The EARL of NORTHAMPTON and the "Act of Absentees." [Apparently a proposition to...

Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk, being seized of sundry lands in Leinster, which descended to him from his ancestors, was dispossessed by an Act of Parliament passed in Ireland, 28 Hen. VIII., named "The Act of Absentees," by which all his lands and those of the Earl of Shrewsbury, Lord Bartley, and others were given to the Crown, because he and his said compartners were absent and demeurant in the realm of England; "and seeing no defence to maintain and preserve their dominions in Ireland, but permitted in the rebellion of Th. Fitz Gerald, son and heir to Gerald, Earl of Kildare attainted, and his accomplices to enter into the possessions for want of defence, for six months (for the rebellion continued no longer), in which time the King was fain to send an army royal into Ireland to recover the said lands, and for the overthrowing of the said Thomas and his accomplices, and the adopting of the said possessions from the said rebels." Notwithstanding this the Earl of Shrewsbury had lands in exchange there for those in Ireland taken from him. Most of the forfeited possessions passed from the Crown to private persons, to some in fee simple, to others in fee tail, to others in fee farms, and otherwise, so that the Crown obtains little revenue from them. It is therefore requisite that the Earl of Northampton should beg all those possessions of his predecessors, forfeited by the said Act, by new grant from the King to be confirmed by Parliament. The said possessions are of the yearly value of 1,000l., and are held by private persons for small considerations or none at all. If they be resumed the tenants cannot be greatly indemnified, considering what commodities they have gained since the time of their grants. Upon obtaining them, the Earl may acquire sundry forts and places, which it is unsafe to leave in the hands of the present possessors. If the Earl should be pleased hereafter to exchange them for possessions in England, the Crown would gain 1,000l. a year at least in rent. The Earl of Shrewsbury had that exchange because his estates in England were of far greater value than those in Ireland, and it was not requisite he should reside upon his lands in Ireland. Another cause was that the rebellion continued so short a time that he had no time to send defence to his possessions, as the rebels were soon suppressed by the King's forces. This is the Duke of Norfolk's case also. Sir Garrate Almere, Chief Justice of the King's Bench in Ireland, was "the cause of this Act, in spleen to the Earl of Shrewsbury who was his mortal enemy. If his Lordship (Northampton) affect this or purchases in Ireland he shall be instructed in matters of great moment both of that nature and others, that concern the avayle of the Crown.

II. "A Breviate of the Conquest of Ireland." [This a copy of MS 621,p. 92 as far as the end of the sixth paragraph.]

In a hand of the reign of Eliz. or James I.