R. A5/1; andL[incoln] R[ecord] O[ffice], Reg. XXVIIIA, for some idea of the calibre of ordinands in the early years of Elizabeth's reign. Ely presents a special case, most of the graduate ordinands being destined for high preferment, or the wealthier livings. Also see Owen, , op. cit., p. 89Google Scholar, for difficulties which the lord keeper encountered in filling poor livings within London.
32 The Works of John Whitgift, ed. Ayre, J., iii (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1853), p. 246Google Scholar.
33 L[ondon] C[ounty] C[ouncil] R[ecord] O[ffice], DL/C/212, fo. 1251; also cited in Owen, , op. cit., p. 287Google Scholar.
34 Major, K., ‘Resignation Deeds of the Diocese of Lincoln', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xix (1942–1943), pp. 57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
35 E.g., L.R.O., COR/R/3, 36.40; 48.57.
36 Calendar of State Papers Domestic, Addenda, Elizabeth I, 1547–1565, PP. 505. 506.
37 See Owen, op. cit.; Barratt, op. cit.
38 The following remarks are based upon British Museum, Lansdowne MS. 443.
39 Bodleian, Tanner MS. 179.
40 C.U.L., Ee.2.34, letter 107, 20 June 1572, Parkhurst to Sir Henry Sidney.
41 W.R.O., 732.2 (1) nos 1–40; G.L.M.S. 9535/2, fo. 155r.
42 British Museum, Harleian MS. 385, fos 74, 75.
43 L.P.L. MS. 705, fo. 45.
44 Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 179.
45 B.R.L., Croome Court Collection, vol. 901, nos 452–54 (Augest 1633.
46 C.U.L., Ee.2.34, letter 57, Parkhurst to lord keeper.
47 British Museum, Lansdowne MS. 443.
48 C.U.L., Ee.2.34, letter 59, 1 February 1571/2, Parkhurst to lord keeper.
49 L.C.C.R.O., Lib. Examin. 1591–94, 24 November 1592; Lib. Act. 1589–1593. fo. 292v; British Museum, Lansdowne MS. 445; this case is described in Owen, , op. cit., p. 290Google Scholar.
50 C.U.L., Ee.2.34, letter 57, Parkhurst to lord keeper.
51 L.C.C.R.O., DL/C/212, fo. 136r.
52 Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 179.
53 British Museum, Harleian MS. 385, fo. 112. Richard Chamberlayne was a puritan preacher under D'Ewes's patronage.
54 C.U.L., Ee.2.34, letter 81, 3 September 1572, Sanderson to Parkhurst.
55 British Museum, Harleian MS. 385, fo. 112; C.U.L., Ee.2.34, letter 81.
56 Letters of Thomas Wood, Puritan, 1566–1577, ed. Collinson, P. (Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, Special Supplement 5, 1960), p. 21Google Scholar.
57 The material in this paragraph is drawn from British Museum, Lansdowne MS. 443, and Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 179.
58 E.g. 16 January 1561/2, John Heywoode was presented to Beston Vicarage, Notts., worth £4 15s., at the petition of Arthur Sawle. In 1559 Edward Wyseman, one of the gentlemen of the lord keeper's household, petitioned successfully on behalf of James Hallywell for a rectory worth only £4 13s. 3d. These King's Book valuations are unrealistic but there is, from surviving evidence, little indication that the distribution of wealth as between livings changed much during the hundred years following the compilation of the Valor Ecclesiasticus.
59 John Donne was secretary to Egerton and later received favour from Lord Keeper Williams; Valentine Carey, Dean of St Paul's, and Robert Clarke had also been Egerton's chaplains. See Hudson, M., ‘The Political and Ecclesiastical Activities of Bishop Williams’ (unpublished London M.A. thesis, 1926), pp. 45–47Google Scholar.
60 Nowell petitioned for 7 livings successfully during the sample years of Nicholas Bacon's tenure alone. (1558/59; 1562/63; 1566/67; 1570/71; 1574/75; 1577/78.)
61 See Cross, M. C., ‘Noble Patronage in the Elizabethan Church’, The Historical Journal, iii (1960), pp. 1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; British Museum, Lansdowne MS. 443. Huntingdon petitioned successfully for 9 livings in the period 1558/59–1579; in the same period Bedford petitioned on behalf of 20 clerics.
62 Bodleian Library, Tanner MS. 179. The position was greatly improved before this: 1596: 76 graduates; 12 students (115 presentations); 1600: 82 graduates; (103); 1604: 93 graduates; 6 students (117); 1608: 94 graduates; 4 students (109); 1612: 99 graduates; 6 students (122); 1616: 86 graduates; 6 students (101). The proportion of university men kept fairly constant from year to year. It should be remembered that the figures do not represent the number of separate individuals presented. Many men received several preferments at the lord keeper's hands.
63 Doddridge, J., A Compleat Parson or a Description of Advowsons (London, 1630), pp. 64–65Google Scholar. He establishes that the distinction between presentation and nomination is normally an artificial one but that it can be created by the patron assigning the right to nominate but not to present to another person. In such cases the nominator is to be regarded as patron. If two men are nominated and the presenter has to choose whom to present then he is the patron.
64 There is, of course, always the possibility that episcopal influence was strengthened under Coventry's lord keepership.
65 L.R.O., Reg. XXX, 1606: 19 out of 20 seeking deacon's orders were graduate; G.L.M.S., 9535/2: of 148 deacons admitted between 1620 and 1626 all were graduate.
66 Petitioners evidently believed that it was easier to obtain an impoverished living. For examples see British Museum, Harleian MS. 6995, fos 40, 62. The efficiency of communications must have affected the degree of competition in individual instances also.
67 Owen, , op. cit., pp. 97, 98, 197, 198, 200Google Scholar, for Aylmer's exercise of patronage as bishop of London.
