Home / Topics / Sir Henry Savile junior, Sonning, Crown-land sales, Sherborne, and the Essex nullity, August 1613

Sir Henry Savile junior, Sonning, Crown-land sales, Sherborne, and the Essex nullity, August 1613

Mixed Needs Review evidence packet

Sir Henry Savile junior, Sonning, Crown-land sales, and the Essex nullity

Why this letter matters

Sir Henry Savile junior's letter to Sir Henry Neville of 26 August 1613 joins three subjects that are usually studied separately:

  1. Neville's attempt to secure the royal manor of Sonning;
  2. the mechanics and political hazards of Jacobean Crown-land sales; and
  3. immediate court intelligence about the nullity suit between Frances Howard

    4. and Robert Devereux, third Earl of Essex.

The surviving letter is physically incomplete, but its opening and closing leaves are unusually dense. Savile tells Neville when the Lord Chancellor can be approached, explains a changed sales scheme, compares Sonning with large northern and western property transactions, narrates the displacement of the Phelips interest in Sherborne by Lord Rochester, and reports a current rumor that Essex and Henry Howard might end the controversy before it generated prolonged debate among the Devynes & Civilyans.

The Royal Berkshire Archives catalogue places the item in D/EN/F44/1-4 and describes it as a letter from Sir Henry Savile junior concerning the proposed Sonning purchase and rumors connected with the Essex annulment. The address, docket, signature, dateline and surviving text independently match that record.

The manuscript witness and its limits

The controlled local witness consists of four photographs:

The opening leaf stops with Contractors who had—. The final leaf begins in the middle of another sentence. At least one middle leaf was not included in the photographic set. The gap is therefore material, not merely a faded passage, and no narrative continuity can safely be reconstructed across it.

The secure address is:

To my honorable kynsman

& frende S^r Henry

Nevill knight at his

house at Billingbeare.

The contemporary docket reads:

from S^r H: Savile Jun:^r

The final leaf closes:

y^r most affectionate kynsman

to be commanded

H: Savile

and is dated:

Strand 26 Aug: 1613.

Which Sir Henry Savile?

The sender is Sir Henry Savile of Methley, the son of Sir John Savile and nephew of Sir Henry Savile, the scholar, Warden of Merton and Provost of Eton. The docket's Jun:r is a contemporary disambiguator, not a modern editorial label.

John Chamberlain recorded the same naming problem in a letter of 6 November 1611. The elder Savile complained that Chamberlain had delivered him a letter that “was meant to his nephew.” Norman McClure identifies the nephew as Sir Henry Savile, son of Sir John Savile. The anecdote shows that contemporaries could confuse the two knighted Henry Saviles unless junior, place, or relationship was supplied.

There is a particularly close comparison in the Beaumont Papers. A letter written from Methley on 3 August 1613, twenty-three days before the Neville letter, is printed as a letter from Sir Henry Savile of Methley. It is signed H. Savile and addressed to Sir Richard Beaumont as Your very lovinge cosen. That witness confirms the younger Savile's location, signature form and kinship idiom in the same month. The British Library's description of Add MS 38599 also identifies a 1592 survey of Methley when the manor belonged to Henry, later Sir Henry Savile.

Savile calls both Beaumont and Neville cosen or kynsman, but that conventional language does not by itself define a precise degree of blood relationship. The exact Savile–Neville route needs a separate pedigree and probate check.

Neville's access to the Lord Chancellor

The opening is practical intelligence directed at the timing of Neville's suit:

Because I perceyved by y^r letter y^r purpose to come

to M^r Chauncellor about Sonninge, I thought fitt to lett

you understand, y^t upon fryday beinge to morrowe,

hee goeth to my Lo: Chamberlayne att Audleyende

Savile continues that the Chancellor will remain first at Audley End and then at his own Hertfordshire house, and will not return to London until Tuesday night. The title and place combination identifies the Lord Chamberlain as Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk. English Heritage records Suffolk's appointment as Lord Chamberlain in 1603 and dates his vast rebuilding of Audley End to about 1605–14. The Chancellor was Thomas Egerton, Lord Ellesmere; his Hertfordshire house was Ashridge, acquired in 1604.

The passage shows the practical value of Savile's court intelligence. Neville was not simply told whom to petition. He was warned of the officeholder's route and likely return date so that a journey or audience could be timed efficiently. It also places the Lord Chancellor at the house of Frances Howard's father while the nullity case involving Frances was in progress. The letter does not say the visit concerned the nullity, and no such purpose should be inferred; the coincidence nevertheless explains why Audley End, Sonning business and Howard court news could occupy the same intelligence letter.

A changed Crown-land sales scheme

Savile says the intended course of ye sales will not proceed as formerly planned. One block is reserved to contractors, while another shalbe solde by parcells. He discusses expected returns in years' purchase and later refers to western lands at 40tie yeares purchase.

Years' purchase converts annual income into a capital price. A manor yielding £100 annually at forty years' purchase would be priced at £4,000. Savile's repeated use of this language shows that he and Neville were discussing Crown land as valued income streams, not merely as hereditary seats. His report combines three kinds of information:

Two readings in this numerical section remain difficult in the photograph: the first contractor amount and the syntax of a line mentioning sixty and eighty years' purchase. They should be checked against a new archive image before being used in calculations. The secure structural point is the shift from a single contractor arrangement to mixed contractor and parcel sales.

Why Sonning might now become available

Savile immediately translates the changed policy into an opening for Neville:

Nowe will there be opportunitie for Sonninge

yf ytt lye not too neare Wyndsor.

This sentence explains both hope and obstacle. Sonning's availability depended on the revised sales structure; its proximity to a royal residence might remove it from the ordinary sale process. The concern belongs beside the related Sonning correspondence in which lands are excluded because they are mortgaged, surveyed, near royal houses, or subject to other legal and administrative constraints.

The letter therefore deepens the Sonning topic beyond the fact that Neville wanted the manor. It shows him monitoring the design of a Crown disposal, testing geographic exclusions, comparing valuations, and timing access to the Lord Chancellor. Sonning was one item inside a national process of raising money from royal property.

Raby, Brancepeth and Barnard Castle: “a little kingdome”

Savile reports that the contractors were expected to take together:

Rabye, Brancepeth

& Barney Castle w^ch make a little kingdome where

they lye

The phrase a little kingdome captures the scale and geographic concentration of the northern package. Raby, Brancepeth and Barnard Castle were not random isolated properties; together they formed a formidable territorial cluster in County Durham and the Tees country. Savile adds that the loss of Latymer already threatened the contractors, but the precise Latimer property and the transactional sequence still need identification.

This northern comparison matters for Neville's Sonning project. Savile thought across packages of royal estates: a concentrated northern block, western manors, Sherborne, Westminster lands and a Berkshire manor near Windsor. The same letter moves between them because the sale mechanism and its political risks were shared.

Sherborne: survey, purchase, and displacement by favor

The most vivid property narrative concerns Sherborne:

The master

of y^e Rolles had in effect agreed w^th the Lords for

y^e purchase of Sherborne in fee, & puttinge Dackombe

in trust for y^e returne of a survey

In 1613 the Master of the Rolls was Sir Edward Phelips. Savile says that Dackombe, entrusted with the survey return, brought Lord Rochester to see Sherborne during a progress. Rochester liked the property. Sir Robert Phelips, described as keeper, had an interest that Rochester sought to acquire, and the intervention threw the master into a terrible chafe.

The probable Dackombe is John Dackombe, a Dorset lawyer and official who became Master of Requests in 1613. The identification fits name, date, place and the survey/patent business, but the underlying Sherborne instrument must still be found before the role is treated as fully closed.

Later historical accounts report that Sir Robert Phelips tried to obtain a royal grant of Sherborne, that a draft reached the Crown lawyers, and that the estate was instead granted to Carr. Savile's letter is much more valuable than a retrospective anecdote for the immediate sequence: near agreement, a survey in trusted hands, Rochester's viewing, sudden personal liking, attempted purchase of the keeper's interest, anger, and an effort by the son to provide satisfaction.

The episode illustrates why valuation and legal preparation did not control a Jacobean Crown-land transaction by themselves. Access to the royal favorite could reconfigure an apparently advanced purchase.

“Devynes & Civilyans”: the precise nullity reading

The final leaf reports:

Here ys no newes but of a flyinge

rumor y^t my Lo: of Essex & Henry Howard are likely

to make an ende of all questions y^t might otherwise give

occasion of longe dispute to y^e Devynes & Civilyans.

Henry Howard here is Frances Howard's brother, not Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton. The pairing with Essex and the nullity questions makes that identity clear. Savile marks the report as a flyinge rumor, preserving its uncertain status.

The final nouns are crucial. Devynes & Civilyans means theologians and civil lawyers. Early Stuart Libels describes the nullity commission as a body of churchmen and lawyers. The surviving exchange between Archbishop George Abbot and King James shows why both forms of expertise were engaged: scriptural and patristic arguments, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, civil consequences for property and inheritance, procedural form, and the legal theory of marriage all intersected.

The public chronology sharpens Savile's news value:

Savile's report falls in the unsettled interval, not after the result was known. It is evidence that Neville received rapid, discriminating court news about who might settle the dispute and which professional bodies would otherwise prolong it.

Court news and property intelligence are one system

The letter's apparent variety is itself evidence. Sonning, Audley End, northern castles, western lands, Sherborne, Rochester and the Essex nullity all arrive through one correspondent because property disposal and court politics were interdependent. The Lord Chancellor's movements affected access. The Lord Chamberlain's household stood at the center of the nullity. The king's favorite could displace an advanced land purchase. Surveyors, keepers, contractors, lawyers and aristocratic relatives mediated the market.

For Neville biography, the document shows a man outside formal court office who still received actionable intelligence about:

The phrase my last advertisemts also establishes continuity. Savile had been sending Neville earlier updates. The related letter dated 24 August 1613, two days before this one, should be read as part of the same short intelligence run, not as an isolated document.

Research program opened by the letter

1. Recover the missing leaf

The first priority is a new RBA image order for every leaf filed as D/EN/F44/3, including versos, wrappers and any loose or displaced middle sheet. The surviving syntax proves that the local photograph set is incomplete.

2. Reconstruct the Crown-sale commission

Search patent rolls, Signet and Privy Seal material, Exchequer particulars, Crown-land surveys and State Papers for the sales scheme in force in August 1613. Names of contractors and the reserved Westminster lands should permit the northern and western comparisons to be reconstructed.

3. Trace the Sherborne transaction

Search for the Phelips agreement, Dackombe survey return, Rochester's viewing, keeper's interest, and draft patent. This may produce a dated paper trail against which Savile's immediate report can be tested line by line.

4. The completed 24/26 August Savile sequence

The 24 August letter in D/EN/F6/1/17 has now been collated directly across both local photographic captures. The two sets are duplicate photographs of one physical witness, and the letter is structurally complete across two written pages. Torn paper still removes parts of the Sonning valuation and the warrant/imprest sentence.

The earlier letter shows why Sonning was precarious. Savile had read the sales instructions under the Attorney's hand and ready for the press. They excluded lands near royal houses of accesse, naming Richmond, Windsor and Greenwich. Savile therefore expected Sonning's proximity to Windsor to exempt it:

as Richmond Wyndsor Greenwich, w^ch last clause I take y^t

will exempte Sonninge from sale.

It also establishes Rochester's conflict of interest. Annual land value of £2,000 was to be sold at forty-five years' purchase. Rochester was said to have first choice of £1,000 annual value after lending £20,000 and paying another £14,000. Savile warned that Neville's effort to divert the bulk sale would obstruct:

y^e best purchase y^t ever he will make.

This turns the later Sherborne story into part of a continuous argument. Rochester was not merely a court contact who might help Neville. He was an active and financially interested participant in Crown-land acquisition. The 24 August letter advises Neville that Rochester is a poor instrument for challenging a sale from which Rochester expects to profit; the 26 August letter then shows Rochester displacing an advanced Phelips purchase at Sherborne after viewing and liking the property.

The two letters also form a tight nullity-news sequence. On 24 August Savile reports packets moving between court, Greenwich, and Lady Frances, and lists the intended commission as the metropolitan, the bishops of London, Ely, Winchester, Lichfield and Rochester, and two chancellors. On 26 August he reports the flyinge rumor that Essex and Henry Howard might end questions that would otherwise occupy the Devynes & Civilyans. The first letter describes the machinery in motion; the second reports a possible settlement.

Finally, the 24 August letter adds two independent pieces of political intelligence:

The Morton sentence opens a separate Wotton–Neville research route and is developed in the AI Topic “Albertus Morton as proposed secretary to Henry Neville and agent for Savoy, 1613.”

5. Harden the kinship network

The address honorable kynsman & frende deserves genealogical investigation, but not guesswork. Savile and Neville pedigrees, marriage settlements, wills and executor networks should be checked for the exact connection.

Source and claim audit

Source-Control Position

The promoted manuscript quotations are limited to words checked directly on the ten local photographs covering the two letters, with the three 0xxx views treated as duplicate captures rather than independent witnesses. The RBA catalogue controls the file identities; the human Chamberlain and Beaumont Papers editions control which younger Sir Henry Savile is meant; Smith's Wotton edition controls Albertus Morton's diplomatic career; and public scholarly editions control the Essex-nullity chronology and professional setting. Missing-leaf content, torn-paper content, difficult numbers and exact kinship remain outside the promoted claims.

Structured Quoted Source Passages

The principal controlled passages are reproduced and interpreted above under “Neville's access to the Lord Chancellor,” “Why Sonning might now become available,” “Raby, Brancepeth and Barnard Castle,” “Sherborne,” and “Devynes & Civilyans.” Each quotation retains the manuscript's line breaks.

Citations

Public catalogue, edition and institutional links are supplied beside the claims they control. The central public witnesses are the RBA F44 and F6/1 catalogues, the Internet Archive scan of the Beaumont Papers, the British Library catalogues, English Heritage, National Trust, Early Stuart Libels, MPESE, the Folger finding aid, and the public Wotton editions.

Notes on Access

The local photographs are research images and are linked only from the canonical BRO transcription. Public readers can use the RBA catalogue and the linked public editions. A complete diplomatic transcription cannot be produced until the missing middle leaf or leaves are retrieved from the archive.