• As an interim matter I would say this is going splendidly. When you have finished the first draft you might want to do an overall edit for "linearity" of presentation, but I think your use of sub heads is effective in keeping you organized as you write. The attachments are well-chosen: they can be linked directly to your text, which makes them even more accessible for the reader.

• When you are done and ready for a further evaluation, please remove your "take" above, and these notes of mine, so I can see that you consider it finished. Thanks.

When Mary died in 1558 and Elizabeth become queen, Katherine returned to England. Herenden, however, did not stick to the plan and refused to convey the land back. Katherine's husband, Richard Bartie, sued Herenden in Chancery for the return of the lands.

Bartie and the Duchess were allowed to prove that the original conveyance had included a secret use, being to the use of the Duchess and Richard Bartie. That is, the conveyance had been of the form "to A for the use of A for the use of B". The court found that this second use was both proved and legally effective, and ordered Herenden to convey the land back to the Duchess.

Questions raised by the case

Bartie v Herenden is in some respects a textbook answer to the question of how political refugees protected their property. In other respects, however, the case is decidedly odd. The questions that Bartie v Herenden prompted me to try to answer are:

1. How does the case fit into the historical development of the use upon a use? 2. Would other political refugees have been likely to enter into similar arrangements with friends left behind in England? 3. What was the nature of the threat that Mary might take the Duchess's lands? That is, what power did Mary have to do this? 4. Why did Herenden fail to convey the land back to the Duchess upon her return?

How does _ Bartie v Herenden_ fit into the historical development of the use upon a use?

Would other political refugees have been likely to enter into similar arrangements with friends left behind in England?

Trying to find records of similar arrangements made by other refugees would likely be a futile exercise, even if it were possible to access the relevant records.

[more to follow. Have to go out now]

The questions I'm thinking about now are:

1. Why was the Duchess worried that her lands would be confiscated? What power did Mary have to do that? 2. Why did the "use upon a use" structure work? From the Baker LQR note (attached in PDF), it seems that similar structures had been declared void. Furthermore, the second use in this case was a secret one. How could the Duchess have proved anything? 3. The Duchess of Suffolk was not the only political refugee to flee England. What sort of arrangements did the rest of them make? 4. If the facts reported in Bartie v Herenden are correct, what on earth was William Herenden thinking when he refused to transfer the land back to the Duchess? Surely he didn't think he could get away with it - once Elizabeth became queen, people like the Katherine Willoughby were very much in favor. It just seems completely insane to refuse to transfer the land back.

Also when I started looking at this I got a bit sidetracked by the personality of Katherine Willoughby herself - it sounds like she was pretty awesome. Very tulmultuous life though - her two sons died within hours of each other of "the sweating sickness" (whatever that is), then all the religious persecution. And her second marriage was to a commoner, which must have caused a few ripples at the time. So I've ended up attaching more resources about Katherine Willoughby herself than about her legal arrangements. More legal stuff to come though.

Political Refugees' Property