| Notes |
- Henry of Acton, elder son of Robert of Acton--Henry Bures of ActonHall, Esquire, was born in 1502. He succeeded his father as lord of themanors of Acton, Moryeves, Foxherd and Brokehall. The manors of Roydon and Whersted in Suffolk were given to him and "the heirs of his body" in1517 by Sir James Hulbert and William Frost, as has already been said. Itis probable that this gift was the result of the wish of the late EarlofOrmond, (See note 1) expressed before his death in 1515. Henry Bures also possessed in the parish of Roydon the manor of Martyns and Sulves, which presumably reached him through the Sampsons.
(Note 1) Amongst the Harleian MSS. there is a receipt dated 28 Nov.1516for œ30 from Sir William Waldegrave being a year's rent for the Manors ofRoydon and Whersted to John FitzJames, one of the executors of the willofThomas, late Earl of Ormond.
Henry Bures married Anne, elder daughter of George Waldegrave of Smallbridge, Bures St. Mary's, Suffolk, Esquire, and left issue; Jane, Bridget, Anne and Mary. He died 5 July 1528 and was buried in the Lady Chapel at Acton, where there is a brass to his memory. Anne, thewidow, married, Sir Clement Heigham of Barrow, Suffolk, Knight, Lord ChiefBaron of the Exchequer, by whom she had issue. He died 9 March 1571; shedied 24 April 1590, and lies buried at Thornage, Norfolk, where there isabrass to her memory.
Henry Bures in his will states his wish that the manor of Roydonshould pass to his heirs male, and on default of such to the heirs male ofhis brother Robert, and for default of such to "the Heires of the bodyofme." The terms of the entail of Roydon were quite different, thesuccessionbeing strictly limited "to the heirs of his body," i.e. Henry Bures' body,andit was this entail which was followed throughout in the inq. p.m. Whateverthe reasons were for breaking the entail of Acton, the practical resultsasseen in the next generation, Brokehall. The provisions of this will weresetaside when the estate came to be settled.
The manor of Acton had been conveyed in 1507 to Robert Bures (fatherof Henry) and "to the heirs male of his body." The inq. p.m. on theestateof Robert Bures in 1525 states that the manor of Acton was "settled totheuse of Henry Bures, son and heir of the said Robert, and the heirs ofhisbody, failing these to the use of Robert Bures brother of the said Henryandthe heirs of his body," etc.... The inquisition contradicts the deedofconveyance. The manor was entailed in 1507 upon the "heirs male" of RobertBures,which meant that Robert Bures the second son of Robert Bures should have succeeded upon the death of his elder brother Henry without maleissue.We know that he did not so succeed, that on the contrary the manor passedto the "heirs" of Robert of Acton and not to the "heirs male." Theentailwas broken. At this time "no subject could dispose of lands or theirtenureby will. Lands were all vested in the Crown and could be alienated (i.e., soldor bequeathed) only by fine to the King for permission or by the findingofan inq. p.m. as to how by a feudal law they passed at death" (ThomasM.Blagg, in a letter to the writer).(See note 2)
(Note 2) It is to be inferred from the inq. p.m. on the estate ofRobertBures that all his lands in Suffolk except his remainder interest inMoryevesmanor had been settled to the uses of his will. This was a device to enablethe disposition of lands by will. Robert could not however bysettlementbreak the entail of Acton manor. This entail however was not, so far astherecord shows, brought to the attention of the inquisitors. Henry, Robert'sson,was then a young man of 23 years and doubtless hoped to have a son.Robert, his brother, who was next heir to Henry, was a youth of 17 years. Itwasfor him or his guardian to prove the entail. On the evidence before the inquisitors their finding was right. The same is true for like reasonsofthe Suffolk inq. p.m. on the estate of Henry Bures. [Ed.]
|
1502 - 1528 (26 years)
