The Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries Reassessed
THE ELIZABETHAN SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES REASSESSED
By
HELEN DOROTHY JONES
A. (Hons.), The University of British Columbia, 138
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY
i n
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
(Department of Hi story>
We accept this thesis as conforming
bo the required standard
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
August, 1988
(c) Helen Dorothy Jones, 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced
degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it
freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive
copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my
department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or
publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written
permission.
Department of b«? p
The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3
Date IV-^i^b 3^2.///CjrJTff-
DE-6G/81) i i
ABSTRACT
The Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries has traditionally been regarded as a scholarly group which dissolved due to attrition and perhaps the suspicion of the ruling administration. A 1614 effort to recongregate failed due to
James I's'unfounded suspicions of the members' political intentions. This interpretation rests on the assumption that the discourses produced by members were the object of the
Society, and that the members were primarily scholars.
While the discourses required extensive research, they were superficial and uncritical, not representative of the standard of historical work of which some of the members, such as Camden, Stow and Lambarde, were capable. They did not justify in themselves either the amount of time which must have been expended on them, or the secrecy which the
Society maintained.
Close examination of the members' professional and patronage-related activities shows that they were not scholars, but highly placed and very busy functionaries of the central administration. They had politically powerful patrons, were drawn from all points on the political and religious spectrum, and had official duties throughout the country. Careful probing of their activities suggests that their political motive was to establish and prepare the ground for a widely acceptable successor to Elizabeth I.
James' suspicions were soundly based on fact. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
PROLOGUE
THE OCCASION OF THIS DISCOURSE 1
CHAPTER 1
THE ANTIQUARIES AS INTELLECTUALS: A PUZZLE 5
CHAPTER 2
THE ANTIQUARIES AS CAREER MEN 20
CHAPTER 3
THE ANTIQUARIES AS FACTION PLAYERS 42
CHAPTER 4
THE SOLUTION 64
BIBLIOGRAPHY 91
APPENDIX: THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY 98 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have received a great deal of help while I have been preparing this paper. My thanks are due to my adviser, Dr.
Murray Tolmie, who hung onto his patience and good humour even when I tried both. Harvey and Angela Henderson generously allowed me free rein with their computer. Most of all I thank my husband Don, and daughter Katriona, who never complained, no matter what sacrifices "Mum's work" demanded of them. "Mum's work" would not have been possible without their support. 1
Sir Henry spelman, c. 1626-1628:
THE OCCASION OF THIS DISCOURSE (1)
About forty two years since, clivers Gentlemen in
London, studious of Antiquities, framed themselves into a
College or Society of Antiquaries, appointing to meet every
Friday weekly in the Term, at a place agreed of, and for
Learning sake to confer upon some questions in that Faculty,
and to sup together. The Place, after a Meeting or two,
became certain at Darby House, where the Herald's Office is
kept: and two Questions were propounded at every Meeting, to
be handled at the next that followed; so that every Man had
a Sennight's respite to advise upon them, and then to
deliver his opinion. That which seemed most material, was by
one of the Company (chosen for the purpose) to be entered in a Book; that so it might remain unto Posterity. The Society
increased daily; many Persons of great Worth, as well noble
as other Learned, joining themselves unto it.
Thus it continued divers Years; but as all good Uses
commonly decline; so many of the chief Supporters hereof
either dying or withdrawing themselves from London into the
Country; this among the rest grew for twenty Years to be
discontinued. But it then came again into the minds of
divers principal Gentlemen to revive it; and for that
purpose, upon the Day of in the Year 1614 there met
at the same Place Sir James Ley Knight, then Attorney of the 2
Court of Wards, since Earl of Marlborough and Lord
Treasurer of England; Sir Robert Cotton Knight and Baronet;
Sir John Davies his Majesty's Attorney for Ireland; Sir
Richard St. George Knt. then Norrey, Mr. Hackwell the
Queen's Solicitor, Mr. Camden then Clarencieux, my self, and some others. Of these, the Lord Treasurer, Sir Robert
Cotton, Mr. Camden, and my self, had been of the original
Foundation; and to my knowledge were all then living of that sort, saving Sir John Dodderidge Knight, Justice of the
King's Bench.
We held it sufficient for that time to revive the
Meeting, and only conceived some Rules of Government and
Limitation to be observed amongst us; whereof this was one,
That for avoiding Offence, we should neither meddle with
Matters of State, nor of Religion. And agreeing of two
Questions for the next Meeting, we chose Mr. Hackwell to be our Register, and the Convocator of our Assemblies for the present; and supping together, so departed.
One of the Questions was, touching the Original of the
Terms; about which, as being obscure and generally mistaken,
I bestowed some extraordinary pains; that coming short of others in Understanding, I might equal them if I could in
Diligence.
But before our next Meeting, we had notice that his
Majesty took a little Mislike of our Society; not being informed, that we had resolved to decline all Matters of 3
State. Yet hereupon we forbore to meet again, and so all our
Labours lost. But mine lying by me, and having been often desired of me by some of my Friends, I thought it good upon a Review and Augmentation to let it creep abroad in the Form you see it, wishing it might be rectified by some better
Judgement. 4
NOTES
1. Sir Henry Spelman, The English Works of Sir Henry Spelman, Kb (London, 1723), pp.69-70. The "Occasion" was written as a preface to Spelman's The Original of the Four Terms of the Year, first printed in 1684. Spelling has been modernised, except for proper names and capitalisation. Punctuation has also been left untouched. 5
THE ANTIQUARIES AS INTELLECTUALS: A PUZZLE
Why would a group of English gentlemen, only "studious
of Antiquities", promise so firmly in advance to avoid matters of state and religion? And why would James I,
himself interested in history and in the concept of a Royal
Academy, refuse so firmly to allow the formation of such a
Society on the grounds that it might meddle in politics?
The original Society of Antiquaries had ostensibly
operated between 1586 and c.1607, very much in the way that
Sir Henry Spelman described it. The members were expected to
attend London meetings, where they exchanged short papers on
subjects relating to British antiquity. These papers, or
"discourses", dealt generally with the question of origins,
of how Britain had developed as it had. Thus they discussed
the development of offices, of customs, of terminology and
of laws. Little in all this explains James' unease.
Historians have never successfully explained his
"mislike". The sole major modern study of the Society is
Linda Van Norden's 1946 doctoral dissertation, in which she
carefully established a list of 38 members* and studied the
198 discourses then known.(1) Interested in the Society
mainly as it "helped to create modern method in historical
* Details on the careers of the 38 members are listed in the
Appendix. 6 research", Van Norden only briefly touched on James' 1614 disapproval, speculating that he was simply uninterested in the project.(2) More recently historians, who address the
Society only momentarily, generally assume that James disapproved of the subject matter of some of the Society's later discourses, particularly those to do with the history of Parliament.(3) This is possible, though unsatisfying.
The Society of Antiquaries was not a formal academy of history such as existed in Italy at that time.(4) Nor was it in any sense a national repository of books and manuscripts, although an undated petition with the names of
James Ley, Robert Cotton and John Dodderidge proposes the formation of such an institution.(5) This petition suggests that a small minority of the antiquaries had a broad vision of the scholarly potential of a state library supported and maintained by a national academy of history; if this had been a Society project, one would expect more members to have signed the petition. Yet the members of the Society were not scholars. Not one of them was solely a historian; they all had demanding professions with which they were extremely involved during the Society's years of operation.
Those of the antiquaries who wrote history tended to do so either before or after these years. Lambarde's Perambulation of Kent was virtually finished by 1570. Camden's Britannia was published in 1586, and the first part of his Annales did not appear until 1615. Robert Cotton published nothing 7 before 1627, and Henry Spelman, a prolific writer on various subjects related to the law, also published only quite late in his life. This is the general pattern for the antiquaries, many of whom wrote a great deal, but most of whom published little or nothing of moment while the Society was in existence.
When one examines the Society and its members in detail more mysteries begin to appear. The Society was not composed of historians and scholars, but of middle- and upper-level gentry, of middle-rank civil servants, of lawyers and judges, and of heralds. All these men were highly connected and extremely busy in their professional capacities. How and why did they find time to give an entire afternoon and evening once every week in term time to the meetings of an antiquarian society, meetings which, moreover, demanded active participation and a considerable amount of preparation?
The contemporary documentation for the Society is sparse indeed, and uninformative. In addition to Spelman's
"Occasion" and to the discourses themselves there exist only two membership rolls, a few marginal notes of names, two letters between Society members which mention Society business, and two notices of meetings to be held.(6) This paucity of information is curious. One might expect such a literary group to leave volumes of letters, records, diaries and suchlike evidence of activities, but this is by no means 8 the case. It is also surprising that there is not a single mention of the Society or its activities over 20 years in any official documents. Neither the State Papers nor the records of the Privy Council ever mention the Society of
Antiquaries, although both contain numerous references to individual Society members. In addition to this official invisibility, there is the proviso in the existing summonses to meetings that absolute secrecy be maintained. The 1598 and 1599 notices to Mr. Bowyer and Mr. Stowe both decreed that the recipients were neither to tell anyone about the meetings nor to bring anyone with them.(7) Why would a literary-historical Society lay such emphasis on a need for secrecy?
The obvious conclusion is that the Society was more than a club for "Gentlemen in London studious of
Antiquities". Dr. Van Norden attempted only to establish the membership for the Society, and the subjects that were discussed in discourses. She did not examine the members or their careers in any detail. Later historians have followed her lead in uncritically treating the Society as an intellectual group simply because the group produced short historical essays. This approach has led nowhere. The discourses are often superficial, sometimes even puerile. In themselves they cannot account for the Society.
A brief examination of the Society's outward activities will simply point up the implicit contradictions, the 9 probability that there was more to the society than is immediately apparent. The Society, formed of gentlemen who were historical enthusiasts but not professional historians, was ostensibly organised to study British history using record sources, chronicles, classical authorities and actual artifacts. According to Spelman's account, which is not contradicted by any direct evidence, it was formed around
1586 and continued for approximately 20 years.(8) The earliest existing discourses were produced in 1590 and the last in 1607.(9)
A study of the discourses and of the other documentary evidence reveals the outward activities of the Society.(10)
All members who were in London were expected to attend the meetings which generally began in the early afternoon at either the Heralds' Office at Darby House or in the home of
William Dethicke, the Garter King-at-Arms and the most senior herald in England.(11) Everyone present was expected to present his opinion either orally or in writing on the questions of the day. According to Spelman, the answers
"which seemed most material, was by one of the Company
(chosen for the Purpose) to be entered in a Book; that so it might remain unto Posterity."(12) The members customarily dined together on meeting days. Thus these were long meetings in themselves, and they required time-consuming and complicated preparation involving extensive searches through manuscripts and records. 10
That every member was expected to attend (at least when in London) is confirmed by a letter from Richard Carew of
Anthony to Robert Cotton in early 1605 excusing his own absence from Society meetings(13), and by the peremptory tones of the summonses to Mr. Bowyer and Mr. Stowe, which simply demand their presence and announce that their contributions are "expected". That every member was expected without exception to contribute his scholarship is confirmed by numerous references to this obligation within the discourses themselves. Arthur Agard, for instance, when speaking in November 1598 on "the antiquity of arms in
England" pleaded ignorance of the subject, yet prepared a discourse "because it is required."(14) A contributor who neglected to sign his discourse on "epitaphs" in November
1600 echoed this sentiment when he protested that he would prefer in his ignorance to remain silent on the subject but,
"in the dutiful regard I bear to this assembly, I must set silence apart...."(15)
The subjects for discourse, again according to Spelman, were proposed at one meeting to be discussed at the next, and they reflected the fact that most of the members were either lawyers or heralds. The total of 203 discourses which still exist, and which form the basis for this part of my discussion, are dated from November 27, 1590 to June 21,
1607, and represent 38 known meetings. While not all are either dated or signed, identical subject matters reliably 11 group 178 of the discourses in this manner. No meetings are known to have been held between 1594 and 1598, perhaps because these were plague years in London; 1599 and 1600 were, according to the surviving discourses, by far the most active years for the Society in terms of the number of questions proposed and also the number of discourses surviving. The tracts commonly showed an interest in etymology, and the series on sterling money and on the diversity of place-names in the British Isles were purely etymological. More common, however, was an etymological introduction followed by the history of the law and customs concerning the given subject.
Some of the antiquaries were already or would become accomplished historians and writers. Camden's Britannia,
Carew's Survey of Cornwall, and Lambarde's Perambulation of
Kent testify to their ability. Yet little of this ability is evident in the surviving discourses, which overflow with flowery phrases and mutual compliments. Dr. Van Norden remarked that the discourses were characterised by "the total lack of reciprocal adverse criticism" and were generally "familiar and 'chatty,' sometimes even colloquial."(16) While they certainly necessitated considerable research, the discourses were superficial and uncritical in comparison with the work that real historians could produce. Some of the antiquaries were indeed real 12 historians - but their work for the Society was not up to the standards they otherwise set for themselves.
The antiquaries followed "a program of study....[in which] one series of tracts on related questions, linking meetings, terms, and sometimes years, would follow another or run parallel to another."(17) Thus from 1590 to 1594 the
Society studied the English peerage, and from 1591 to 1594 the members also discussed various legal institutions, such as the Inns of Court, and real property. In 1598 there was a brief excursion into the antiquity of arms, before a new series on topographical-legal questions in 1599. In 1600 funerals and funeral customs were discussed, and from 1601 to 1603 the antiquaries were concerned with courtly offices such as heralds, the High Constable and the Earl Marshall.
They were interested in origins and development, and limited themselves as far as possible to English sources. The discourses still surviving show evidence of extensive study of state records, as well as knowledge of printed authors such as Bede and Geoffrey of Monmouth. Some antiquaries consulted classical authors, and a very few mentioned works of literature such as The Canterbury Tales.
Historians, led astray by the assumption that the
Society was purely an intellectual group, have been little interested in this Society and its discourses except to link it all to nascent nationalism expressed in a general effort to search out the origins of England as a nation.(18) This 13
is convincing as far as It goes, but hardly sufficient to
explain either the large amount of time expended by busy members on their Society activities, or James1 "mislike",
and his fear of the antiquaries' political machinations.
Most attempts to explain this fear have revolved around a
series of unfortunately undated discourses on the antiquity
of Par 1iament.(19)
This series, which Van Norden speculates was written
about 1604, was composed of seven discourses of which two
were unsigned; the rest were written by John Dodderidge,
Arthur Agard, Francis Tate, William Camden and Joseph
Holland. According to usual Society practise several of the
discourses opened with an etymology of the word
"parliament", linking it to various Latin and Greek terms
and to the French verb parler. The antiquaries then searched
out the earliest references to such a gathering and to the
role of the institution. It would be exaggerating to call
the results revolutionary, but certainly some of the
antiquaries' position papers were less wholeheartedly
monarchical in tone than James might have wished. Tate and
Dodderidge, particularly, in their conception of Parliament
as a union of King, Lords and Commons within which each
element was vital, and which put certain customary
limitations on the monarch's power, may have irked James if
he read the papers. 14
Again, even if this possibility were fact it is unsatisfying. Had James simply not approved of the subject matter of the discourses, he could simply have said so; but this declaration surely would have been recorded. There is no evidence whatever that the antiquaries were suppressed or that their activities in the early years of the reign were officially disapproved of; in fact, as shall be explained later, the antiquaries as a group fared very well indeed during James' first English decade. Furthermore, even had such a suppression of their antiquarian activities occurred, we still have no sensible explanation to account for the lack of evidence concerning the Society during nearly 20 years of Elizabeth's reign.
To understand the Society of Antiquaries and its activities it is crucial to examine the members very closely. A cursory examination reveals that they were, as a group, very busy men, very occupied with their careers and their ambitions and highly placed in the social and professional hierarchy of the country; they were not an anonymous group at all, but in many ways a diverse one. Only two were historians, William Camden and John Stowe. Both these men, however, also held other positions: Camden as a well-known teacher and later a herald and Stowe, the only member not born a gentleman, as a tailor and a member of the
Merchant Taylors' association of London. The other antiquaries were mostly lawyers or heralds; Thomas D'oyley 15 was a doctor of medicine, of the thirty eight confirmed members, thirty one had attended either Oxford or Cambridge, and most had been awarded degrees. None were professionally associated with either university, and none were clerics.
They represented all points on the religious spectrum.
Some, like Robert Beale, have been labelled "puritans".
Others, including Henry Spelman could be more aptly described as religious conservatives. Stowe was suspected of papist tendencies, Thomas Lake was associated with the
Catholic cause, and Sampson Erdeswick was a full-blown recusant who was imprisoned for his beliefs in 1589. Thus religion was hardly a uniting factor and could not have been the motivating force behind the Society. Yet the Society certainly had members available with a diversity of religious attitudes.
In fact the Society members had fingers on the pulse of the country in various ways. Many of them were returned to
Parliament during the Society's active years. They did not present a cohesive "party position" in the House, but they did, as a group, represent most of the country at some time.
The members were also active throughout the country as lawyers, judges, and particularly Justices of the Peace, those upholders of the central government's authority in the provinces. They appeared on the Council of the North and the
Council in the Marches of Wales. The Society was represented also in the major "departments" of the administration such 16 as Chancery, the Signet Office and the Exchequer. They even had direct access to the Privy Council: for many years
Robert Beale was one of its secretaries, and William Compton was a member. Thomas Lake, who later became a Privy
Councillor, was also significant as the Latin secretary to both Queen Elizabeth and King James.
Naturally, these administrative positions entailed association with the great statesmen of the time. Most of the Society members had patronage relationships with these gentlemen, and many also were related either by blood or marriage to the foremost noble and governing families of
England.
The pattern is clear. Either in its own members or in their associates, the Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries had tentacles spread at every level throughout the kingdom. The potential for influence was correspondingly widespread. The extent of this potential will be elucidated from a detailed study of the members' professional, personal, and patronage-related activities, and it will suggest an active political component in the Society's activities and motivations. Finally, an explanation will be presented which will explain the secrecy of the Society, its demise in the early years of James' reign, and his hostile response to the
1614 request to re-form. Since the tendency to look at the
Society and its discourses in isolation has proved to lead 17 nowhere, the focus throughout will be on the members in their professional and political environment. 18
NOTES
1. Linda Van Norden, "The Elizabethan College of Antiquaries", unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, (Los Angeles: University of California, 1946). Van Norden's thirty eight proven members will form the basis of this study. The membership may possibly have been as high as forty five; the seven "unproven" gentlemen have been omitted. Most of the discourses were published in the eighteenth century. Forty seven appeared in Thomas Hearne, A Collection of Curious Discourses (Oxford: 1720), and 107 more appeared in Ayloffe, A Collection of Curious Discourses 2 vols. (London: 1771, 1773, 1775). In "Sir Henry Spelman on the Chronology of the Elizabethan College of Antiquaries," Huntington Library Quarterly, 2, Feb. 1950, Van Norden notes five further discourses. Manuscript copies of the discourses are preserved in at least thirty seven collections in the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, Cambridge University Library and other repositories .
2. Van Norden, "Elizabethan College", p.488.
3. See, for example, Michael Mendle, Dangerous Positions (Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1985), pp.103-111.
4. Van Norden, "Elizabethan College", p.413.
5. This document, known as the "Cotton Petition," is printed in Ayloffe, 1775 ed., II, pp.324-326. An incomplete version is in [Gough,] "Introduction," Archeologia, I, 1779, pp.i i i-v.
6. Van Norden discusses this original material in detail in "Elizabethan College", pp.24-36. Academic projectors such as Edmund Bolton made many claims for the Society and produced a great deal of secondary material. This material was self- serving and highly biased; Van Norden rightly discounts its reliability. Gough's "Introduction" has traditionally been used as a source by historians, but he relied on the secondary sources; thus Gough's "inferences were hastily drawn" and his work was "unevenly verified and documented." ("Elizabethan College", pp.40-43.) He should be consulted only with great caution.
7. See Arthur J. Evans, "Anniversary Address," Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, 2nd. series, Vol. XXIX, 1916-1917, between pages 170 and 171, for facsimiles of these summonses. The 1598 summons ordered Mr. Bowyer to "give not notice hereof to any but such as have the like summons." Mr. Stowe's 1599 notice cautioned him to "bring 19 none other with you nor give any notice to any but such as have the like summons."
8. Spelman," "Occasion."
9. Van Norden discusses the discourses very fully in both her dissertation and her article.
10. Van Norden, "Elizabethan College", for the meetings.
11. These may have been one and the same place.
12. Spelman, "Occasion." The discourses were widely scattered after the dissolution of the Society.
13. Letter printed in Sir Henry Ellis, Original Letters of Eminent Literary Men of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries (London: Camden Society, vol. XXIII, 1843), pp.98-100. Occasionally, members unable to attend in person sent contributions to the meetings anyway; see Kevin Sharpe, Sir Robert Cotton, 1586-1631 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), p.18, n.9.
14. Ayloffe, I, p.173.
15. Ibid., p.233.
16. Van Norden, "Elizabethan College," pp.403, 409.
17. Ibid., p.338. See May McKisack, Medieval History in the Tudor Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), chapter 7, especially pp.161-169, for a good discussion of the Society and its discourses.
18. Ayloffe, I, p.iv; Gough, pp.i-iv; Evans, "Anniversary Address," pp.168-170; McKisack, p.161; and Evans, History, pp.8-9.
19.See these discourses in Ayloffe, I, pp.281-310. A recent example is in Mendle, pp.103-106. 20
THE ANTIQUARIES AS CAREER MEN
The members of the Society of Antiquaries were
extremely busy gentlemen. Not only were they judges and
lawyers who, while able to attend meetings during the law
terms because of their resulting presence in London, must
have been attending these meetings during their busiest
seasons. Several were heralds, who had wide responsibilities and frequently travelled all over the country. Some were
municipal officials like William Fleetwood, the recorder of
London, who once complained to Lord Burghley that he had no
time for meals and could never rest. Many were members of
Parliament in addition to their regular occupations. Many,
some very highly placed, were members of the central
administration, and several maintained a large variety of
occupations all at the same time. How could they possibly
find time for a gentlemens' literary group unless this group
was extremely important?
Perhaps an explanation for their involvement in the
Society can be found in their occupations. The areas in
which they worked had certain characteristics in common. The
antiquaries were able to travel throughout England,
unquestioned and therefore invisible; to meet with a wide
variety of people at all levels of society, and particularly
of the political class; to delve into the most abstruse
records; and to maintain a potential for a level of control 21 all over the country. Thus, If one postulates a political role for the Society, as King James clearly postulated, perhaps their professional occupations hold a clue.
Most of the members had some legal training, as civil law was part of the curriculum at both universities. Beyond this less formal introduction to the study of law, however, thirty one had attended the Inns of Court, advanced legal academies where students received instruction in history and the common law and also learned accomplishments "as are suitable to their quality, and such as are usually practised at Court." (1) Thus they learned dancing, singing and theatricals, and regularly presented lavish entertainments or "revels" to which the monarch and Court were invited.
The Inns were more than legal and courtly academies, however. They "comprised all those licensed to practise as barristers before the courts of common law and equity", regulated many aspects of lawyers' personal and professional behaviour, and acted generally as professional organizations and governors for the legal profession.(2)
The case of Sir John Davies, an extremely hot tempered and impulsive member of the Society of Antiquaries, illustrates some of the functions of the Inns. Davies received a B.A. from Oxford in 1590, two years after he entered the Middle Temple. He was called to the bar in 1595, but only after being fined in 1591 by the Temple 22 authorities for dicing and disorderly behaviour, and
temporarily expelled in 1592 for disorderly and insulting
behaviour. Even after Davies was called to the bar he was
under the governance of the Middle Temple. In a somewhat
mysterious incident in 1597 he marched into the Temple
dining hall and, for some unspecified reason, hit his former
friend Richard Martin over the head. This escapade was
regarded extremely seriously and Davies was disbarred,
supposedly forever, by the Middle Temple. Only after efforts
by Sir Robert Cecil, the Lord Chief Justice Sir John Popham,
and the Lord Keeper Sir Thomas Egerton, was Davies
reinstated in 1601 after he publicly apologised to
Martin.(3)
The Inns of Court had considerable power. No lawyer
could plead before the royal courts at Westminster unless he
was a ranking member of an Inn, and the court of Common
Pleas was the monopoly territory of the Serjeants at law who
were recruited from the senior ranks at the Inns.(4) The
senior ranks, known as benchers and readers, were the
teaching faculty at the Inns, and ten of the antiquaries at
some time acted in this capacity.(5) In addition, John
Dodderidge became the treasurer of the Middle Temple in
1603, and James Ley was the governor of Lincoln's Inn from
1609-1622. Thus the antiquaries were well-represented in the
hierarchy of the English legal profession, within which
they were able to exercise considerable influence. 23
In addition to those who held positions within the
Inns7 at least fifteen Society members were practising lawyers and six (or perhaps seven) were judges whose responsibilities took them all over the country, particularly the West and North.(6)
Richard Broughton, brother of the well-known Hebrew scholar, and advisor to the Devereux family, attracted considerable criticism when he served as a judge in North
Wales and in Chester. This criticism culminated in early
1599 when fifty citizens of Monmouthshire appeared before the Privy Council in London to complain that Broughton was trying to take away their commons and also trying to force one of the citizens to help Broughton's endeavour to marry off his daughter and make his son a knight.(7) The Privy
Council did not remove Broughton from his post, even when the complaints continued, but only ordered him to act more circumspectly, to "take more more moderate and indifferent courses to avoid this clamour."(8) Broughton finally lost his job in 1602, perhaps as an indirect result of the Essex
Rebellion, only to be promoted again in 1603 after James' accession.
The northern circuit was covered from the mid-1590s possibly by Thomas Talbot and certainly by John Savile, an antiquary of some notoriety who clashed repeatedly with the
Privy Council in the 1580s and 1590s over the statutes to do with cloth making. In this matter he was hardly 24 disinterested since he came from an influential Yprkshire family which had extensive clothing interests. Yet even though Savile, like Broughton, was a considerable irritant, the Privy Council did not remove him from office, but rather promoted him in 1598 to be a justice of assize for the northern circuit and a Baron of the Exchequer. The justices of assize made twice yearly circuits, conveying the instructions of the central administration to local government, adjudicating legal and administrative matters, and reporting back to the Privy Council. Their contacts in local governments were the justices of the peace.(9) Savile continued to cause problems as a judge: in 1599 Sir Thomas
Posthumous Hoby complained to Sir Robert Cecil because
Savile gave "hard dealing" in a case in which he was both judge and interested party. Still Savile was not dismissed.(10)
The justices of the peace, controlled by the Crown (and particularly the Privy Council acting on the Crown's behalf) and by the courts of common law, were responsible for enforcing the laws made by Parliament and by the central authorities. "The men of all work in the Tudor scheme of local government," who were combined civil servants, law officers and judges, their principal responsibilities centred around the quarter sessions where they adjudicated minor legal and administrative matters.(11) Generally they were influential as land owners in the areas where they I
25 served, and this is certainly the case for the fifteen antiquaries who were J.P.s who, in addition to their London residences, either privately owned or within the Inns of
Court, generally owned considerable country property. Their service as justices of the peace was concentrated in the southeast, in Wales, and in the north of England.(12)
Many J.P.s were also Members of Parliament, where they helped to make the laws which they would later administer in the provinces. Here again the Society of Antiquaries was active as, out of the fifteen who served as J.P.s, ten were also Members of Parliament during the active years of the
Society. Between 1586 and 1604 nineteen of the Society members served in Par1iament.(13)
In this connection the Antiquaries' activities were concentrated in the southwest and the west Midlands. In every Parliament from 1586 to 1604 (except for 1589, when
Michael Heneage sat for Tavistock, Devon, just across the county border) the Antiquaries held one or two Cornwall seats. Dorset seats were also represented by Antiquaries in every Parliament except 1593 and 1604. In the Midlands the
Antiquaries represented Shropshire seats in 1597, 1601 and
1604; and Staffordshire seats in 1586, 1589, 1593 and 1597.
In addition to these areas of concentration, the Antiquary
M.P.s held two seats in Devon in 1589; two in Wiltshire, one in Lancashire and one in Norfolk in 1593; and one seat each in Norfolk and Wiltshire in 1597. By 1601 their net was 26 spreading even more widely to encompass seats in Sussex, the
Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire. In
1604 they held seats in Worcestershire, Sussex, Oxfordshire,
Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, and the county seat for
Huntingdonshire. Thus most areas of the country were represented at some time by Members who also belonged to the
Society of Antiquaries.
These gentlemen were quite active in Parliament, serving on a wide variety of committees and making many speeches. Yet there is no discernible "programme," no concerted parliamentary platform promoted through the years by the Antiquaries. The most that can be said is that the
Antiquaries as a group tended to be deeply concerned for
Parliament's power and privileges. Several of them addressed this issue, among them William Fleetwood, the recorder of
London and a most loyal servant of the Queen, who nevertheless in 1572 poured scorn on those who reported to her the proceedings in the House, calling them "errant papists" and thus traitors.(14) Robert Bowyer, Robert Beale and Henry Bourgchier were also all interested in the history and privileges of the House.(15)
The antiquaries served on parliamentary committees dealing with all sorts of matters from vagabonds to the fate of Mary Queen of Scots. On only one occasion can one find evidence for the activities of several of them on the same matter. This occasion was the debate on monopolies in the 27
1601 parliament. Again, it is difficult to find a strong
"antiquarian" position in the matter, which was extremely contentious. Monopolies was the system under which the Crown awarded an individual or group the patented right to control a given commodity or industry. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries this system came under increasing criticism from the populace because of the potential it presented for abuse, and particularly for price gouging. Haywood Townshend, William Hakewill and John Davies all spoke in the debate on monopolies, and were certainly united in their disapproval of the mushrooming of the monopoly system. When a list of all existing patents was read out, Hakewill said facetiously, ""Is not bread there?"
When pressed, he then warned that "if order be not taken for these, bread will be there before the next Pariiament."(16)
Davies and Townshend agreed with Hakewill's point, yet differed on their recommendations for procedure. Davies, who usually sided with the Crown in parliamentary debates, earned ridicule and censure when he advocated proceeding by bill rather than petition to the Queen, and suggested that all patents should be summarily cancelled and their holders gaoled until they paid fines and "made some part of restitution to some of the poorest that have been oppressed by them."(17) Townshend, on the other hand, while agreeing on the ills of monopolies, recommended that "the Speaker should petition the Queen to allow the Commons to proceed by 28 statute."(18) This suggestion, which avoided challenging the Queen's authority, was widely praised for its wisdom.
Thus, on the one occasion when several antiquaries' parliamentary positions on a single issue can be discerned, these positions are not united. It is impossible to argue that the Society of Antiquaries presented a coherent parliamentary programme or that this was somehow their raison d'etre.(19) Considerable research, initially conducted in the expectation that such a programme was in operation has revealed no such motivation. King James assumed that there was an ulterior motive for the Society and that this motive was connected with politics. Viewed in the light of James' suspicions, the antiquaries* parliamentary roles are striking in their lack of unity.
However, their parliamentary responsibilities, like their judicial ones, allowed them to spread all over the country.
Their antiquarian researches must certainly have benefited from this. More important for any political activities was the way in which the antiquaries' geographical spread allowed the members to be in touch with the whole country at several levels over an extended period of time.
There were still other ways in which the members of the
Society of Antiquaries came in contact with the country.
Several of them were heralds whose main work was to keep records of all existing arms in the realm, to be responsible for granting and designing all new arms, and to set rules of 29 precedence.(20) in the process they did a great deal o£ genealogical research and travelled all over the country on tours of inspection known as "provincial visitations," in which they carried considerable authority and exercised considerable control over society. The heralds were under the authority of the Earl Marshal of England, and were themselves organised hierarchically.(21) Clarenceux king of arms had responsibility for all of England south of the
River Trent while Norroy king o£ arms had jurisdiction for all of the rest of the kingdom. Garter Principal king of arms had general authority over Clarenceux and Norroy and their subordinate heralds and poursuivants, and thus over the entire country. From 1586 to c.1604 William Dethicke, a member of the Society of Antiquaries, was Garter Principal king of arms. He was thus the superior of William Camden,
Richmond Herald from 1597 and Clarenceux king of arms from
1599; Francis Thynne, Blanche Lyon Poursuivant in 1601 and
Lancaster Herald from 1602; and Richard St. George, Berwick
Poursuivant Extraordinary and Windsor Herald in 1602 and
Norroy king of arms from 1603. All were members of the
Society of Antiquaries.
Little is known of St. George beyond his professional activities as a herald. Francis Thynne, a younger son of the
Thynnes of Longleat, was a Chaucer scholar who was constantly in trouble for indebtedness in his youth, and was even imprisoned in 1574; two years later he was forced to 30 apply to Lord Burghley to intervene for his release. Camden was of course the famous scholar and author of Britannia, which was first published in 1586 and dedicated to Lord
Burghley. William Dethicke was a volatile individual who was constantly surrounded by controversy and had a most creative attitude towards legality. When he was created Garter king of arms he persuaded the clerk who wrote the bill to tamper with the wording so that he could encroach on the traditional rights of Norroy and Clarenceux. He argued bitterly and repeatedly with the other heralds throughout his career. He attacked both his father and his brother, and
William Fleetwood once secured his release from Newgate after he knifed two gentlemen at the funeral of the Countess of Sussex. In 1589 a painter named Richard Scarlett complained to the Privy Council that Dethicke had attacked him with a dagger and was still threatening his life.
Strangely enough, the Privy Council did not censure
Dethicke, but contented itself with ordering protection for
Scarlett.(22) Not until James had taken the throne was
Dethicke finally dismissed from his influential position.
Thus, during the active years of the Society from c.1586, its members had great potential for influence throughout England as lawyers, J.P.s, judges, M.P.s and heralds. They had reasons to travel around the countryside unobstructed and unquestioned, and the opportunity to gather information and come in contact with a wide variety of 31 people. Nor did the Society's capability for influence end here. Many of its members held positions within the central administration or with employers who were themselves closely connected with this administration.
The government of England and Wales was administered by great officers of state under the Great Seal, the Privy Seal and the Signet. The monarch oversaw all, and had specific powers such as control over foreign policy, the regulation of foreign trade and the coinage, and the regulation of the
Church. The Privy Council had huge authority as it advised the monarch on matters of policy, appointed and expelled men from the commissions of the peace, supervised the national militia, organised the raising and spending of money, oversaw the navy, was concerned with domestic and foreign trade and with diplomacy, and sat in judgement over disputes which did not come under the aegis of the law courts.(23)
There were two subordinate councils: the Council in the
North and the Council for Wales and the Marches; both were answerable to the Privy Council. The whole realm was under complete surveillance between these three bodies; nothing was too trivial, local, personal or sectional for the
Councils' interest.(24) The Society of Antiquaries was well represented in all the Councils. Robert Beale was clerk to the Privy Council from 1572, and secretary and keeper of the
Signet of the Council of the North from 1586 to 1595 when he resigned due to ill health. (25) Beale also acted as 32
Secretary of State between 1580 and 1595 whenever Walsingham was absent. John Savile served with Beale on the Council for the North, and Richard Broughton served on the Council for
Wales and the Marches.
The Principal Secretary for the monarch controlled the
Signet which authenticated the monarch's private commands, and he was the major link between the monarch and the Privy
Council. This was Sir Francis Walsingham from 1573 to 1590, whose own secretary in 1570 was the same Robert Beale who
later became clerk to the Privy Council. Walsingham's secretary by 1586 was Thomas Lake, another member of the
Society. Thus members of the Society of Antiquaries were placed intimately into the highest levels of the administration, and even came to have direct contact with
the monarch through Thomas Lake who was first appointed
Latin Secretary in 1596. From 1589 to 1616 Lake was also a clerk in the department of state dealing with the Signet, as was Francis Thynne before 1591 and John Cliffe by 1586.
Members of the Society of Antiquaries were similarly well placed in other major departments of state. The
Exchequer had jurisdiction over about 90% of the Crown's
revenues, and the Lord Treasurer was second only to the Lord
Chancellor in the lay officers of state.(26) From 1572 to
1598 the Lord Treasurer was William Cecil, Lord Burghley; after his death he was replaced by his friend Thomas
Sackville, Lord Buckhurst. William Patten, an antiquary 33 about whom little is known, but who had accompanied Cecil on an expedition into Scotland in 1548 and was working for him on a matter of literary censorship in 1575, was a teller of receipt in the Exchequer by 1563.(27) Arthur Agard, a much more prominent member of the Society, was a clerk and keeper of the exchequer records early in his career; he rose by
1570 to become deputy chamberlain, and was later chamberlain. In 1598 John Savile was appointed a Baron of the Exchequer.(28)
Most of the remaining 10% of the revenue coming to the
Crown did so through the Duchy of Lancaster, which represented the fusion of the Crown with the dukedom of
Lancaster since 1399.(29) The Duchy administered the royal estates which were mostly in the north of England and its accounts were not paid to the Exchequer, but kept separate.
Several members of the Society of Antiquaries were employed by the Duchy. William Fleetwood, best known as the recorder of London, came from a prominent Lancashire family and held many posts in the Duchy from 1559 onwards. Robert Beale, in addition to his many other jobs, was bailiff of the Duchy from 1590, and John Savile was one of its commissioners between 1599 and 1601. William Hakewill became the receiver for the Duchy after James* accession.
Not only did the Society members have their fingers on the financial pulse of the country. They were also involved in Chancery, the department responsible for drafting royal 34
Acts and the "court where every item of procedural habit was recorded."(30) In addition, Chancery dealt with "all cases of special legal hardship" and cases in which the rigid application of law would lead to inequity.(31) Three
Society members worked here. Robert Bowyer obtained a minor post in 1594 and Arnold Oldesworth was a clerk of the
Hanaper before 1604. Most important, however, was William
Lambarde.
Lambarde was a greatly admired jurist and author of legal works and also of the Perambulation of Kent, the first known county history. He was a devout Protestant who was advanced by Archbishop Parker in his early days, and was working for William Cecil in the newly created Office of
Alienations by 1589.(32) In 1592 Sir John Puckering appointed him a Master in Chancery extraordinary and in 1597
Sir Thomas Egerton, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, made him
Master in Chancery in ordinary and Deputy Keeper of the
Rolls. Egerton, an ally of Lord Burghley, depended heavily on Lambarde and gave him considerable authority. In January
1601 Queen Elizabeth herself made Lambarde keeper of the records in the Tower of London and commissioned him to compile an index to these records. He finished this task and presented the results to her only two weeks before he died in August 1601.
Lambarde was not the only member to have access to official records. These documents, such as charters, rolls, 35 and financial and legal records, were kept In a rather
unorganised fashion in various caches, particularly in the
Tower of London and at Whitehall. The Tower records, which
included the records from Parliament, were continuously watched over by members of the Society of Antiquaries.
Michael Heneage, along with his more famous brother Thomas,
was joint keeper from 1567 until his death, when Lambarde was appointed. Thomas Talbot was a clerk of the Tower
records by 1580. From 1597 the Whitehall records were kept
by Thomas Lake, the Queen's Latin Secretary and clerk of the
Signet. As has been mentioned, Arthur Agarde was in charge
of Exchequer records before he became deputy chamberlain, and must have had extensive knowledge of exactly what was in
the documents under his care.
This emphasis on records is important for several
reasons. Antiquarians, obviously, are interested in history
and records are a major source. Thus the work of the Society
of Antiquaries as they examined questions of precedent must
have been greatly eased by access to such documents. Access
would not necessarily be granted to just anyone. The records
of Chancery, for example, were strictly controlled. They
could only be removed by order of the Master of the Rolls or
by a Privy Councillor who had an order from the Queen and,
without specific permission from the keeper of the rolls,
they could only be consulted by Privy Councillors, the Queen
or her heirs, or the clerks of the Petty Bag.(33) Having 36 members on the spot must have been extremely useful for the
Society's joint enterprise, and also provided an opportunity to keep an eye on who outside the Society was consulting which records.
In a political sense access to records is access to power, particularly in a country like England which set great store by custom, by the ways things had always been, and in "an age which tried instinctively to determine constitutional issues by an appeal to prescription rather than to natural right."(34) He who could state authoritatively what past practice had been was potentially a great influence on future practice. When one adds to this the fact that many early records had been written in
Anglo-Saxon, a language which very few people could read, one can appreciate that the members of the Society, several of whom were expert in the language had the potential for great influence.(35) It is important to emphasise that these gentlemen were not scholarly historians. They were hard-headed, very ambitious, politically attuned career men.
At this time the study of history was beginning to be seen as explicitly political. Beyond the personal obsession with lineage and pedigree which was felt by many, England and the English were particularly anxious to establish the continuities, both religious and social, of their country, which was dominated by a seemingly new religion and a young and somewhat sparse dynasty. Humanism had its part in all 37
this, concerned as it was with the recovery of. things ancient and with an increased secularism, as did the
increasing feeling that England was unique and English was
"a language equal in its potentialities to any other."(36)
Thus the antiquaries were right in tune with their times in
which English historians stressed the linear development of
English history and consciously tried "to impart a sense of
continuity to a people in the throes of change."(37)
The problem was the potential for opposition to the
central authority of the Crown in the hands of the
collectors of precedents. This problem would only be
articulated fully by James I, and articulated specifically
against several members of the Society of Antiquaries. 38
NOTES
1. William R. Douthwaite, Gray's Inn (London:Reeves and Turner, 1886), p.28, quoting Fortescue.
2. For a full explanation of the Inns of Court system , see W.S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law 6 vols. (London: Methuen, 1924), 4:.230-237, 262-265. Also see Wilfrid Prest, "The English Bar, 1550-1700," in Lawyers in Early Modern Europe and America, ed. Wilfrid Prest (London: Croom Helm, 1981), pp.65-85, and Louis A. Knafla, "The Matriculation Revolution and Education at the Inns of Court in Renaissance England," in Tudor Men and Institutions, ed. Arthur J. Slavin (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1972), pp.232-264.
3. Dictionary of National Biography, V, pp.591-593. (Hereafter referred to as DNB.) P.W. Hasler, ed. The House of Commons 1558-1603 London: History of Parliament Trust, 1981, Vol. II, p.22. (Hereafter referred to as HPT.) John Chamberlain, The Letters of John Chamberlain 2 vols., ed.Norman E. McClure (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1939), I: 126. One might wonder why Davies had such august advocates.
4. C.W. Brooks, "The Common Lawyers in England, c.1558-1642," in Prest, Lawyers in Early Modern Europe and America, pp.4 3-4 4. Holdsworth, History of English Law,IV, p.230, likens the Serjeants' professional level to that of our modern PhD's. 5. Bourgchier, Dodderidge, Fleetwood, Hakewill, Lambarde, Ley, Oldesworth, Savile, Tate, Whltlocke.
6. Broughton, Dodderidge, Ley, Patten, Savile, Tate. The identification of Thomas Talbot as the justice of the West Riding is not absolutely certain.
7. The incident is reported in the Acts of the Privy Council, Feb. 3, 1599. (Hereafter referred to as APC.)
8. APC May 13, 1599.
9. Penry Williams, "The Crown and the Counties," pp.125-146 in The Reign of Elizabeth I , ed.Christopher Haigh (London: Macmillan, 1984), p.126. 39
10. General information on savile can be found in HPT, II, pp.350-351. For the "hard dealing" see Salisbury Mss of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, (hereafter referred to as Salisbury,) vol. IX, p.390.
11. Holdsworth, History, IV , pp. 137-142.
12. The antiquary J.P.s were: Beale, Bowyer, Broughton, Carew, Davies, Fleetwood, Lake, Lambarde, Leigh, Ley, Patten, Savile, Spelman, Tate, Whitlocke.
13. The Parliamentary antiquaries were: Beale, Bourgchier, Bowyer, Broughton, Carew, Cotton, Davies, Dodderidge, Fleetwood, Hakewill, Hartwell, Heneage, Lake, Lambarde, Leigh, Ley, Oldesworth, Savile, Spelman, Tate, Townshend, Whitlocke. Note that Lambarde and Savile were M.P.s only before the active years of the Society, and Whitlocke after.
14. HPT, II, pp.134-135.
15. HPT ,1, pp.412-413, 460, 473.
16. HPT, II, p.238.
17. Ibid., p.22.
18. HPT, III, pp.516-517.
19. This becomes particularly clear during James' reign, when some of the antiquaries became defenders of the Crown while others aligned with the parliamentary opposition.
20. For a good short introduction to the subject of heraldry see Roger Milton, Heralds and History (Newton Abbot, Devon: David and Charles, 1978). Also see Ottfried Neubecker, A Guide to Heraldry (New York:McGraw-Hill, 1979), and Arthur C. Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry, 2nd ed. (New York: Bonanza Books, 1978).
21. The hierarchy of the heralds worked in a series of ranks: Garter King of Arms was traditionally the most senior, with some authority over the Clarencieux and Norroy Kings of Arms. The six Heralds of Windsor, Richmond, Lancaster, Somerset, Chester and York were next, and were senior to the four Poursuivants of Arms, the Rouge Dragon, the Portcullis, the Blue Mantle and the Rouge Croix. The Earl Marshal held the highest military rank in the realm under the monarch. 40
22. For this paragraph, information on Dethicke has been compiled from DNB, V, pp.869-870; APC, 1589, 1590; Salisbury, III, p.424, and V, p.518; and the Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1589-1590. (Hereafter referred to as CSP Dom.)
23. Michael B. Pulman, The Elizabethan Privy Council in the Fifteen-Seventies (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), p.3.
24. This can be confirmed by even a cursory examination of APC.
25. CSP Dom., 1595, for Beale's request to be allowed to resign.
26. General information on the Exchequer taken from Henry Roseveare, The Treasury: the Evolution of a British Institution (London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press, 1969), pp.41-44.
27. DNB, XV, p.495; Salisbury, II, p.108.
28. Also note that Michael Heneage was an usher from 1567-?, and that Robert Bowyer was a doorkeeper at an unknown date. As a Baron of the Exchequer Savile would go on a circuit twice a year to adjudicate cases involving the Crown's financial rights.
29. The remaining percentage was the moneys which came to the Crown from the Court of Wards.
30. W.J. Jones, The Elizabethan Court of Chancery (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), p.15.
31. Edward P. Cheyney, A History of England, 2 vols. (New York: Peter Smith, 1948), I, P.126.
32. Jones, The Elizabethan Court of Chancery includes a great deal of information on Lambarde. Also see Wilbur Dunkel, William Lambarde, Elizabethan Jurist New Brunswick and New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1965).
33. J. Payne Collier, ed., The Egerton Papers (London: Camden Society, 1840), vol.12, pp.194-197 (hereafter referred to as Egerton Papers). A draft of a 1592 order by Gilbert Gerrard, who was Master of the Rolls before Egerton.
34. E. Evans, "Of the Antiquity of Parliaments in England: Some Elizabethan and Early Stuart Opinions," History, vol. XXIII, June 1938-March 1939, p. 206. 41
35. The antiquaries who could read Anglo-Saxon included William Camden, Robert Cotton, William Lambarde and Henry Spelman.
36. F.J. Levy, Tudor Historical Thought (San Marino, California: Huntington Library, 1967), p.8. Also see John Kenyon, The History Men (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983),pp.1-21.
37. David C. Douglas, English Scholars, 1660-1730, 2nd ed. (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1939), p.14. 42
THE ANTIQUARIES AS FACTION PLAYERS
The Elizabethan system of government and administration depended "on the way in which patronage was bestowed, shared, and spread."(1) The fount of patronage was the
Crown, which dispensed offices, posts, peerages and gifts; there was not enough to go around, however. Thus developed the patron/client relationship in which a nobleman, magnate, or officer of state could attract loyal followers in return for favours such as preferment to specific posts which were in the patron's gift. Obviously this was a system of mutual back-rubbing. The more clients a patron could place comfortably (or otherwise help) and thus make grateful, the more potential power, security, and sources of information he had. And for a client, the benefits were obvious. This was very much an environment where the only road to advancement was through some sort of favouritism, and to bring oneself to the attention of a particular patron was to approach membership in the governing class.
The process operated at all levels. The gentlemen in the top levels of government, the Cecils and Leicesters for example, had clients who were only a small step down in power and authority from themselves. Thus Thomas Egerton, the Lord Keeper of the Seal to Queen Elizabeth from 1597, was attached to William Cecil, Lord Burghley, and his son
Robert. Similarly, Thomas Heneage, Vice Chamberlain to the
Household of the Queen, and himself a great patron, was for 43 a long time associated with Robert Dudley, the earl o£
Leicester. Below this second tier in the hierarchy was a third, and a fourth, and so on; patronage was thus a constant struggle for domination. It was not a political struggle in the sense of a struggle over differing political ideologies; rather it was a personal, and by extension factional, search for power and influence. Perhaps in part because the contest was so personal as opposed to ideological, personal lives were thoroughly embroiled in the struggle and marital alliances very often sealed or dictated political arrangements of faction.
The concept of faction is crucial as the Elizabethan system, structured around patronage, made faction struggle inevitable. The original Court grouping was set at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign in the competition between
William Cecil and Robert Dudley. By the early 1580s this competition had mellowed into a set pattern which evinced little overt wrangling; neither of the two had a monopoly on the distribution of patronage.(2) Thus both had "gifts" to give, as did others. By 1587 the earl of Essex was on the ascendant and altering the balance as he tried desperately to take control of power for himself and his clients.
Patronage thus became a "struggle for the domination of the
Elizabethan court," and a full-fledged political weapon.(3)
By the end of the reign, the Cecil family, strengthened by 44 the death of Leicester and the execution of Essex, and by their own alliance with the Howards, had immense power.
The members of the Society of Antiquaries were closely involved both professionally and personally with, patrons, some of whom were at the very highest levels of Elizabethan society. This presents what seems to be a paradox: how can one reconcile the notion of an overall political motive behind a Society which had a membership drawn from vastly differing parties? It is necessary to examine in some detail how much of the political spectrum was covered by Society members.
Religion played a central part in politics as the ecclesiastical and temporal powers were closely interdependant. None of the antiquaries were clergymen, but several acquired positions in the ecclesiastical commisssions or were otherwise closely involved in the church's role in the administration. To a large segment of the population Roman Catholics were dangerous by definition, particularly as the 1580s wore on with their series of alarms over the Catholic Queen of Scots and the King of
Spain. Some of the antiquaries were dedicated to the
Protestant cause, even to the point of zealousness. William
Fleetwood, as Recorder of London always on the lookout for undesirable aliens and Catholics, in 1576 went so far as to invade the house of the Portuguese ambassador in an attempt to catch any traitorous Englishmen taking Mass there. He 45
•arrested twelve Englishmen and also confiscated the Host, the chalice and the ambassador's wife.(4) Fleetwood was associated in his early days with Robert Dudley, and was even labelled "Leicester's mad recorder" in Leycester's
Commonwealth. His post as Recorder of London was a key one, and, as he often served as the link between the City and the
Privy Council, he became increasingly Burghley's man and an
"energetic assistant" for the Council.(5) Zealously
Protestant though he was, Fleetwood was not totally unreasonable on the subject. In 1588 he and Sir Thomas
Egerton collaborated (on the order of the Privy Council) to set guidelines for distinguishing "traitorous and malicious"
Catholics "from those whose simplicity is misled by ignorant and blind zeal."(6)
There were other staunchly Protestant members of the
Society. Robert Beale, right hand man to Walsingham, was known to be zealous and had lived on the Continent in order to pursue his studies and his religion during Mary's reign.
He stayed first with Sir Richard Morison in Strasbourg and then moved to Zurich with John Aylmer, later bishop of
London.(7) Beale was closely associated with Francis
Walsingham, a champion of Protestantism, on both a professional and a personal level, since he married
Walsingham's sister-in-law, Edith St. Barbe. Walsingham, in his turn, was "a Cecil protege."(8) Beale also, however, worked for the earl of Leicester as an administrator for the 46
1588 Sluys mission in the Netherlands. Leicester, like
Walsingham, but unlike Burghley, was closely associated with the Protestant cause. To complicate further this murky picture, Beale's zealousness was not always unquestioned. In
1581 and 1584 he negotiated on behalf of the Privy Council with Mary Stuart, but had to be dismissed from this task because he was suspected by some of partiality to her cause.
Ironically he, with Lord Buckhurst, was later assigned to notify Mary that she was to be executed; he read the death warrant immediately before the execution and wrote an official eyewitness account of the event. Beale was also not always on good terms with the Anglican authorities, and frequently clashed with Archbishop Whitgift, perhaps because, ardent Protestant though he was, Beale repeatedly and publicly advocated religious tolerance.
Other antiquaries were less liberal. John Davies, as
Solicitor General and Attorney General in Ireland, vigorously persecuted Catholics and did his best to drive
Roman Catholic priests out of the country. William Hakewill also was dedicated to the Protestant cause, as was James
Whitlocke, father of Cromwell's famous Lord Keeper Bulstrode
Whitelocke.
One cannot argue a Protestant religious basis for the activities of the Society of Antiquaries. Certainly, some members were Protestant zealots who were associated with patrons who had made a cause out of religion. Others were 47 moderate Protestants, like Henry Spelman and William Camden, who defended the established religion without ever tipping over into fanaticism. Some of the antiquaries were employed by the central administration on religious matters. John
Savile, for example, became an ecclesiastical commissioner for Durham quite early in his career, and John Dodderidge was the same perhaps from 1603.(9) Some of the antiquaries seemed uninterested in religious matters. Haywood Townshend kept a parliamentary diary for the sessions of 1597-1598 and
1601 and barely mentioned religious issues.(10)
Beyond this lack of a coherent religious outlook for the Society is the fact that several members had either
Catholic associations or sympathies, and at least one was a practising Roman Catholic. Even William Fleetwood, whose
Lancashire family had benefited greatly from the dissolution of the monasteries, had an uncle who was a Carthusian monk.(11) John Stowe, who was supported at various times by
Archbishop Parker, Robert Dudley and William Cecil, was investigated several times in 1568 and 1570 for owning
"papistical" works. Only his plea that these were necessary to his antiquarian studies, and some intervention by Cecil, secured his freedom.(12) Whether or not the charges were true, obviously Stowe was not a frequent enough or fervent enough churchgoer to place himself above suspicion. Thomas
Lake also was close to the Catholic cause even though he was secretary to Francis Walsingham by 1586. Whatever his 48 private religious beliefs, when he was involved in an extremely squalid legal and family scandal in 1617-1619,
Lake's supporters and well-wishers were definitely
Catholic.(13)
Most damning of all to any theory of a concerted religious motivation for the Society of Antiquaries is the membership of Sampson Erdeswick. He came from a
Staffordshire upper gentry family which suffered slightly for its Catholicism under Elizabeth. In 1577 the Privy
Council directed the Inns of Court to disclose the names of
Papist members; Sampson Erdeswick appeared on the list for the Inner Temple. In 1589, as a result of the series of alarms following the Armada, many of the more obstinate recusants were ordered imprisoned, and Erdeswick was confined to the bishop's palace at Ely.(14) He was not, however, irretrievably barred from the favour of the administration. In 1603, Lord Gerrard, obviously responding to instructions, wrote to Robert Cecil that he had found two offices for "young Erdeswick."(15) Since Sampson Erdeswick died that year, it was most likely his son who thus was given honourable service.
The members were drawn from such diverse religious factions that one cannot argue religion as the motivation for the Society. Yet, perhaps, there is a clue in the very wide range of religious opinions within the membership. Just as the members who were judges, J.P.s, members of Parliament 49 and country gentlemen, were responsible for or represented areas all over England and Wales, the members who were actively religious represented all religious factions in the realm.
The same is true for more narrowly defined political
factions. The major factions were less stringently segregated in the Society's very early years, but the earl of Essex drew very definite battle lines and insisted on
forcing faction struggle where there need be none. The members of the Society of Antiquaries were found on both sides of these lines, and some members were on both sides
s imultaneously.
Some seemed on the surface very definitely to be
connected with the earl of Essex, who was closely related to
the earl of Leicester and to some extent inherited his
contingent when he died in 1588. Richard Broughton is the
exemplar here.(16) Broughton had acted as legal adviser
for Walter Devereux, the first earl of Essex, until his death in 1576; during the second earl's minority he acted as
trustee of the estate, and he continued to serve the earl
when he reached adulthood. One of his tasks was to pay a
regular allowance to another member of the Society of
Antiquaries, Henry Bourgchier, who was the illegitimate son
of Anne, Baroness Bourgchier. She had been divorced in 1533
for adultery by Lord Parr. Her barony passed to her cousin, 50 the first earl of Essex, whose son made an allowance to
Henry Bourgchier.
In 1577 Broughton had reinforced his allegiance to
Essex by marrying Anne, the daughter of Richard Bagot, who was a strong Essex supporter. Thus he was tied both professionally and personally to the Essex faction. In 1592 the earl of Pembroke, probably on Essex's instructions, recommended Broughton unsuccessfully for a post on the
Council for Wales and the Marches, and in 1594 Essex was pressing again for a post for Broughton. He definitely owed his parliamentary seats to Essex influence. Indeed he was so closely identified with the earl of Essex that, in the aftermath of the disastrous rebellion, a Cecil informant argued that Broughton could not "be thought ignorant of the l
Earl's intentions by many secret consultations together in
Essex House..." (17) Broughton himself feared repercussions from the rebellion enough to reorganise his financial affairs in order to protect his family as far as possible.(18) He did lose his post on the Welsh council in
1602, and it is possible that the rebellion was to blame, but more likely because he was ill. He certainly wrote to
Robert Cecil on October 11, describing his gradual recovery from symptoms which sound as if they might have been caused by a stroke. (19) Interestingly enough, this staunch Essex man stated firmly in this letter that he had owed his appointment to Lord Burghley, Cecil's father, although "for 51 all the expenses and loss o£ time I sustained, he never bestowed on me one halfpenny." In 1603 Broughton was placed back on the council, in which post he remained until his death in 1604.
Another Essex man was Francis Leigh, whose case illustrates the complicated nature of patronage relationships.(20) Leigh's mother was the cousin of Mary
Sidney, who was closely related to the Leicester and Essex factions, both through her own blood relatives and through her marriage to the earl of Pembroke. This would seem to dictate Leigh's ties to Essex, and certainly Pembroke nominated Leigh for his 1597 parliamentary seat. However,
Leigh himself married Mary, the daughter of Sir Thomas
Egerton, who was strongly allied with the Cecils. Egerton, in addition to many great offices of state, was high steward of Oxford and was thus responsible for placing Leigh in
Parliament in 1601 and 1604. Thus Leigh had friends in both camps, and was able adroitly to move over when Essex collapsed.
The Essex supporters in the Society of Antiquaries can be shown on closer examination to hold allegiances on the
"other side" as well. Those who had apparently been
Leicester's men also were not unreservedly his. John Stowe had been supported quite early in his career by Leicester, whose suggestion it was in 1562 that Stowe, until that time a tailor and Chaucer expert, should start to write 52 history.(21) Stowe even dedicated the 1580 edition of the chronicles to Leicester. Yet it was Cecil who helped him out of trouble in 1568 and 1570.
Leicester was closely associated with Walsingham, employer of both Beale and Lake, and a champion of extreme
Protestantism. Yet Beale moved gradually into the Cecil rather than the Essex camp. He owed his 1593 Lostwithiel parliamentary seat to Robert Cecil, and it was Cecil's help he sought when deeply in debt in 1599.(22) Thomas Lake also attached himself firmly to the Cecil contingent after
Walsingham's death in 1590.(23) He owed his 1593 and 1601 seats to Cecil, and "was frequently a channel of communication between the Queen and Robert Cecil." Lake continued this association with Cecil after James' accession, and continued to report directly to him during the first decade of James' reign.
Another Leicester client was Thomas D'Oyley M.D., who worked for Leicester abroad in the 1570s both as a physician and a courier, and was related by marriage to Francis
Bacon.(24) He was still working for Leicester in 1585 as a diplomatic courier at Calais and Flushing. He returned to
England and became a Fellow of the Royal College of
Physicians in 1588. By late 1597 he was working for Robert
Cecil as a messenger, and in early 1598 he accompanied Cecil on a diplomatic mission in France, serving along with
Francis Thynne as one of Cecil's twelve voluntary gentlemen 53 companions. William Fleetwood has already been mentioned as a Leicester follower who became a Cecil client. The final antiquary who can be strongly associated with Leicester is
Michael Heneage, whose brother Thomas became a Privy
Councillor in 1587 and was very closely involved with him.(25) Michael's 1589 parliamentary seat was possibly arranged with the help of Leicester's brother, the earl of
Warwick. It is interesting to note that when Thomas
Heneage's wife died in 1593, he wrote an extremely intimate letter of grief to Robert Cecil, calling him "you that I best know...."
This pattern of antiquaries who were associated at different times or on different levels with more than one
"great" man continues for the rest of the membership, and is to some extent inherent in the Elizabethan system, where conflicting professional responsibilities and family allegiances tended to overlap. Thomas Egerton promoted
William Lambarde in his Chancery positions, but Lambarde had earlier been a client and perhaps friend of Sir John
Puckering, since they had been called together to the bar of
Lincoln's Inn. Lambarde was also advanced by Archbishop
Parker, Lord Burghley, and Lord Cobham.(26) Similarly,
Egerton promoted the interests of John Davies, who was also befriended by the Cecils, and perhaps by the earl of Sussex whom he accompanied on a 1594 expedition to Scotland to 54 represent Queen Elizabeth at the christening of Prince
Henry.(27)
Some of the antiquaries, such as Leigh and Heneage, were related by birth to the great men of the times and some, like Davies, attempted to marry themselves or their dependents into this position. Davies married Eleanor, the daughter of George Tuchet, Lord Audley.(28) The match was not entirely satisfactory. Eleanor was somewhat unstable and considered herself to be a prophetess, and did indeed predict her husband's death. Unfortunately she irked him considerably by insisting on wearing mourning during the intervening three years. Davies destroyed one of her books of prophecy, and her second husband imitated him with a later volume, entitled A Remembrance to the King, for Beware
Great Britain's Blow at Hand. Notwithstanding the quirks of his wife, Davies still managed to promote his family fortunes through marriage. Although his son was an idiot and drowned when very young, his daughter Lucy, an intellectual, married Ferdinando, the sixth earl of Huntingdon.(29)
Another antiquary who married, if not for position, certainly for fortune, was William second Lord Compton, who made a match in 1594 with Elizabeth Spencer, the daughter of the very wealthy Lord Mayor of London.(30) This Sir John
Spencer was not pleased with the match, apparently because
Compton demanded too high a dowry. Gossip at the time suggested that Compton, determined to possess Spencer's only 55 daughter and heir, carried her away hidden in a baker's basket, thus getting claim to the estate. Gossip did not record whether the lady willingly connived at this act.
Whatever the truth, when Sir John finally died in 1610 and
Compton inherited the fortune, he was driven nearly mad with delight. For several weeks he was in "a frenzy" and "held for a plain frenetic."
James Ley was perhaps the most obviously opportunistic of the antiquaries.(31) His earlier career is somewhat murky, although his many appointments within Lincoln's Inn suggest that he was fully employed there. In 1603 his career took off as he became a justice of South Wales and was placed on the Council for Wales and the Marches. Many honours followed, perhaps because Ley was always careful to stay friendly with those in power. He spent several years as a judge and Commissioner of the Great Seal in Ireland, where he was criticised for harshness; however, and as was typical for members of the Society of Antiquaries, the Privy Council consistently supported him. When he returned to England he became Attorney General to the Court of Wards. After his third marriage, in 1621 to a niece of the very powerful Duke of Buckingham who became his patron, he was placed on the
King's Bench, made a Privy Councillor, Lord Treasurer of
England, and eventually the Earl of Marlborough. Ley constantly and unswervingly supported the Crown, for instance in the Parliament of 1614, and had a great ability 56
to take advantage of other men's misfortunes. Thus he was able to become Speaker of the House of Lords for a time after Bacon's disgrace. Even though in 1624 the Lords
censured him extremely sternly for "disguised briberies and
corruption" as Lord Treasurer, Ley kept and was even able to
improve his position. "Feeble statesman" though he may have
been, his eye was always on the main chance.(32)
A final area where factional struggle played a part
relevant to the antiquaries was the placing of nominees in
Parliament; most M.P. Society members got their seats
through some exercise of patronage. William Cecil had been
somewhat embarrassed in the Parliament of 1584 because some
of his projects failed there and because of the discrediting
of Parry, one of his agents.(33) As the rivalry developed
with the earl of Essex over the control of the
administration and the direction of English policy, Burghley
and his son increasingly attempted to place their clients in
Parliament, to the extent that "Elizabeth's last elections
were marked by the bitter rivalry" between Essex and Robert
Cecil.(34) Other forces also had influence in this area.
The Privy Council steadily increased its control over
elections, as did territorial magnates.(35) Also more
locally powerful noblemen and gentlemen influenced the
choice of candidates as the boroughs themselves tended to
lose control over the selection of their own members.(36)
The great parliamentary patrons were the Cecils and the 57 second earl o£ Bedford in the West country and the earl o£
Essex, for whom "parliamentary patronage became an obsession."(37) The preponderance of the Cecils and their client Bedford in the West country, an area which otherwise was anything but a Cecil preserve, perhaps in part explains the heavy representation of Society of Antiquary members of
Parliament there.(38)
A look at the Cornwall, Devon and Dorset seats for 1586 and 1589 illustrates the multiplicity of parliamentary patrons. Robert Beale's seats in Totnes and Dorchester were controlled by Bedford, who was married to the widow of Sir
Richard Morison. The Lostwithiel seat was probably arranged for Beale by the Cecils.(39) Similarly, Abraham Hartwell's seat at East Looe in 1586 was controlled by Burghley, who may have been most happy thus to promote the interests of
Archbishop Whitgift's secretary.(4) John Dodderidge's 1589
Barnstaple seat can probably be explained by his position as counsel to Barnstaple; certainly he was paid a parliamentary wage by the town's council, and this would indicate that he was the council's candidate.(41) It is possible, however, that the earl of Bath had a hand in this nomination, since he was the borough patron.
The overall picture of Society of Antiquary members of
Parliament is indeed that of a large variety of patrons. The existing Society records leave no evidence of recruitment procedures. In view of the fact that the members tended to 58 fall into two age groups, those who were born in the 1540s and 1550s and those who were born in the 1560s and 1570s, one might expect an internal patron/client relationship, but no evidence exists to support this possibility, or to suggest any internal manipulation of the Society or its activities. Thus one is left with the manoeuverings of external patrons. Robert Cecil's efforts to achieve a
"pattern of territorial power" was certainly a factor.(42)
He was responsible for Davies' Corfe seat in 1601 and Lake's seats in Malmesbury in 1593 and New Romney in 1601, among others.(43) The earl of Essex also played a part: for instance he nominated Bourgchier for Stafford borough in
1593 and Broughton for Lichfield in 1592.(44) However, other patrons also were involved with Society members.
Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst and the Lord Treasurer, was responsible for Bowyer's Steyning seat in 1601.(45) Sir
George Carey, the captain of the Isle of Wight, procured
Robert Cotton's seat for Newtown for 1601.(46) William
Fleetwood's seat in Parliament was traditional for the
Recorder of London. William Hakewill owed his Bossiney seat to Sir William Peryam, a well-known, zealously Protestant judge to whom he was related.(47) Occasionally, as in the case of Richard Carew, a Society member may have been prominent enough in local and county affairs to get himself a nomination unaided.(48) Another such was James Ley, whose 59 family was new to Wiltshire, but quickly became locally influential.(49)
Thus, once again, the members of the Society of
Antiquaries turn up in all factions and in all areas. The puzzle seems insoluble. How could gentlemen who represented such radically differing points of view have come together in a Society with a political motivation? Why would gentlemen who were so busy professionally make the time for antiquarian studies? Why would these studies be kept so resolutely secret? The time has come to look outside the
Society and its members, to look for an external cause to explain the activities of the Society of Antiquaries. 60
NOTES
1. Jones, Chancery, p.168.
2. Historians tend now to downplay the significance of the Cecil/Dudley struggle. See, for example, Simon Adams, "Eliza Enthroned? The Court and its Politics," in Haigh, ed., The Reign of Elizabeth I, pp.55-77, who sees Cecil as limited in power but not really threatened by Dudley; or David Loades, The Tudor Court (London: B.T. Batsford, 1986), pp.144-145, who describes a central core of courtiers and officials which contained both Cecil and Dudley, and whose members all had some access to rewards and gifts. Also see M.A.R. Graves and R.H. Silcock, Revolution, Reaction and the Triumph of Conservatism (Auckland: Longman Paul, 1984), pp.120-123 for a good short discussion of the Crown and its patronage.
3. John K. Gruenfelder, Influence in Early Stuart Elections (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1981), p.34. J.E. Neale, The Elizabethan House of Commons, rev. ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1963), p.223 quotes Lord Grey, who charged that Essex attempted to force him to declare his loyalty to either Essex or Robert Cecil, "'protesting that there could be no neutrality.'"
4. HPT, II, p.137. Also see P.R. Harris, "William Fleetwood, Recorder of the City, and Catholicism in Elizabethan London," Recusant History, Vol.7, No.3 (1963), pp.109-118.
5. G.R. Elton, "Parliament," in Haigh, ed., The Reign of Elizabeth I, p.90. The Salisbury documents contain many of Fleetwood's reports to Burleigh.
6. CSP Dom., II, July 20, 1588.
7. HPT, I, p.412; DNB, II, p.3.
8. P.M. Handover, The Second Cecil (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1959), p.71.
9. HPT, III, pp. 350, 351. Salisbury, XV, pp.224, 393, 394.
10. Haywood Townshend's Historical Collections (London: 1680) .
11. HPT, II, p.133. P.R. Harris, "William Fleetwood," p.106.
12. DNB, XIX, pp.3-5. B.W. Beckingsale, Burghley: Tudor Statesman, 1520-1598 (London: MacMillan, 1967), p.252.
13. DNB, XI, pp.418-419; Salisbury, XXII, pp.60-75. 61
14. DNB, VI, pp.806-807; APC, 1589; Salisbury, IV,pp.266, 272; CSP Pom.. Nov. 1577; the Fourth Report, Part I, of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, pp.330, 331, 342.
15. Salisbury, XV, p.257, October 10, 1603.
16. The information on Broughton has been culled from HPT, I, pp.498-499; APC; the Bagot family papers in the Historical Manuscripts Commission's Fourth Report, pp.330, 334, 336. Salisbury, XI, p.106; XII, p.435; XV, p.392; and "The Devereux Papers" in Henry E. Maiden, ed., Camden Miscellany, XIII (London: Camden Society, 1923).
17. Salisbury, XI, p.106.
18. Maiden, ed., "Devereux Papers," p.vi.
19. Salisbury, XII, p.435.
20. Information for Leigh has been taken from DNB, XI, p.875; HPT, II, PP.453-454.
21. Information for Stow comes from DNB, XIX, pp.3-5. He dedicated the 1584 edition of the Chronicles to Archbishop Whitgift.
22. HPT, I, pp.411-414; Salisbury, IX, p.377.
23. Information for Lake comes from HPT, II, pp.428-429; Salisbury, IX,pp.177-178; XV, passim; and the Downshire Manuscripts of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, (hereafter referred to as Downshire,) Vol. II, passim.
24. DNB,V, p.1326, wrongly identifies the antiquarian D'Oyley, who was indeed the physician discussed in Ibid, pp.1322-1323. Also see Salisbury, VII,pp. 386,409; VIII, pp.16, 254; IX, pp.129, 130, 179; XXIII, p.22; and John Bruce, ed., The correspondence of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, during his government of the Low Countries, in the Years 1585 and 1586 (London: Camden Society, 1844), p.6.
25. For Heneage, see DNB IX, p.409; HPT, II, p.289-290; Egerton Papers, p.91; Salisbury, IV, p.423 for the letter.
26. Dunkel, pp.5, 10-11; DNB, XI, pp.438-439; HPT,II, pp.429-432.
27. Clare Howard, ed., The Poems of Sir John Davies (New York: Columbia University Press, 1941), pp.v,8; the Hastings Manuscripts of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, (hereafter referred to as Hastings) Vol. IV,pp.1-18, 62
352-353; and the Egmont Manuscripts of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, (hereafter referred to as Egmont) Vol. I, pp.30, 35, 50, 53.
28. One account of this marriage is in Howard, pp.10-12.
29. Lucy always defended her mother's sanity. Her son Theophilus wrote an interesting biographical article on Davies, which is printed in Hastings, IV, pp.352-353.
30. Compton information can be found in Chamberlain's Letters, I, p.67; Salisbury, XI, pp.83, 283-284, 540; Downshire, II, pp.253-280 passim; Hastings, II, p.45; the Delisle Manuscripts of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, (hereafter referred to as Delisle) Vol.11, pp.276, 278, 317; and John Nichols, The Progresses of King James I, 4 vols. (London: Society of Antiquaries, 1828), I, pp.159-160, 477.
31. Information on Ley is taken from DNB, XI, pp.1084-1085; HPT, II, p.476; the Buccleuch Manuscripts of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, (hereafter referred to as Buccleuch) Vol. Ill, pp.228-252; and Thomas L. Moir, The Addled Parliament of 1614 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), p.188.
32. DNB, XI, p.1085.
33. Beckingsale, p.157.
34. Gruenfelder, p. xii. Also see J. E. Neale, The Elizabethan House of Commons, pp.232-233, who describes the French ambassador's belief that most counties and towns sent blank returns for the Secretary of State to fill in with his chosen candidates. G.R. Elton, "Parliament in the Sixteenth Century: Functions and Fortunes," Historical Journal, XXII, (1979), p.273, follows the process into the House, where he speculates that the Privy Council managed events.
35. Cheyney, II, pp.174-178. M.A.R. Graves, The Tudor Pariiaments (London: Longman, 1985), p.124.
36. Cheyney, II, P.178.
37. HPT, I, pp.60-61. After Bedford's death, much of his influence passed to his son-in-law, the third earl of Bath.
38. Handover, p.86. Note that Bedford was a close associate of WaIs Ingham's.
39. HPT, I, p.412. 63
40. HPT, II, p.266.
41. HPT, I, p.144; HPT, II, pp.42-43.
42. Handover, p.190.
43. HPT, I, p.152; II, p.429.
44. HPT, I, pp.460, 498.
45. HPT, I, p.473. Bowyer was Buckhurst's secretary.
46. HPT, I, pp.170, 663. The borough/patron relationship was neatly illustrated in this case as the borough sent Carey blank returns for him to fill in with whatever names he wished. In return, Carey watched over and promoted the interests of Newtown whenever possible.
47. HPT, II, p.238.
48. HPT, I, pp.133, 136-137, 543.
49. HPT, II, p.476. 64
THE SOLUTION
Why would a politically motivated historical/literary
Society spring into being around 1586? What was happening just then to spur such an endeavour? Why would it continue for twenty years, most intensely from 1594 to 1604, only to fall into disuse c.1606-1607? What was happening by 1614 which might make its rebirth desirable? If one attempts to see the Society and its activities as a politically motivated, integrated whole and as an entity which must be placed in the context of its times, these are the obvious questions to examine.
At the time when the Society first formed the country was in some turmoil. The Parliament of 1584 was taken up almost entirely with fear of papists and the perceived need to protect the Queen. This was the year of the Bond of
Association, signed by thousands all over the country. The document pledged its signatories to pursue to the death anyone who plotted against Elizabeth and anyone in whose favour such a plot was undertaken, whether knowingly or not.
This was supplemented by Parliament, which passed an Act of
Association in early 1585, and made the focus of the Bond explicit by specifically barring Mary Stuart from the throne. As they had been doing for years, the members of
Parliament again pushed Elizabth to prosecute Mary; as she had been doing for years, Elizabeth again refused. 65
War with Spain was Imminent by the end o£ 1585. Philip
II seized all the English ships in Spanish ports, and Queen
Elizabeth sent the earl of Leicester to the Low Countries to aid the Protestants who were struggling against their
Spanish overlords. In 1586, adding to the feeling of danger,
Walsingham exposed the Babington Plot which linked Mary
Stuart with the Jesuits in an attempt to place her on the
throne. A commission was formed to try Mary, and the
Parliament, which assembled at the end of October, clamoured
for her death. In the face of great pressure from Parliament and the Privy Council Elizabeth at last brought herself to
sign a warrant, and Mary was executed on February 8, 1587.
Her son James, king of Scotland, who had signed an alliance
with Elizabeth in July 1586, one month before Walsingham made public the Babington conspiracy, was in a difficult position. He had high hopes of succeeding to the throne of
England, but this was by no means assured. If he protested his mother's death too strenuously Elizabeth, who thus far
had consistently avoided naming an heir, might be goaded
into declaring for his cousin Arabella Stuart. James, while
honour-bound to complain, had to do it carefully.
These were the principal concerns of the 1580s: the danger posed by papists who might at any time run amok; the growing conflict with Spain; and the uncertainty of the succession to the throne. In addition to all these perceived problems, was the very immediate one by the end of the 66 decade o£ growing factionalism among the Privy Council and the statesmen of the realm caused by the machinations of the earl of Essex, who threatened in a very real sense the country's political balance.The Society of Antiquaries first assembled within this context of uncertainty for the future.
In 1614 the country's future again seemed uncertain.
For nearly a decade James I had allowed Robert Cecil, now the earl of Salisbury, to maintain the near monopoly of power he had attained by 1603; Cecil had controlled the
Privy Council until his death in 1612. Until that time James allowed the Council "full and absolute authority," in the words of the Venetian ambassador, who remarked that "the
Council spares the King the trouble of governing."(1) After
Cecil's death the Privy Council declined very rapidly because of internal factional strife and because of the rise to power of Robert Carr, James' first great favourite, who had been "unconnected with the government" until Cecil's death.(2) Now James and Carr began to bypass the Council, often not even keeping it fully informed of events.(3) Thus the Privy Council, supposedly the primary advisory body to the King, was effectively stripped of political power, and the nation seemed to be run on a series of whims.
In addition to this shift towards monarchic despotism, by 1614 the succession was once again in doubt. James' first son, the universally admired and strongly Protestant Prince
Henry, had died in 1612. Now the heir was Prince Charles, 67 born in 1600, generally regarded as not very bright, and certainly rather delicate. It was too early to be convinced of Charles' religious convictions, but James' repeated overtures to Spain, and the arrival of Count Gondomar in
1613, made the English people uneasy for their religious future.(4)
Thus the concerns of 1586 and of 1614 were in many ways very similar, centring around uncertainty for the political future, the succession to the throne, and religion. Viewed in this context the decline of the Society of Antiquaries in the early years of James' English reign makes very good sense. The future seemed assured. The throne was now held by a relatively young, definitely Protestant monarch who had an altogether admirable heir as well as a younger son. Cecil controlled much of the real power in the realm and faction struggles were kept at a level which never appeared to threaten the country's stability. Finally, the Gunpowder
Plot of 1605, of which Camden had been commissioned to write an account, had been turned into a propaganda triumph which completely discredited the English Catholics. Only from 1612 did the stability in these areas decline.
The Society buried its tracks deeply. It was never mentioned in the Privy Council records, nor does its name appear even once in the official records for the reigns of
Elizabeth or James. Yet many members were politically and 68 socially prominent, and the Society generated extensive records in the position papers produced for the meetings, papers which were produced in multiple copies but which were kept strictly private and unpublished.(5) These position papers were on many different subjects, of which the common theme was a search for the origins of British customs, practices, offices and laws, a search for the
"underpinnings" of England. This makes perfect sense if the antiquaries were engaged in a search for precedent concerning the rules of inheritance and succession. In fact every mystery about the Society can be explained in this context. No empirical evidence survives to link the Society with efforts to establish the most suitable successor to the throne of England, yet the circumstantial evidence points strongly to this explanation for the Society's activities.
The Society of Antiquaries formed around 1586 when the succession to the throne was in particular doubt and when
Lord Burghley's grip on affairs and on power was under a growing threat. Elizabeth I was growing too old to produce an heir even if she should marry, and old enough to make her death from natural causes seem an ever-present threat.Mary
Stuart's death in early 1587 removed the most prominent
Catholic claimant to the throne. Her son James had reached adulthood and was a staunch Protestant, but he was a foreigner, and there were several other people who had 69 strong claims. Furthermore, it was difficult to be certain who had the right to choose a monarch.
Henry VIII had thought it was his right to choose not only his own successor but to set the line of successsion for the future. In his will he had specifically excluded the
Scottish Stuarts, descendants of his late sister Margaret, from the throne in favour of the descendants of his younger sister Mary through the Suffolk line. This claim had been tested once by Lady Jane Grey - the results had been disastrous. Also there was a serious question as to the proper execution and thus the legality of this will.
Elizabeth I certainly thought it was her own right to choose her own successor, and she repeatedly refused to allow any public discussion on the matter, seeing clearly that to declare an heir was to upset the precarious political and religious balance she had worked so hard to achieve.
Parliament also had a potential to claim some authority, having in 1571 produced an Act to penalise any discussion of claims other than those "established and affirmed" by
Pariiament.(6)
Public interest in the question never entirely disappeared, even after Mary Stuart's death eased the immediate tension. When the throne had been contested in the past, for example during the time of Stephen and Matilda or, only just out of living memory, during the Wars of the
Roses, rival claims had led to civil war. This was a 70 daunting prospect, bad for England's position in the world, bad for those who were in power and bad for those who wanted to assure their power for the future.
One who was already in power and also wanted it for the. future was William Cecil, Lord Burghley, England's preeminent politician. Like Elizabeth, he was getting old, and he was actively grooming his 3on Robert for political power. Cecil family strategy, an effort to retain wealth and power in the hands of the Cecils and their adherents clashed repeatedly with the schemes of the earl of Essex from the late 1580s through the 1590s. Essex, albeit unskilfully, challenged the Cecils on a number of occasions, vying for offices and for a level of control of the Privy Council, and forcing the Cecils to do the same.
Various circumstances thus converged around the mid- to late-1580s, when the Society of Antiquaries formed. No evidence exists to prove how this happened. Perhaps it was originally a legitimate study group formed by "divers gentlemen... studious of Antiquities." Perhaps it was inspired by Camden's Britannia; certainly the method of inquiry Camden used was very similar to the Society's methods. Perhaps Lord Burghley, Camden's patron, had a direct hand in the formation of the Society; he certainly had a great interest in historical research and used historical arguments for political purposes. Whatever the truth, the Society provided a perfect vehicle for the 71 searching out of rules o£ precedent, authority and inheritance.
Viewed in the light of a concerted search for a successor to Elizabeth, the diversity of the Society's membership and the secrecy of the operation become comprehensible. Members were involved in all levels and major areas of government, and served in official posts all over the country. They had access to records, both public and private, and plenty of excuse in their official capacities for searching through these records without further explanation. In addition they had ties with local authorities as country gentry, as municipal officials, as justices of the peace and as members of Parliament. They were in touch with the whole country and could act as a network to transmit information and instructions either outwards into the country as a whole or inwards, to some central director.
Their ties with apparently conflicting religious and political factions also make sense if they were working on a project with the universal significance of the succession to the throne, an issue on which men who otherwise would be in opposition to each other could find a common purpose, and an issue of such overriding importance that it would make such an expenditure of time and effort worthwhile. No one wanted a civil war, but to leave the succession open for rival claimants was to invite one, and to install a sovereign who 72 would be unacceptable to any significant section of the population was just as dangerous. Thus the inclusion of
Catholic sympathisers and Sampson Erdeswick in the Society becomes comprehensible.
English Catholics were not united. Some were absolutely single-minded and would willingly accept none but a Catholic monarch loyal to the Pope on the throne of England, but these were in the minority. Most English Catholics were more moderate, loyal to the Queen and to England above all, and willing to settle for a Protestant monarch who would allow
Catholics some toleration. Erdeswick fitted into this category. When he and other prominent Catholics were arrested, those deemed by the authorities most virulently committed to their cause were sent to Wisbech. Many Catholic moderates, including Erdeswick, were incarcerated somewhat less strictly at the bishop's palace at Ely. The moderate
English Catholics eventually became known as Appellants, those who were prepared to promise political loyalty in return for a level of official tolerance. King James provided the potential for this kind of future and
Erdeswick, along with the others in the group with Catholic connections, may have been able to act as representatives for the politically loyal Catholics in the search for a monarch who would be acceptable to all.
The Society spent many years collecting data and establishing a country-wide network. The ill-fated Essex 73 rebellion provided the Queen's Principal Secretary, Robert
Cecil, whose father had died in 1598, with a clear field in which finally to establish his own and England's future.
Many documents in the Salisbury manuscripts demonstrate his
(and his father's) interest in the succession.(7) In 1585
Lord Burghley had even concocted a possible plan for an interregnum should Elizabeth suddenly die. The Cecils had an excellent intelligence system, and Robert had been practising "enthusiastic place hunting" at least since 1593.
After his father's death he had worked for a "pattern of territorial power" to place himself, his relations and his adherents into key positions all over the country, even engineering the placement of his older brother Thomas, second Lord Burghley, as President of the Council of the
North in 1599.(8)
It was this Lord Burghley who was sent, along with
William Dethicke, to publicly proclaim the earl of Essex a traitor after the botched rebellion. Essex obviously knew of
Dethicke's unsavoury reputation, since he claimed at his trial to have seen "'no herald but that branded fellow, whom
I took not for an herald.' To this the reply was that 'an herald, though a wicked man, is nevertheless an herald.'"
(9)
Cecil was quick to take advantage of Essex's fall.
Essex had for some time been in contact with King James of
Scotland, assuring him of support in the future and doing 74
his best to discredit Cecil as a supporter of the Infanta of
Spain's claim to the throne. James' ambassadors arrived in
London to discuss various matters with the Queen shortly after Essex's death; Cecil met with them and arrived at an
understanding. He would support James' claim to the English
throne as long as James agreed to refrain from harrying
Queen Elizabeth to declare for him, to wait peacefully for her natural death, to keep all his communications with Cecil secret, and to allow Cecil to retain his full loyalty for
Elizabeth as long as she lived.(10) Then began a series of
secret letters between James and Cecil, conducted through
various intermediaries.(11) At James' suggestion, Lord
Henry Howard acted as Cecil's channel of communication.
Howard was not, until this point, in the Cecil cohort,
but he and Cecil, while never becoming close friends, worked
well together on the Scottish project. Well known as a
crypto-Catholic and also as the leader of the powerful
Howard family, Henry was in a position to sway a large
portion of the English Catholic community to James' side. He
and his family had only recently and tenuously emerged from
disgrace, so he was hungry for power and office. Should the
plan succeed, James would be able to offer him both. Cecil
also obtained advantages from the inclusion of Howard in his
scheme. As well as bringing with him the potential loyalty
of many Catholics, Howard's erstwhile loose association with 75 the earl of Essex offered Cecil the chance to add some of
Essex's supporters to his own.(12)
Thus the scene was set for Elizabeth's death and James' accession. Cecil was working closely with James and with
Henry Howard, and his agents were all over the country. His negotiations with James were extremely secret and, right up until the succession, the public and perhaps the Queen were unaware that the matter was settled. John Manningham, a
London lawyer, had dinner with Dr. Henry Parry, one of the
Queen's chaplains and later bishop of Gloucester and
Worcester, on March 23, 1603. Even then, only hours before the Queen's death, the outcome was unsure, and the two gentlemen were quite anxious for the future.(13) Only Cecil and the Lord Admiral (a Howard) were present to hear the
Queen name James as her successor; after her death Cecil announced the decision to the Privy Council.
Then, as if it were all prearranged, several things happened very quickly. At the head of a procession of heralds, William Dethicke, Garter king of arms, proceeded around London, proclaiming James king.(14) A great fuss was made at Ludgate by the Mayor of London, who refused to open the gate unless Dethicke promised in advance that he would announce James rather than anyone else. The same thing happened at the Tower of London, where the Lieutenant refused to admit the company unless he was assured that
James was the new monarch. Notice was sent to the civil and 76
judicial authorities all over England, and throughout the
land "divers Gentlemen had formed secret intelligence, and
in divers places proclaimed the king's right without warrant
but not without welcome."(15) Perhaps some of these gentlemen were the antiquaries.
The Privy Council, headed by Cecil, sent word
immediately to James in Scotland, to notify him officially
of the death of the Queen and to request him officially to become king. Within a few days a second delegation was dispatched to Scotland . This group was led by George Carew, a Master in Chancery and Cecil protege, and brother to
Society member Richard. Thomas Lake accompanied Carew, and
on April 4 he reported from Edinburgh to Cecil that what had
thus far been done in Scotland, and what answers the English delegation had received "touching the points of our charge, you shall perceive by the things sent by Mr. Carew, and by his relation."(16) Lake was already acting on Cecil's behalf to ascertain James' immediate foreign policy
intentions and advise him on domestic affairs; he continued
for a decade to be James' main secretary for domestic affairs, to report directly to Cecil, and to gain in personal power.(17)
Within a few days of James' accession another member of
the Society of Antiquaries, John Davies, went to Scotland with Lord Hunsdon. Davies held no official position which would explain his presence, and popular gossip at the time 77 assumed that he was simply a place seeker.(18) John
Manningham perceptively called him "the King's man," and
this he proved to be.(19) In fact Davies already knew the
King, having been for some reason included in the delegation
of the earl of Sussex to Scotland for the christening of
Prince Henry in 1594; according to Davies' grandson, James
took a liking to him then.(20) When Davies raced up to
Scotland in 1603, James greeted him effusively, asking
whether he was the author of the famous and much admired
poem "Nosce Teipsum." The King knighted Davies and appointed
him Solicitor General for Ireland.
Davies' case brings several suggestive strands
together. It is interesting to note that Cecil had been
directly involved in engineering his reinstatement in the
Middle Temple in 1601. Thus at the same time that Cecil was
opening the secret correspondence with James, he was also,
for no apparent reason, helping a relatively obscure lawyer
back to an official position, perhaps because that lawyer
was already liked by the King. As a result of his 1594 trip,
Davies had a potential for influence with James, and
certainly the extent of his honours in 1603 and beyond
suggests high favour. Perhaps this favour from James was a
reward for services rendered.
If so, and if the Society as a whole was involved with
James' placement, one would expect that other Society
members should be similarly quickly rewarded by the King. 78
This was in fact the case for the majority of living Society members. When James left Scotland to travel to London his route was littered with those he honoured, decorated, and otherwise showered with gifts. Indeed, he has been roundly criticised for his apparently indiscriminate, and costly to the country, largesse; however, this largesse served a real purpose in the creation for James of a loyal faction, which was spread widely, and which owed its favours to James personally. The Society members, who had helped in advance to prepare the populace for James' accession, got their rewards. Nine of them were definitely dead by 1603 and five may well have been.(21) Of the twenty three members who were definitely alive, fifteen received early honours and appointments from James, and nine either continued in their previous positions or received small but significant jobs.(22) These jobs ranged from specific short term commissions, such as Thynne's employment by Henry Howard
(who became earl of Northampton and a major adviser to the king) to research the office of herald, to Bowyer's 1604 appointment as Keeper of the records of the Tower. Some of the antiquaries, like Davies and Lake, did very well indeed under James. William Compton was greatly favoured by the king and by Henry Howard. Robert Cotton became Howard's primary adviser and was also favoured by James. In fact the only antiquary who can be argued to lose position soon after
James took over the throne was William Dethicke. 79
Dethicke had been Garter king of arms since 1586, and
had held the post over the strenuous objections of many of
his fellow heralds.(23) When James acceeded he knighted
Dethicke; soon after, however, he stripped him of his job and gave him a pension. This seems curious. It had been
several years since Dethicke had been in a fight, either
literally or figuratively; he had been staying very much out
of trouble. Yet he lost his position by February 1605 at the
latest, and perhaps as early as February 1604.(24) The
Dictionary of National Biography suggests that he lost
James1 favour by hinting that he had no right to the throne;
there is no real evidence for this claim. Perhaps Dethicke,
a known hot-head, was just too much of a liability once his
function (that of proclaiming the king) was fulfilled. The
fact that Davies, the other really volatile member of the
Society, was rewarded and removed suggests a similar
dynamic.
Thus we have a Society with a great capability to
influence opinion all over the country, whose members
typically received honours and decorations very soon after
the new king took the throne. The members tended to be
ambitious. They were generally associated with Robert Cecil,
the politician responsible for steering James onto the
throne, and several of them developed an association with
Henry Howard, Cecil's co-conspirator and an increasingly
powerful politician during James' reign. The Society's most 80
active years were those immediately preceding the accession,
and it disbanded around 1607, after several years of
gradually declining activity.(25) Spelman suggested that
the decline was due to attrition and to members who had
moved out of London. Yet he himself did not live in London
until 1612, and he had been a member. The evidence of
official appointments suggests that many of the members were
in fact in London during these years. Had the Society been deliberately suppressed because of official displeasure, the
operation would be likely to leave some traces in both
official and unofficial records. Yet there is none, and the
members' careers indicate that they were greatly in favour
at this time. I would suggest that the Society died out
because what had become its major impetus had disappeared.
The Society had helped to make a king and had consolidated
both his and Cecil's power.
The years from 1606 to 1612 were ones of relative
stability. Cecil was subtle and careful, preferring to
collaborate rather than clash with potential enemies and
this allowed a certain political balance in the State. The
former members of the Society generally continued to advance
in their careers, and to support James. Robert Cotton
particularly, as he had discovered his own Scottish blood and begun to call himself Robert Bruce Cotton, worked to
bolster the new dynasty. He was a great collector of
Anglo-Saxon and Tudor state documents, and very generous 81 about consulting them or lending them to friends and colleagues. As his closest adviser, "Cotton fortified many of the government positions that it fell to Northampton to present."(26) Cotton was also favoured by James, who appointed him to several advisory boards. Spelman, too, was a devoted royalist, and was rewarded by James with a post as
High Sherriff of Norfolk.(27) Lake was a constant champion for the interests at court of James' Scottish friends and, in a parliamentary speech in 1604, Francis Tate translated a
Welsh proverb in support of James' claim to the throne.(28)
Davies and Dodderidge both constantly upheld the position of the monarchy, and were well rewarded. To take Dodderidge as an example of the antiquaries' careers: his name appeared on a list of gentlemen to be considered as commissioners for
"causes ecclesiastical" in late 1603, by which time he had already been made Solicitor General.(29) In 1604 he was put on the High Commission. In 1606 he argued a case in the
Exchequer, defending the king's impositions, and in 1607 he was knighted and made King's Serjeant. In 1608 he was placed on a commission to examine abuses in the navy, and in 1612 he became a justice of the King's Bench.(30)
In 1612 the political balance changed, as both Cecil and the Prince of Wales died and James, supported by Robert
Carr, took an increasingly active role in government. The
Privy Council was all but bypassed, and anyway became too large and ill-assorted to resist a decline into 82
factionalism.(31) Henry Howard, earl of Northampton, led
the dominant faction and, becoming more closely associated
with Carr, retained great influence which tended to be
pro-Catholic and pro-Spanish. James himself favoured a
pro-Spanish policy, even hoping to seal a friendship by marrying Prince Charles to a Spanish princess. The Spanish ambassador, Count Gondomar, arrived in England in 1613 and appeared to have a strong influence on the king which was deeply disturbing to many Englishmen who distrusted the
Hapsburgs, the Spanish, and all Catholics.(32) The death of
Henry Howard in spring 1614 left Robert Carr, a political
naif, in almost sole possession of the lines of access to
James.
It was in 1614, according to Spelman, that the antiquaries asked to regroup; James refused because he mistrusted their political intentions. In the light of their
probable role in his installation as king of England, his
refusal is understandable.
That James knew what their earlier role had been is
suggested very strongly by the extent of the favours he gave
them early in his reign. They had actively supported him for
over ten years, but he did not trust them in 1614. He once
explained his philosophy of trust very explicitly: "Let that
Prince, that would beware of Conspiracies, be rather jealous
of such, whom his extraordinary favours have advanced, than
of those whom his displeasure hath discontented. These want 83 means to execute their Pleasures, but they have means at pleasure to execute their desires."(33) The antiquaries were dangerous men and James was vulnerable. His glorious older son was dead, and Prince Charles was unhealthy and perhaps retarded. Those who had had a hand in making one king might well try to repeat the process.
So James refused. At this point the antiquaries went in several different directions. Unfortunately Spelman did not specify the names of all those who were involved in the projected revival. Some, like Carew in poor health in
Cornwall, were undoubtedly not included. Some, like Francis
Tate, quietly continued with their careers. The majority, however, made discernible political choices.
William Compton was typical of one small group which retained full loyalty to the king and was rewarded for it.
Thus in 1617 Compton was made President of the Council for
Wales and the Marches, and then Lord Lieutenant of Wales.
The next year he became earl of Northampton and in 1628 knight of the Garter. Richard St. George also remained loyal, and was knighted in 1616. Francis Leigh was made
Master of Requests in 1614, and then Sherriff of
Warwickshire. His loyalty to the king was unquestioned, as was that of his son, the royalist first earl of Chichester.
Spelman himself was placed by the king on various advisory boards from 1617 onwards. 84
Lake and Ley worked within the existing system to acquire personal power. Lake had not been an ally of Robert
Carr, but when Carr fell from grace after the Overbury scandal he was certainly one of those who promoted Sir
George Villiers to James' attention.(34) Villiers, a much more skilful politician than Carr ever was, was extremely intelligent and well able to manipulate the power structure to advance and consolidate his own position. Lake flew on his coattails for some time. James Ley, also a true politician, recognised a star when he saw one, and married
Villiers' niece. From that time onwards he gained many lucrative official posts and stayed very close to this centre of power.
1614 was a particularly difficult year for James, a year when the conflict between the "popular demand for major reforms and the King's stubborn insistence on retaining all his powers undiminished" finally came into the open.(35)
Parliament was a fiasco which James quickly dissolved. Three antiquaries, two of whom were named by Spelman as seeking to reconstitute the Society in 1614, moved definitely into the camp of James' opposition immediately thereafter. William
Hakewill was a constitutional lawyer who was very active in
Parliament. He prepared and presented the case against the king in the matter of impositions and, after the Addled
Parliament, was one of those who were forced to present their parliamentary notes and papers to be burned by the 85 authorities.(36) James Whitlocke, who had already been imprisoned for a month in 1613 for opposing the sweeping powers of a royal commission on the navy, also had his notes and papers destroyed.(37) He continued throughout his life, as did his son, to defend the parliament against the perceived excesses of "divine right."
The most surprising antiquary to find in opposition to
James was Robert Cotton, who had earlier identified himself so firmly with the king. Yet, after the failed reconstitution of the Society, Cotton became a leader of the opposition. He was not in Parliament in 1614, but already in
1615 he was arrested and imprisoned for over six months for allegedly telling state secrets to the Spanish ambassador.
His papers and manuscripts were searched, but he was never tried and was eventually pardoned and released.(38) After this incident Cotton was treated by the court as an enemy; by 1628 the parliamentary opposition was using his house as a meeting place and his library as a resource bank.(39) In
1630 Cotton was in trouble again and his library and collections were confiscated. Again he was not tried, but he was never again admitted to his own library.
Thus the argument is complete. The antiquaries had researched the possibilities for making kings and had been rewarded for their efforts. For ten years they lived well and prospered under the Jacobean administration. In 1612, when the system began obviously to crumble and when the 86 future looked uncertain, they applied to regroup and were refused. After this refusal some of them allied themselves with the new powers and others moved definitely into the opposition. James' hostility was quite reasonable in the circumstances. He must have feared the power of the antiquaries, working as they were within a society, the intricacies of which they understood and he never quite mastered. Perhaps he feared for his own crown. He must have feared for his son's.
We have examined the Elizabethan Society of Antiquaries in the light of the traditional view that it was a scholarly group which dissolved due to attrition and perhaps to the suspicion of the ruling administration. The 1614 effort to recongregate failed due to James' unfounded suspicions of the members' political intentions. This interpretation rests on the assumption that the discourses produced by members were the object of the Society, and that the members were primarily scholars.
However, the discourses were superficial and uncritical, not representative of the standard of historical work of which some of the members were capable. They did not justify in themselves either the amount of time which must have been expended on them, or the secrecy which the Society maintained. Furthermore, the members were not scholars, but highly placed and very busy functionaries of the central 87 administration. They had politically powerful patrons, were drawn from all points on the political and religious spectrum, and had official duties all over the country.
Careful probing of their activities suggests that their political motive was to establish and prepare the ground for a widely acceptable successor to Elizabeth I. James' suspicions were soundly based on fact. 88
NOTES
1. David Harris Willson, The Privy Councillors in the House of Commons 1604-1629 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1940), p.17.
2. David Mathew, James I (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1967), pp.198-200.
3. M.A.R. Graves and R.H. Silcock, Revolution, p.126.
4. David Mathew, The Jacobean Age (London: Longmans Green, 1938), pp.80-93.
5. For example, see Historical Manuscripts Commission, Twelfth Report, Appendix, part IX, p.144, for a listing of multiple copies of Francis Tate's account of the dimensions and measures of land in England.
6. Joel Hurstfield, "The Succession Struggle in Late Elizabethan England," in Elizabethan Government and Society, eds. S.T. Bindoff et al. (London: University of London Athlone Press), pp.371-372.
7. Salisbury, XIII, lists a lengthy treatise on the subject, written before 1587. Also see J.E. Neale, Elizabeth I and her Parliaments (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1958), pp.44-46.
8. John K. Gruenfelder, p.33. Also see B.W. Beckingsale, pp.177-178, 223; P.M. Handover, The Second Cecil (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1959), pp. 190, 231; and Graves and Silcock, Revolution, p.123. Burghley retained this post until August 1603.
9. DNB, V, p.870.
10. See Handover, Second Cecil, pp.234-239, for an account of the negotiation.
11. Many were published in John Bruce, ed., Correspondence of King James VI of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and others in England, during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (London: Camden Society, 1861).
12. Handover, Second Cecil, p.239.
13. John Manningham, Diary of John Manningham, ed.John Bruce (London: Camden Society, 1868), pp.xii-xiv.
14. The incident is described in Salisbury, XV, pp.25-28. 89
15. John Nichols, The Progresses of King James I (London: Society of Antiquaries, 1828),I, p.26.
16. Salisbury, XV, pp.30-31. Unfortunately Lake did not specify which of Carew's relations was thus in such immediate contact with Cecil; nor did he elaborate on the contents of "our charge."
17. For confirmation see the many references to Lake in the Salisbury papers.
18. John Chamberlain, Letters of John Chamberlain, ed. Norman E. McClure (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1939), I, p.189.
19. Manningham, Diary, p.168.
20. Hastings Mss of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, (hereafter referred to as Hastings,) vol.IV, p.352.
21. The antiquaries who were dead by the end of 1603 were Beale, Bourgchier, D'Oyley, Erdeswick, Fleetwood, Heneage, Lambarde, Strangeman, Townshend. The dates of death are unknown for Cliffe, Holland, Patten, Talbot and Weston. According to Van Norden, George Wiseman died in 1615.
22. Early honours came to Compton, Cotton, Davies, Dethicke, Dodderidge, Hakewill, Lake, Leigh, Ley, Oldesworth, Spelman, Tate, Broughton and Savile. Agard, Bowyer, Camden, Carew, Hartwell, St. George, Stow, Thynne and Whitlocke received lesser privileges.
23. For example, see CSP Dom, 1589-1590, for a long series of documents disputing Dethicke's right to his post.
24. Salisbury, XVIII, pp.68, 127, 454, contains a series of letters from Dethicke who was bewailing his loss of office. The same volume contains a 1605 letter from Thomas Wilson to Cecil concerning the administration's intention to give Dethicke an annuity. See Hastings IV, p.l, for the suggestion that he lost his post in February 1604.
25. Van Norden, "Chronology," pp.138, 149, 159.
26. Linda Levy Peck, Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I (London: Allen and Unwin, 1982), p.104.
27. DNB, XVIII, p.737.
28. Buccleuch Mss of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, (hereafter referred to as Buccleuch,) Vol.Ill, p.84. 90
29. Salisbury, XV, pp.223-224. The list was undated, but was certainly compiled after July.
30. Laing Mss of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, (hereafter referred to as Laing,) Vol.I,pp.110-111. DNB. V, 1062. Salisbury, XVI, pp.42-43, 290; XVIII, p.118; XXIII, pp.131-135.
31. Under Salisbury the Privy Council consisted of about twenty members. By the time of James' death it was thirty f ive.
32. Mathew, Jacobean Age, pp.92-93.
33. David N. Smith, ed., Characters from the Histories and Memoirs of the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918), p.2.
34. Mathew, James I, p.208.
35. Thomas Moir, p.67.
36. Chamberlain, Letters, I, p.539.
37. DNB, XXI, pp.117-118. Chamberlain, Letters, I, p.455.
38. Buccleuch, I, pp.162-164, 269.
39. DNB, IV, pp.1236-1237. 91
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Discourses
Hearne, Thomas. A Collection of Curious Discourses Written by Eminent Antiquaries upon several heads in our English antiquities, and now first published by T.H. Oxford:1720.
A Collection of Curious Discourses Written by eminent Antiquaries upon several heads in our English antiquities together with Mr. Thomas Hearne's preface and appendix to the former edition to which are added a great number of antiquary discourses written by the same authors. 2 vols. London: 1771, 1773, 1775.
Original Sources
Acts of the Privy Council of England 1586-1604, 1613-1616. London: Royal Stationery Office, 1897-1907, 1921, 1925.
Calendars of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1581-1618. London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Dyer,1857-1870.
The Reports of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. Buccleuch, vols. 1, 3. Downshire, vol. 2. Egmont, vol.1. Fourth Report, Part I. Hast ings, vols. 2, 4. Laing, vol.1. Salisbury, vols. 2-5, 7-9, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 22-23. Twelfth Report, Appendix, Part IX.
Bruce, John, ed. Correspondence of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leycester, during his Government of the Low Countries in the years 1585 and 1586. London: Camden Society, 1844 .
Correspondence of King James VI of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and others in England, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. London: Camden Society, 1861. 92
Cameron, Annie I., ed. The Warrender Papers. 2 vols. Scottish Historical Society, 3rd. Ser., vols. 18, 19. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1931, 1932.
Collier, J. Payne, ed. The Egerton Papers. London: Camden Society, 1840.
Chamberlain, John. The Letters of John Chamberlain. Ed. Norman E. McClure. 2 vols. Vols. XI1:1 and XII:2 of the Memoirs series. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1939.
Douthwaite, William R. Gray's Inn, its History and Associates: compiled from original and unpublished documents. London: Reeves and Turner, 1886.
Ellis, Sir Henry, ed. Original Letters of Eminent Literary Men. London: Camden Society, 1843.
Maiden, Henry E., ed. The Camden Miscellany Vol. XIII. London: Camden Society, 3rd. Ser., 1923.
Manningham, John. The Diary of John Manningham of the Middle Temple, and of Bradbourne, Kent, Barrister-at-law, 1602-1603. Ed. John Bruce. London: Camden Society, 1868.
Nichols, John. The Progresses of King James I. 4 vols. London: Society of Antiquaries, 1828.
Spelman, Henry. The English Works of Sir Henry Spelman, Kt. London: 1723.
Sprat, Thomas. History of the Royal Society. Ed. Jackson I. Cope and Harold Whitmore Jones. St. Louis: Washington University Presss, 1958.
Townshend, Hayward. Historical Collections. London: 1680.
Secondary Sources Cited
Beckingsale, B.W. Burghley: Tudor Statesman, 1520-1598. London: MacMillan, 1967.
Brooks, C.W. "The Common Lawyers in England, c.1558- 1700." In Lawyers in Early Modern Europe and America. Ed. Wilfrid Prest. London: Croom Helm, 1981, pp.42-64. 93 \ Cheyney, Edward P. A History of England: from the Defeat of the Armada to the Death of Elizabeth. 2 vols. 1914, 1926; rpt. New York: Peter Smith, 1948.
Dunkel, Wilbur. William Lambarde, Elizabethan Jurist 1536-1601. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1965.
Elton, G.R. "Parliament in the Sixteenth Century: Functions and Fortunes," The Historical Journal, XXII, No. 2 (1979), 255-278.
Evans, E. "Of the Antiquity of Parliaments in England: Some Elizabethan and Early Stuart Opinions," History, XXIII, (June 1938-March 1939), 206-221.
Fox-Davies, Arthur C. A Complete Guide to Heraldry. 1909;rpt. New York: Bonanza Books, 1978.
Graves, M.A.R. and R.H. Silcock. Revolution, Reaction and the Triumph of Conservatism: English History, 1558-1700. Auckland, New Zealand: Longman Paul, 1984 .
Graves, M.A.R. The Tudor Parliaments: Crown, Lords and Commons, 1485-1603. London: Longman, 1985.
Gruenfelder, John K. Influence in Early Stuart Elections, 1604-1640. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1981.
Haigh, Christopher, ed. The Reign of Elizabeth I. London: MacMillan, 1984.
Handover, P. M. The Second Cecil: The Rise to Power of Sir Robert Cecil, later first earl of Salisbury. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1959.
Harris, P.R. "William Fleetwood, Recorder of the City, and Catholicism in Elizabethan London." Recusant History, 7, No. 3 (Oct.1963), 106-122.
Hasler, P.W., ed. The House of Commons, 1558-1603. 3 vols. London: History of Parliament Trust, 1981.
Holdsworth, W.S. A History of English Law. 16 vols. 6th. ed., rev. 1938. London: Methuen, 1903- 1956.
Howard, Clare, ed. The Poems of Sir John Davies. New York: Columbia University Press, 1941. 94
Hurstfield, Joel. "The Succession Struggle in Late Elizabethan England," in S.T. Bindoff, J. Hurstfield, and C.H. Williams, eds. Elizabethan Government and Society. Essays presented to Sir John Neale. London: Athlone Press, 1961, pp.369-396.
Jones, W.J. The Elizabethan Court of Chancery. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
Kenyon, John. The History Men: the Historical Profession in England since the Renaissance. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1983.
Levy, F.J. Tudor Historical Thought. San Marino, California: Huntington Library, 1967.
Knafla, Louis J. "The Matriculation Revolution and Education at the Inns of Court in Renaissance England." In Tudor Men and Institutions: Studies in English Law and Government. Ed. Arthur J. Slavin. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1972, pp.232-264.
Loades, David. The Tudor Court. London: B.T. Batsford, 1986 .
Mathew, David. The Jacobean Age. London: Longmans Green, 1938.
James I. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1967.
McKisack, May. Medieval History in the Tudor Age. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Mendle, Michael. Dangerous Positions: Mixed Government and the Estates of the Realm, and the Making of the Answer to the Six Propositions. Alabama: University of Alabama Press, 1985.
Milton, Roger. Heralds and History. Newton Abbot, Devon: David and Charles, 1978.
Moir, Thomas L. The Addled Parliament of 1614. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958.
Neale, J.E. The Elizabethan House of Commons. 1949; rev. ed. London: Penguin Books, 1963.
Neubecker, Ottfried. A Guide to Heraldry. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979. 95
Peck, Linda Levy. Northampton: Patronage and Policy at the Court of James I. London: Allen and Unwin, 1982.
Prest, Wilfrid. "The English Bar, 1555-1700." In Lawyers in Early Modern Europe and America. Ed. Wilfrid Prest. London: Croom Helm, 1981, pp. 65-85.
Pulman, Michael Barraclough. The Elizabethan Privy Council in the Fifteen-Seventies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971.
Roseveare, Henry. The Treasury: the Evolution of a British Institution. London: Allen Lane the Penguin Press, 1969 .
Sharpe, Kevin. Sir Robert Cotton 1586-1631: History and Politics in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979.
Smith, David Nichol. Characters from the Histories and Memoirs of the Seventeenth Century. With an essay on "The Character" and historical notes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918.
Van Norden, Linda. The Elizabethan College of Antiquaries. Unpublished thesis. Los Angeles: University of California, 1946.
Van Norden, Linda, "Sir Henry Spelman on the Chronology of the Elizabethan College of Antiquaries," Huntington Library Quarterly, 2, (Feb. 1950), pp.131-160.
Willson, David Harris. The Privy Councillors in the House of Commons, 1604-1629. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1940.
Secondary Sources Consulted
Adair, E.R. The Sources for the History of the Council in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. 1924; rpt. Port Washington, New York: Kennikat Press, 1971.
Aylmer, G.E. The King's Servants: The Civil Servants of Charles I, 1625-1642. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961. 96
Brooks, F.w. "The council of the North." In The Historical Association Book of the Tudors. Ed. Joel Hurstfield. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1973, pp.162-201.
Douglas, David C. English Scholars, 1660-1730. Rev. ed. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1951.
Elton, G.R. "Tudor Government, the Points of Contact: I. Parliament," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th. ser., 24, (1974), pp.183-200.
Fletcher, Anthony. Reform in the Provinces: the Government of Tudor England. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
Fox, Levi, ed. English Historical Scholarship in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. London: Oxford University Press for the Dugdale Society, 1956.
Foster, Frank Freeman. The Politics of Stability: A Portrait of the Rulers in Elizabethan London. London: Royal Historical Society, 1977.
Galloway, Bruce. The Union of England and Scotland 1603- 1608. Edinburgh: John Donald, 1986.
Halliday, F.E., ed. and intro. "The Survey of Cornwall". London: Andrew Melrose, 1953.
Hirst, Derek. Authority and Conflict: England 1603-1658. Vol. 4 of The New History of England. Ed. A.G. Dickens and Norman Gash. London: Edward Arnold, 1986.
Loades, D.M. Politics and the Nation 1450-1660: Obedience, Resistance and Public Order. Fontana Library of English History. Ed. G.R. Elton. Brighton: Harvester Press, 1974.
Neale, J.E. Elizabeth I and her Parliaments 1584-1601. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1958.
Notestein, Wallace. The House of Commons 1604-1610. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.
Pocock, J.G.A. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law, a Study of English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 97
Prltchard, Arnold. Catholic Loyalism in Elizabethan England. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1979.
Reid, R.R. The King's Council in the North. New York: Longmans Green, 1921.
Roxburgh, Sir Ronald. The Origins of Lincoln's Inn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963.
Sainty, J.C. "Lieutenants of Counties, 1585-1642." Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XLIII,Special Supplement no. 8 (1970), pp.i-v, 1-46.
"The Tenure of Offices in the Exchequer." English Historical Review. Vol. LXXX, (1965), pp.449-475.
Sheavyn, Phoebe. The Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age. 2nd. ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967.
Stafford, Helen Georgia. James VI of Scotland and the Throne of England. New York: D. Appleton Century Company, 1940, for the American Historical Association.
Steeves, Harrison R. Learned Societies and English Literary Scholarship in Great Britain and the United States. Vol 46 of the Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1913.
Trimble, William R. The Catholic Laity in Elizabethan England, 1558-1603. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1964.
Turner, Edward Raymond. The Privy Council of England in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, 1603-1784. 2 vols. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1927. 98
APPENDIX
THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY
The thirty eight members of the Society of Antiquaries, as established by Linda Van Norden.
Arthur Agard 1540-1615,of London. Educated Cambridge. Clerk of Exchequer; Keeper of Exchequer records; Deputy Chamberlain of Exchequer from 1570, then Chamberlain.
Robert Beale 1541-1601, of Barn Elms, Surrey, Priors Marston, Warwickshire, and London. Educated Cambridge. In English embassy in Paris 1564; Walsingham's secretary in Paris 1570; clerk of the Privy Council from 1572; acting Secretary of State in Walsingham's absences 1578, 1581, 1583; Deputy Governor of the Mines Royal (under Walsingham) 1580-1595; Secretary and Keeper of the Signet for the Council in the North 1586-1595; Bailiff for the Duchy of Lancaster liberty 1590; envoy at Boulogne 1600. J.P. Warwickshire from 1590. M.P. Totnes 1572; Dorchester 1584, 1586, 1589; Lostwithiel 1593. Totnes and Dorchester were borough seats controlled by the earl of Bedford, who was married to the widow of Beale's uncle Sir Richard Morison, a friend of Walsingham. The Lostwithiel seat was probably procured by Sir Robert Ceci1. Beale married Edith St. Barbe, Walsingham's sister-in-law. He was also connected professionally with the earl of Leicester and with the Cecils.
Henry Bourgchier d. 1598, of the Inner Temple, London. Educated Inner Temple 1574; bencher 1596; Lent reader 1598. M.P. Stafford borough 1589, 1593, 1597. The earl of Essex was probably responsible for bringing Bourgchier into Parliament; he certainly nominated him in 1593. Bourgchier was related to the earl, who acted as his protector. He was also related to the third earl of Bath, who was married to the daughter of the earl of Bedford.
Robert Bowyer d. 1622, of London. Educated Oxford; Middle Temple 1580. Doorkeeper to the Exchequer ?date; minor Chancery post 1594; secretary to Lord Buckhurst 1599-C.1607; Keeper of records in the Tower 1604; Keeper of the council chamber of the Court of Star Chamber 1604; Clerk of the Parliament 1610. J.P. Surrey 1597. M.P. Steyning 1601, Evesham 1604. The Steyning seat was probably arranged by the earl of Arundel for Buckhurst. 99
Buckhurst vouched for Bowyer for his 1594 Chancery post, and he tried several times in the 1590s and again in 1602 to promote Bowyer's interests (along with his own). Bowyer's father also had been a Keeper of records in the Tower. His family was closely connected with the Elsyngs and the Knyvetts.
Richard Broughton 1542-1604, of Lower Broughton, Bishop's Castle and Owlbury, Shropshire. Educated Inner Temple 1568. Steward of Lichfield by 1583; recorder of Tamworth by 1584-1598; deputy justice of Chester by 1588; second justice of North Wales 1594-1602; member of the Council in the Marches of Wales c.1595-1602; vice-justice of Chester 1599-1600; member of the Council in the Marches of Wales 1603-1604. J.P. Anglesey, Caernarvonshire, Montgomeryshire, Merionethshire 1594; Shropshire 1596. M.P. Stafford 1572; Lichfield 1586, 1589, 1593. Stafford was a borough seat which always elected non-locals; the Devereux family was patron. The Lichfield seat in 1586 and 1589 can perhaps be explained by Broughton's position as recorder. In 1593 he was definitely promoted by the earl of Essex. Broughton married Anne, the daughter of Richard Bagot, an Essex supporter. He was associated strongly with the earl of Essex, and later with the Cecils.
William Camden 1551-1623, of London and Chiselhurst, Kent. Educated Oxford; Gray's Inn 1592. Second master of Westminster School 1575; Headmaster 1593; Richmond Herald 1597; Clarenceux king of arms 1599. Camden's major literary patron was William Cecil, Lord Burghley, to whom he dedicated the 1586 edition of Br 1tannla. He was close friends with Robert Cotton, who may have been responsible for his commission to write an account of the trial of the Gunpowder Plot conspirators. Major publications: Britannia 1586; Annales 1625
Richard Carew 1555-1620, of Antony, Cornwall. Educated Oxford; Middle Temple 1574. Diplomatic service abroad 1581; Sherriff 1582; Bailiff of Mitchell 1584; Deputy Lieutenant of Cornwall under Raleigh 1586; Mayor of Callington 1597; many small government commissions 1590s-c.1610. J.P. Cornwall 1581. M.P. Saltash 1584; St. Michael's 1597. Saltash was a Duchy of Cornwall borough seat, and the Carews were a locally prominent family. St. Michael's was a borough seat for which the patron was the Arundell family. Carew married Juliana, daughter of John Arundell. His 100 brother, George carew, was a Master of chancery who was Hatton's secretary and a Cecil protege. Another relative was a high official in Ireland, and also a friend of the Cecils. Major publications: The Survey of Cornwall 1602.
John Cliffe ?dates. Educated Cambridge; Middle Temple 1583. Clerk of the Signet 1586.
William Compton d.1630, of Ashby, Northamptonshire. Educated Cambridge; Gray's Inn 1593. A member of the Privy Council by 1593; President of the Council in the Marches of Wales 1617, then Lord Lieutenant of Wales. Compton married Elizabeth Spencer, daughter of the Lord Mayor of London. KB 1605; KG 1628. Compton was made the first earl of Northampton of the second creation 1618. His son Spencer died in battle 1643, fighting for Charles I.
Robert Cotton 1571-1631, of London and Conington, Huntingdonshire. Educated Cambridge; Middle Temple 1588. Appointed to various advisory boards by James I. M.P. Newtown, Isle of Wight 1601; Huntingdonshire 1604; Old Sarum 1624; Thetford 1625; Castle Rising 1628. Newtown was controlled by the captain of the Isle of Wight, and usually was represented by court-connected members who lived in London. The Huntingdonshire seat can be explained by Cotton's high court connections and by his family's prominence in the county. Cotton was in high favour with the Crown under Elizabeth and, until c.1615, under James. He was well-known and frequently employed as a master of precedent. Cotton worked extensively for Henry Howard 1602-1614; possibly he had been involved with Howard as early as 1597. He became one of Howard's chief advisers, and a government propagandist. He also was favoured by Robert Carr, James' favour ite. Knighted 1603. Bart 1611.
John Davies 1569-1626, of the Middle Temple, of Ireland, and later of Englefield, Berkshire. Educated Oxford; Middle Temple 1588. Solicitor General for Ireland 1603-1606; Attorney General for Ireland 1607-1619; circuit court judge, Berkshire, from 1619 . J.P. Wiltshire 1579. M.P. Shaftesbury 1597; Corfe Castle 1601; Hindon 1621. The Shaftesbury seat was controlled by the earl of Pembroke; any 101 connection between him and Davies is unknown.. The Corfe Castle seat was obtained by Sir Edward Coke. Davies married Eleanor, the daughter of George, Lord Audley. Their daughter married the sixth earl of Huntingdon. Davies' interests were promoted by Egerton, Burghley, Sir John Popham and Sir Edward Coke; he was later associated on a professional basis with Sir Robert Cecil. He accompanied the earl of Sussex to Scotland to attend the christening of Prince Henry in 1594; no patronage relationship has been found. Davies also accompanied Lord Hunsdon to Scotland in 1603, to welcome King James to the English crown. The King personally proposed Davies for the Solicitor General post. Knighted 1603.
William Dethicke 1543-1612, of London. Educated Cambridge; Gray's Inn 1564. Herald: Rouge Croix Poursuivant 1567; York Herald 1570; Garter King at arms 1586-C.1604. Knighted 1603.
John Dodderidge 1555-1628, of Barnstaple, Devon; Egham, Surrey; and Mount Radford, Devon. Educated Oxford; Middle Temple 1577; bencher 1602; reader 1603; treasurer 1603. Counsel to Barnstaple by 1588; counsel to Plymouth 1601; Serjeant to Prince Henry and Solicitor General 1604; King's Serjeant 1607; justice of the King's bench 1612. M.P. Barnstaple, 1589; Horsham 1604. The Barnstaple seat was controlled by the earl of Bath, whose family was connected with the Dodderidges. Dodderidge married three times, the first to the daughter of Michael Jermyn, twice mayor of Exeter. He was employed/promoted by Henry Howard, who was responsible for his 1605 commission to write a treatise on the office of herald. He also was employed by Raleigh, c.1602, on a private legal matter. Knighted 1607.
Thomas D'Oyley 15487-1603. Educated Oxford and the College of Physicians at Basil 1592; FRCP 1588. Diplomatic courier for the earl of Leicester 1570s; service for the earl of Leicester in Antwerp and Flushing 1582, 1585; working for Robert Cecil by 1598. Physician to St. Bartholomew's Hospital late 1590s. D'Oyley was related by marriage to Francis Bacon.
Sampson Erdeswick d.1603, of Staffordshire. Educated Oxford; Inner Temple 1577. Possibly protected by the Cecils. 102
William Fleetwood 1525-1594, of London and Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire. Educated Oxford; Clifford's Inn 1543; Middle Temple 1551; Autumn reader 1564; Lent reader 1568. Commissioner for ecclesiastical causes 1559-1594; serjeant at law within the Duchy of Lancaster 1559, counsel 1560; steward and bailiff of the Savoy 1559-1594; escheator of Durham by 1562; steward of the Duchy manor of Penwortham 1567-1594; steward of the manor of Mildenhall 1571-1580; Ducht feodary and bailiff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire 1577-1582; deputy chief steward of the south parts 1586. Other stewardships: Wigan church by 1559; Newton, Lancashire 1559; Ruchock manor, Worcestershire 1564; Farnham Royal and St. Helen's, Berkshire c.1576; Bernword Forest, Buckinghamshire 1577. Freeman of the Merchant Taylors' Company of London 1557. Recorder of London 1571-1592; recorder of Preston 1584-1594. Queen's serjeant in the House of Lords 1591-1594. J.P. Buckinghamshire by 1569; London, Middlesex, Surrey by 1571; Lancashire by 1577. M.P. Marlborough 1558; Lancaster 1559, 1563; St. Mawes 1571; London 1572, 1584, 1586, 1589. The Lancaster seat was controlled by Sir Ambrose Cave, chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Lord Burghley probably arranged the St. Mawes seat. The London seats were customary for the recorder. Fleetwood was associated with Leicester and with Egerton and was very closely involved with Burghley.
William Hakewill 1574-1655, of Wendover, Buckinghamshire. Educated Oxford; Lincoln's Inn 1598; bencher by 1616; Lent reader 1625; keeper of the Black Book 1633; treasurer 1637-1638. Receiver for the Duchy of Lancaster, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire after 1603; Queen's Solicitor 1617;Master in Chancery 1647-1642. M.P. Bossiney 1601; Mitchell 1604; Tregony 1614, 1621; Amersham 1624, 1628. The Bossiney and Mitchell seats were controlled by Sir William Peryam, Hakewill's uncle, after 1585. Hakewill was also related by marriage to the Bacons and the Killigrews.
Abraham Hartwell 15537-1606, of Lambeth, Surrey. Educated Surrey; Gray's Inn 1592. Secretary to Archbishop Whitgift probably by 1577, certainly by 1584; Proctor of the Court of Audience of the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1587. M.P. East Looe 1586; Hindon 1593. East Looe was a Duchy of Cornwall borough seat controlled by Lord Burghley. Hartwell's Hindon seat was procured by Whitgift's influence with the Bishop of Winchester. 103
Michael Heneage 1540-1600, of St. Catherine Colman, London, and Essex. Educated Cambridge; Gray's Inn 1567. Usher of the Exchequer 1567; joint Keeper of the records in the Tower with his brother Thomas 1576-1600. M.P. Arundel 1571; East Grinstead 1572; Tavistock 1589; Wigan 1593. Arundel and East Grinstead were both controlled by Thomas Heneage. Tavistock was controlled by Ambrose Dudley, brother of the earl of Leicester and a friend of Thomas Heneage. Wigan was controlled by Thomas Heneage as chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Heneage's father had been auditor of the Duchy of Lancaster. His brother was quite influential, and was closely associated first with the earl of Leicester and later with the Cecils.
Joseph Holland ?dates. Educated Oxford; Inner Temple 1571.
Thomas Lake 1561-1630, of Southampton, Westminster and Canons, Middlesex. Honorary M.A. Oxford. Secretary to Sir Francis Walsingham by 1586; clerk of the Signet 1589-1616; Latin secretary 1596-1619; joint Keeper of the records at Whitehall by 1597; clerk of York castle and Yorkshire county courts from 1599; Privy Councillor 1614; Secretary of State 1616-1619. J.P. Middlesex 1608 (and custos rotulorum). M.P. Malmesbury 1593; New Romney 1601; Dunheved (Launceston) 1604; Middlesex 1614; Wootton Bassett 1626. Lake received his Malmesbury seat through Sir Henry Knyvet, who wanted to cultivate the favour of Sir William Cecil. In 1601 Lake was the nominee of Cecil's brother-in law, Lord Cobham. Lake married Mary, the daughter and coheir of Sir William Ryder, the Lord Mayor of London. Their daughter married William Cecil, Lord Roos. Lake was promoted by Walsingham, and became very closely associated with Robert Cecil. He worked intimately with both Elizabeth I and King James, and helped promote George Villiers to James' attention. Knighted 1603.
William Lambarde 1536-1601, of Lincoln's Inn and Westcombe, Kent. Educated Cambridge; Lincoln's Inn 1556; associate bencher 1579; bencherl597. Commissioner of sewers, Kent 1568; Q.C. 1584; deputy to Lord Burghley at the Alienations Office 1589; Master in Chancery extraordinary 1592; Master in ordinary 1597; deputy Keeper of the rolls in Chancery 1597; Keeper of the records in the Tower 1601. J.P. Kent by 1579. M.P. Aldborough 1563. 104
Lambarde was admired and advanced by many, including Burghley, Puckering, Egerton, Lord Cobham, and Queen Elizabeth I. Major publications: Perambulation of Kent 1576; Eirenarcha 1581; Archion 1635.
Francis Leigh c.1579-c.1625, of Newnham Regis, Warwickshire. Educated Middle Temple 1597. Gentleman of the privy chamber to James I; Master of Requests 1614; Sherriff, Warwickshire 1618-1619. J.P. Warwickshire by 1621. M.P. Melcombe Regis and Weymouth 1597; Oxford 1601, 1604; Leicester 1614; Warwickshire 1621. Leigh owed his 1597 seat to his relative, the earl of Pembroke. His father-in -law, Sir Thomas Egerton, arranged the Oxford seat. Leigh was the son of Sir William Leigh and Frances, the daughter of Sir James Harington and the cousin of Mary Sidney. Thus Leigh was connected with the earl of Pembroke , Mary Sidney's husband, and also with the earl of Leicester and the earl of Essex. Leigh married Mary, daughter of Sir Thomas Egerton. Their son became the Royalist first earl of Chichester. KB 1603.
James Ley 1550-1629, of Lincoln's Inn and Westbury, Wiltshire. Educated Cambridge and Oxford; Lincoln's Inn 1577; bencher 1600; Lent reader 1602; governor 1609-1622. On the Council for the Marches of Wales 1603-C.1605; justice of Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire 1603-1604; justice of the King's bench in Ireland 1604-1608; commissioner of the great seal at Dublin 1605; commissioner for Ulster plantation 1608; attorney of the Court of Wards 1608; speaker of the House of Lords and joint commissioner of the great seal 1621; justice of the King's bench 1622-1624; Privy Councillor 1624; lord treasurer 1624-1628; high steward of Yarmouth 1625-1629; joint commissioner for coronation claims 1626; lord president of the council 1628; chief commissioner to treat with ambassadors from the States-General 1628. J.P. Witshire 1601. M.P. Westbury 1597, 1604; Bath 1614; Westbury 1621. The Westbury seats nearly always went to local gentry. Ley married three times, the third time to a relative of the Duke of Buckingham. He was also related to the family of rhe earl of Bath. Knighted 1603. Bart. 1619. Created earl of Marlborough 1626. 105
Arnold Oldesworth 1561-16? , of London and Bradley in Wotton, Gloucestershire. Educated Oxford; Lincoln's Inn 1580; associate bencher 1612. Clerk of the hanaper in Chancery by 1604; deputy governor of the Mines Royal by 1605; receiver of fines for the King's bench 1607. M.P. Tregony 1593; Cirencester 1604. Tregony was a borough seat controlled by the second earl of Bedford. Cirencester was controlled by the Crown by 1601. Oldesworth married the daughter of an Antwerp gentleman and died abroad. Their son became secretary to Lord Pembroke, and sided with the Parliament in the English civil war. From around 1595 Oldesworth was probably in the service of Anne, countess of Warwick and daughter of the second earl of Bedford.
William Patten fl. 1548-1580, of Stoke Newington. A judge of the Marshalsey after 1548; teller of receipt of the Queen's exchequer 1563; receiver general for the county of Yorkshire; customer of London outward. J.P. Middlesex. Patten was related to William Patten, alias Wayneflete, bishop of Winchester. He was involved with Walsingham in the farming of the Royal Mines. By 1575 he was reporting to Lord Burghley on matters relating to censorship, and had also been associated with Burghley in the 1548 expedition into Scotland.
Richard St. George d. 1635 or 1636. Educated Cambridge; Gray's Inn 1617. Herald: Berwick Poursuivant extraordinary 1602; Windsor herald 1602; Norroy king at arms 1603-1623; Clarenceux king at arms 1623-1635. Knighted 1616.
John Savile 1546-1607, of Bradley and Methley, Yorkshire. Educated Oxford; Middle Temple 1565; bencher and Autumn reader 1586. Commissioner for ecclesiastical causes in the diocese of Durham 1576-1577; commissioner for the subsidy in the West Riding 1582; justice of oyer and terminer, northern circuit 1598; justice of assize, northern circuit 1598; baron of the exchequer 1598; member of the northern high commission (an arm of the Council in the North) 1599; commissioner of the chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster 1599; member of the Council of the North 1599-1606; on ecclesiastical commissions for the province of York 1603. J.P. Cumberland, Westmoreland, Northumberland 1601. M.P. Newton 1572. William Fleetwood was steward of this borough and controlled the nomination. 106
Savile was closely associated with Fleetwood and with other prominent Protestants. He was recommended by Sir Thomas Egerton in 1598 for a post on the northern circuit. Knighted 1603.
Henry Spelman c. 1564-1641, of Congham and Hunstanton, Norfolk. Educated Cambridge; Lincoln's Inn 1586. High sherriff of Norfolk 1604-1606; commissioner for Irish properties for James I 1617; member of council for New England 1620-1635; member of council for Virginia 1623; treasurer of the company for Guiana 1627. J.P. Norfolk 1598. M.P. Castle Rising 1593, 1597; Worcester 1625. Spelman's Castle Rising seat was obtained through the influence of the Lestrange family. Spelman married Eleanor Lestrange, a Norfolk heiress. Knighted 1604. Major publications: De Non Temerandis Ecclesiis 1613; Anglo-Brit. Archaeologus 1626
John Stow 1525-1605, of London. Joined the Merchant Taylors' Company in 1547, and continued to work as a tailor throughout his life. Literary patron was Archbishop Parker. Also encouraged by Robert Dudley (later earl of Leicester) 1562; and by Archbishop Whitgift. Possibly protected by Lord Burleigh. Major publications: The Chronicles of England 1580; A Survey of London 1598.
James Strangeman 1558-1595. Educated Cambridge.
Thomas Talbot ?dates. Educated Cambridge; Gray's Inn 1555. Clerk of the records in the Tower by 1580. [Justice of the West Riding by 1591; commissioner for the musters of Lancaster 1596].
Francis Tate 1560-1616, of Delapre, Northamptonshire. Educated Oxford; Middle Temple 1579; Lent reader 1608; treasurer 1615. Counsel to Northampton ?-1602; justice of assize, Brecknockshire circuit 1604; justice itinerant South Wales c.1607. J.P. Brecknockshire, Glamorganshire, Radnorshire 1604. M.P. Northampton 1601; Shrewsbury 1604. Tate was returned in 1601 as the son of a freeman resident near the town, and was elected by the mayor and burgesses. Lord Zouch, President of the Council in the Marches of Wales, and Tate's brother's father-in-law, nominated him for the Shrewsbury seat. This appointment went against the Shrewsbury borough's stated rule of electing only burgesses resident there or in the suburbs. 107
Francis Thynne 1545-1608, of Clerkenwell Green. Educated Oxford; Lincoln's Inn 1561. Herald: Blanche Lyon Poursulvant 1601; Lancaster Herald 1602. Clerk of the Signet some time before 1591. Thynne's father had been Master of the Household to Henry VIII, and was the builder of Longleat. Thynne was a friend of Sir Thomas Egerton, whom he had met at Lincoln's Inn, and was also associated with Sir William Cecil, Lord Burghley, and his son Robert, whom he accompanied to France in 1598. Henry Howard employed Thynne in 1605 to write on the office of herald.
Hayward Townshend c.l577-c,1603, of Lincoln's Inn, London. Educated Oxford; Lincoln's Inn 1594. M.P. Bishop's Castle 1597, 1601. Bishop's Castle was a borough seat and Townshend's father was legal counsel for the town. Townshend was related to Francis Bacon.
Robert Weston ?dates. Possibly a member of the Middle Temple. James Whitlocke 1570-1632. Educated Oxford; Middle Temple 1592; bencher 1618-1619; reader 1619. Steward of St. John's College estates 1601; recorder of Woodstock 1606; steward and counsel for Eton College 1609; steward of Westminster College estates; chief justice of Wales and Chester 1620; Puisnes Judge of the King's bench 1624. J.P. Buckinghamshire 1617; Oxford 1618. M.P. Woodstock 1620. Whitlocke was father of Bulstrode Whitelocke, Cromwell's Lord Keeper. Knighted 1620.
George Wiseman d.1615. Educated Cambridge; Gray's Inn 1564.