(Record
VOL XXVII.
PROCEEDINGS
IN THE COURT OF THE
STAR CHAMBER
IN THE REIGNS OF
HENRY VII. AND HENRY VIII.
EDITED BY
PRINTED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
LONDON :
HARRISON AND SONS, PRINTERS IN ORDINARY TO HIS MAJESTY, ST. MARTIN'S LANE.
(Hecot*
THE volume now issued to the subscribers breaks fresh ground in the national records. The Star Chamber, or rather the jurisdiction exercised in the Camera stellata, is a striking instance of the danger incurred in raising up a fresh tribunal instead of strengthening the older courts of law. This novelty, originally intended to reach offenders too great for judges of assize, so effectually accomplished its purpose that all checks on the despotic policy of the Crown were destroyed, and the power of the Star Chamber was used to threaten the liberties of England, and eventually provoked the Great Rebellion.
Some of the results of this explosion will be found in the volume for the current year, which is now well advanced for the printers. It contains the records of the County as related in the minute book of the Quarter Sessions from October, 1646, to January, 1655-6. The next volume containing the period 1656- 1666 is unfortunately lost ; but the rolls of Quarter Sessions papers have been calendared down to 1660, to continue our local history to the Restoration. I venture to think that the contents will be found not less interesting than those of the two preceding volumes.
For 1913, the Council hope to continue the series of Episcopal records with the issue of the registers of Bishops Bubwith and Stafford. Together they cover the period 1408-1443, and should throw light on the subject of the spread of Lollardy in the diocese.
v
The subscription list remains stationary : the latest name to be added is that of the Public Library, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A., which brings the number of libraries and Societies subscribing in the New World up to ten.
E. H. BATES HARBIN.
o o « 6
6 w
H
U
O
c/) Q
O
vO N N \ft N « •* w N O O N
H
•43 H a
.2 - -
-a
I JS
P!^
<? a
i> qj
II
S?
. PQ
W "S Q S
o h
81
|
O |
E ^ |
0 C/} |
SX u « _. U en « |
|
|
CO |
||||
|
UJ |
^ tn O . N O |
0 u- |
o M |
N « II |
|
r/ |
y - ; ; |
00 |
i— i -t |
ro °0 11 |
|
5 |
' ^ |
|||
|
H |
^ ; |
1 |
||
|
UJ |
W : |
. |
||
|
en |
.1 |
|||
|
^ : |
2 ^ |
|||
|
\*\ |
& |
« g |
||
|
tU |
1 S |
I1 |
||
|
5 |
2* c x c |
> H - - •> c |
4 4 h |
CO |
5 O
(gecort*
Councif.
SIR C. E. H. CHADWYCK-HEALEY, K.C.B., K.C.
EMANUEL GREEN, ESQ., F.S.A.
THE RIGHT HON. H. HOBHOUSE, P.C.
REV, CANON T. SCOTT HOLMES, D.D.
SIR J. F. F. HORNER, K.C.V.O.
REV. W. HUNT, D.LITT.
SIR H. C. MAXVVELL-LYTE, M.A., K.C.B.
A. F. SOMERVILLE, ESQ.
REV. F. W. WEAVER, M.A., F.S.A.
REV. E. H. BATES HARBIN, M.A. (HON. SECRETARY).
^^^^^•^^\^N^N^\^>X*
VOLUMES ALREADY ISSUED.
VOL.
I. 1887. Bishop Drokensford's Register, 1309-1329. BISHOP
HOBHOUSE. II. 1888. Somerset Chantries. E. GREEN, Esq., F.S.A.
III. 1889. Kirby's Quest, &c., Somerset. F. H. DICKINSON, Esq.
IV. 1890. Prae-Reformation Churchwardens' Accounts.
BISHOP HOBHOUSE.
V. 1891. Custumaria of Glastonbury Abbey, XHIth
Century. C. I. ELTON, Q.C.
VI. 1892. Pedes Finium, I, 1196-1307. E. GRKEN, Esq., F.S.A. VII. 1893. Two Chartularies of Bath Priory. REV. W.
HUNT, M.A. VIII. 1894. Bruton and Montacute Cartularies. SIR H. C.
MAXVVELL-LYTE, K.C.B., and CANON HOLMKS, M.A. IX— X. 1895-6. Bishop Ralph of Shrewsbury's Register,
1329-1363. 2 vols. CANON HOLMES, M.A. XL 1897. Somersetshire Pleas, XHIth Century. C. E. H. CHADWYCK-HEALEY, K.C.
XIL 1898. Pedes Finium, II, 1308-1346. E. GREEN, Esq., 1 .s A.
b
VOL.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII. XVIII.
1899.
)>
1900. 1901. 1902.
|
XIX. |
1903. |
|
XX. |
1904. |
|
XXI. |
1905. |
|
XXII. XXIII. |
1906. 1907. |
|
XXIV. |
1908. |
|
XXV. |
1909. |
|
XXVI. |
1910, |
|
XXVII. |
1911. |
Registers of Bishop Giffard, 1265-6, and Bishop Bowett, 1401-7. CANON HOLMES, M.A.
Cartularies of Muchelney and Athelney Abbeys. REV. E. H. BATES, M.A.
Gerard's Survey of Somerset, 1633. REV. E. H. BATES, M.A.
Somerset Wills, XlVth and XVth Centuries. REV. F. W. WEAVER, M.A., F.S.A.
Pedes Finium, III, 1347-1399. E. GREEN, Esq., F.S.A.
Hopton's Narrative of the Civil War. C. E. H. CHADWYCK-HEALEY, K.C.
Somerset Wills, 1501-1530. REV. F. W. WEAVER, M.A., F.S.A.
Certificate of Musters in the County of Somerset : Temp. Eliz. A.D. 1569. E. GREEN, Esq., F.S.A.
Somerset Wills, 1531-1558. REV. F. W. WEAVER, M.A., F.S.A.
Pedes Finium, IV, 1399-1485. E. GREEN, Esq., F.S.A.
Quarter Sessions Records, Temp. James I. REV. E. H. BATES, M.A.
Quarter Sessions Records, Temp. Charles I. REV.
E. H. BATES HARBIN, M.A.
Cartulary of Mynchin Buckland Priory. REV.
F. W. WEAVER, M.A., F.S.A.
A Feodary of Glastonbury Abbey. REV. F. W. WEAVER, M.A., F.S.A.
Star Chamber Proceedings, Hen. VII. and VIII.
Miss G. BRADFORD.
IN PREPARATION.
Quarter Sessions Records, Temp. Commonwealth. REGIS- TERS OF BISHOP BUBWITH, 1408-1425, AND BlSHOP
STAFFORD, 1425-1443.
Most of the volumes can still be obtained. For list and price apply to the
Secretary.
of
ANTIQUARIES, THE SOCIETY OF, Burlington House, W.
BADCOCK, H. J., Broadlands, Haines Hill, Taunton.
BAILWARD, T. H. M., Horsington, Templecombe.
BAKER, E. E., F.S.A., The Glebe House, Weston-super-Mare.
BALTIMORE, U.S.A., PEABODY INSTITUTE, care of E. G. Allen and Son,
14, Grape St., Shaftesbury Avenue W.C. BATH CORPORATION, Guildhall, Bath. BATTEN, H. B., Aldon, Yeovil. BENNETT, MRS., 2, Bradmore Road, Oxford. BLAKE, W. F., Bridge House, South Petherton. BODLEIAN LIBRARY, THE, Oxford. BOODLE, R. W., 7, Pershore Road, Birmingham.
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY, U.S.A., c/o B. Quaritch, n, Grafton Street, \\'. BRISTOL CENTRAL PUBLIC LIBRARY, Deanery Road, Bristol. BRITISH MUSEUM LIBRARY, care of Dulau and Co., 37, Soho Square, \V. BROADMEAD, W. B., Enmore Park, Bridgwater. BURTON, RIGHT REV. DR., Bishop's House, Clifton, Bristol. BUSH, T. S., 20, Camden Crescent, Bath.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, Cambridge.
xii IU$t of Jhlftfttfttt*.
CHADWYCK-HEALEY, SIR C. E. H., K.C.B., K.C., Wyphurst, Cranleigh,
Surrey. CHICAGO, NEWBERRY LIBRARY, care of Messrs. Stevens and Brown,
4, Trafalgar Square, W.C. CHURCH, REV. CANON, Wells, Somerset. CLARK, W. S., Street, Glastonbury. COLES, REV. V. S. S., 19, Fore Street, Seaton. COMMANS, J. E., 1 1, Brock Street, Bath. CUFFE, T. W., Keenthorne, Fiddington, Bridgwater.
DANIEL, REV. PREBENDARY W. E., Horsington, Templecombe. DANIELL, H. J., Lieut. 2oth Punjabis, Jhelum, Punjab, India. DAY, H. C. A., Oriel Lodge, Clevedon. DUCKWORTH, REV. W. A., Orchardleigh Park, Frome. DYSON, J., Moorlands, Crewkerne.
ELLIS, REV. J. H., 29, Collingham Gardens, South Kensington, S.W. ELWES, THE VENERABLE E. L., Woolbeding Rectory, Midhurst. EVANS, C., Nailsea Court, Bristol. EXETER, Royal Albert Memorial Library.
FANE, THE RIGHT HON. SIR S. C. B. PONSONBY, G.C.B., Brympton, Yeovil.
FARWELL, THE HON. SIR G., 15, Southwell Gardens, London, S.W.
Fox, F. F., Yate House, Yate, R.S.O.
FOXCROFT, E. T. D., Hinton Charterhouse, Bath.
FRY, THE RIGHT HON. SIR EDWARD, Failand House, Bristol.
FRY, E. A., 227, Strand, W.C.
FRY, F. J., Cricket St. Thomas, Chard.
GIBBS, H. M., Barrow Court, Flax Bourton, R.S.O. GLASTONBURY ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY, THE, Glastonbury. GOOD, T., Castle Bailey, Bridgwater. GREEN, EMANUEL, F.S.A., 4, Albemarle Street, W.
Hist of &ubimbert. xiii
GUILDHALL LIBRARY, London, E.C.
HALLETT, T. G. P., Claverton Lodge, Bath.
HANCOCK, PREB. F., Priory, Dunster, Taunton.
HARBIN, REV. E. H. BATES, Newton Surmaville, Yeovil.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY LAW LIBRARY, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, THE, U.S.A., c/o Allen and Son, 14, Grape
Street, W.C.
HELLIER, REV. H. G., Binder Vicarage, Wells. HOBHOUSE, MRS. E., Wells.
HOBH.OUSE, RIGHT HON. H., P.C., Hadspen House, Castle Gary.
HODGKINSON, W. S., Glencot, Wells, Somerset.
HOLMES, REV. CANON T. S., East Liberty, Wells, Somerset.
HONNYWILL, REV. J. E. W., Leigh on Mendip Vicarage, Bath.
HORNER, SIR J. F. F., K.C.V.O., Mells Park, Frome.
HOSKYNS, H. W. P., North Perrott Manor, Crewkerne.
HUDSON, REV. C. H. B., Holy Rood, St. Giles, Oxford.
HUMPHREYS, A. L., 187, Piccadilly, W.
HUNT, REV. W., 24, Phillimore Gardens, Campden Hill, Kensington, W.
HURLE, J. COOKE, Brislington Hill, Bristol.
HYLTON, THE RIGHT HON. LORD, Ammerdown Park, Radstock.
JENKYNS, REV. J., Durley Rectory, Bishop's Waltham. KENNION, THE RIGHT REV. DR., BISHOP OF BATH AND WEI.I.S, The Palace, Wells, Somerset.
LINCOLN'S INN LIBRARY, London, W.C. LONDON LIBRARY, St. James's Square, S.W. LONG, COL. W., C.M.G., Newton House, Clevedon, Somerse LUTTRELL, CAPT. A. F., Court House, East Quantockshead, LYTE, SIR H. C. MAXWELL-, K.C.B., 3, Portman Square, U MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, c/o D. E. Cornish Limited, 16, St. Ann's Square, Manchester.
xiv ftfet of
MANCHESTER, John Rylands Library.
MARSHALL, J. C., Far Cross, Woore, Newcastle, Staffordshire.
NEW YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY, c/o B. F. Stevens, 4, Trafalgar Square, W.C. NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY, c/o B. F. Stevens, 4, Trafalgar Square, W.C.
PARIS, BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALS, Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton and Co.,
2, Orange Street, W.C. PAYNTER, J. B., Hendford Manor, Yeovil. PERCEVAL, C. H. S., Longwitton Hall, Morpeth. PHELIPS, W. R., Montacute House, Montacute, S.O.
PORTMAN, THE RIGHT HON. VISCOUNT, Bryanston House, Blandford, Dorset. PRICE, REV. S. J. M., D.D., Tintinhull, Martock, S.O. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, c/o Messrs. Wyman & Sons, Fetter Lane, London,
E.G.
REES-MOGG, W. W., Cholwell House, Temple Cloud, Bristol. ROBINSON, THE VERY REVEREND J. ARMITAGE, The Deanery, Wells. ROGERS, T. E., Yarlington House, Wincanton.
SHERBORNE SCHOOL LIBRARY, c/o F. Bennett, Parade, Sherborne. SKRINE, H. M., COLONEL, Warleigh Manor, Bath. SMITH, REV. PREBENDARY, The Grove, Langford, Bristol. SOMERSET ARCH. AND NAT. HIST. SOCIETY, Castle, Taunton. SOMERVILLE, A. F., Dinder, Wells, Somerset. STAWELL, COL. G. D., c/o Barnicott and Pearce, Taunton. STRACHIE, THE RIGHT HON. LORD, Sutton Court, Pensford, Bristol SULLY, T. N., Avalon House, Queen's Road, Weston-super-Mare. SWEET AND MAXWELL, 3, Chancery Lane, W.C.
THATCHER, A. A., Midsomer Norton, Bath. THATCHER, E. J., Manor House, Chew Magna, Bristol.
Utet of Subscribers. xv
THOMPSON, Miss, Montrose, Weston Park, Bath.
TITE, C, Stoneleigh, Taunton.
TORONTO UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, c/o Cazenove and Son, 26, Henrietta Street,
W.C. TREVILIAN, E. B. CELY, Midelney Place, Curry Rivel, Taunton.
VAUGHAN-PRYSE, MRS., Peachfield House, Great Malvern.
WAIN WRIGHT, C. R., Summerleaze, Shepton Mallet.
WASHINGTON, Library of Congress, c/o Allen and Son, 14, Grape Street, W.C.
WATSON, E. J., St. John's Arch, Bristol.
WEAVER, REV. F. W., F.S.A., Milton Vicarage, Evercreech, Bath.
WELLS, The Cathedral Library, Somerset.
WELLS, The Theological College Library, Somerset.
WERE, F., Walnut Tree House, Druid Stoke Avenue, Stoke Bishop, Bristol.
WICKHAM, REV. J. D. C., The Manor, Holcombe, Bath.
WISCONSIN, STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF, c/o Sotheran and Co., Strand,
W.C.
WORDSWORTH, THE RIGHT REV. J., LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY, The Palace, Salisbury.
YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, c/o Allen and Son, 14, Grape Street, W.C. [113-]
Content**
PAGE
REPORT v
BALANCE SHEET . vii
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ix
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS xi
LIST OF CASES xix
INTRODUCTION i
STAR CHAMBER CASES 38
SUBJECT INDEX 297
INDEX OF PERSONS AND PLACES 306
SOMERSET STAR CHAMBER
CASES.
1485-1547.
EDITED BY
GLADYS BRADFORD,
Fellow of Nevinham College, Cambridge.
LIST OF CASES.
NOTE.
The cases contained in this volume include all the Somerset cases preserved in the Record Office for the reign of Henry VII, and all those contained in the first thirteen volumes and bundles of the reign of Henry VIII. The way in which the sorting has been done at the Record Office causes many difficulties, owing perhaps to the fact that vast masses of documents which were in hopeless confusion had to be arranged with reasonable rapidity. Thus parts of the same suit are found in different volumes or bundles, and cases belonging to one reign are sorted among those of the next. In this volume the cases have been arranged in a roughly chronological order. The spelling adopted in this list is that of the parties themselves.
PAGE
1. Prior of Bath v. The Abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury ... 38
2. Courtney v. Courteney 5°
3. Dean of Wells v. Hardwich and others
4. Powe V. Newman alias Elys ... 62
5. Hameleyne v. the Abbott of Cleve
6. Hamlyn v. Ewen
7. Inhabitants of Draycott and Stoke Giffard v. Rodney
8. The Bishop of Bath and Wells v. Seyntlaw
9. Bole v. Caraunte
00
10. Carter v. Lewis
11. Crosse v. Ap Ryce
12. Dovell v. Hobbys and others
13. Alye -v. Abbot of St. Augustine's, Bristol
14. Doyll */. Weydon
15. Barker v. Leversegge
16. Bray v. Pecher
114
17. Braye v. Lacy
18. Dobell v. Soley, Coke, Sedborough and Heywarde
19. Comer v. Martyn and others
20. Crouche v. Homer and others
XX
PAGE
21. Crouche v. The Prior of Bath 162
22. A Castell and others v. The Abbot of Athelney 17°
23. Dovell -v. Spede and others ... ... i?4
24. Welles v. Doble 177
25. Doble v. Foxe 185
26. Catcotte -v. Welsshe 186
27. Carmynow v. Tredennyk and others ... 188
28. Brooke v. Carrant 190
29. Drapers. Rodney 198
30. Bridge v. Hill (two suits) 200
31. Hartgill v. Zouche ... 207
32. Heith v. Speke and others 216
33. Bucland v. Carewe 225
34. Bruar v. Horwood 228
35. Delton v. Bowreman ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 230
36. Cooke -u. Sedboroughe ... ... ... ... ... ... 239
37. Croke v. Bycombe 246
38. Browne v. Richeman and others 251
39. Bradley v. Eyssham 260
40. Cappis v. Cappis ... 264
41. Cappis v. Stowell 267
42. Androwes alias Frye v. Phyllyps ... ... ... ... ... 273
43. Chaplain of Catcott v. Cooke and others 286
44. Clyfton v. Wylliams and others 293
45. Bailiff and inhabitants of Carhampton v. Chamberleyn... ... 295
SOMERSET STAR CHAMBER CASES.
1485-1547.
INTRODUCTION.
IN the early years of the i/th century, on the eve of its abolition, the Court of Star Chamber was the centre of a bitter con- troversy. Politicians, lawyers, and historians vied with each other in the extravagance of their assertions. Its origin was disputed with heat, its methods and procedure were alternately eulogized or vilified, its powers and sphere of action were attacked or defended by arguments drawn from the scanty records of its debateable past. The whole question —by no means a straight- forward one — became strangely complicated by political bias, and was fiercely debated by exasperated political opponents who were already on the verge of war. The rival supporters of Prerogative and Parliament found an argumentative battle ground in the most famous of prerogative courts. On the one hand we have Lambarde's rosy view of the Star Chamber, "this most noble and praiseworthy court the beams of whose bright justice, equal in beauty with Hesperus and Lucifer ... do blaze and spread themselves as far as the realm is long and wide" j1 on the other hand we have the fierce words of Prynne, Burton, Bastwick, and many another who suffered about this time from its arbitrary procedure and brutal punishments.
The origin of the Court was specially a matter for violent conflict. The popular party spoke of it as a court set up by Act
1 Lambarde, Archeion (1635), p. 116.
* One writer described it as "the Sea of the Star Chamber, that Den Arbitrary Justice . . . which sits every Wednesday and 1 such as refuse to worship the Minion and to yield to the 1
JhTtvotfuctton.
of Parliament in 1487, which had shamefully outrun its legal powers, ignored its statutory limitations, and disdained the regu- lations fixing its composition and limiting its sphere of action ; the prerogative party spoke of it with reverence, as a court existing from immemorial activity and deriving its authority from the king and his council — the source of all the law courts in the kingdom. They spoke of it as absolved by its nature from obedience to the rules governing those courts, and as wielding an extraordinary power which embodied the arbitrary and dis- cretionary power inherent in kingship. In this whirlwind of assertion and denial sixteenth century politicians, famous for their unbridled eloquence, surpassed themselves, and it is a difficult matter to disentangle historical fact from partizan assertion.
But the dust of conflict has settled long ago. The history of the origin and work of the Star Chamber, far from arousing keen feeling, usually fails to produce any sensation except that of boredom. And yet it is a court so alien to the general character of English jurisprudence, so typical of the violent methods of a violent age, so representative of the vital spirit that animated the Tudor despotism, that it well repays investigation. Again, the subject matter that occupied the time and attention of the court is not without dramatic interest. Though this collection deals with the Somerset cases just as they appear in the volumes and bundles at the Record Office, without any attempt to pick out cases of special interest, it contains many a vivid story and striking character sketch of some forgotten worthy — and many of the cases record the actual words spoken in the heat of some broil more than three hundred years ago.1
Fate — and careless clerks — have dealt harshly with the records of the Court and, by an annoying coincidence, the most critical moment in the life of the Star Chamber occurs at a point where outside records fail us. Thus, even when passion and prejudice have died away, there are many things in the history of the Court to puzzle and confuse the most careful observers. But the obscurity of the subject has attracted able investigators.
1 See pp. 61, 64, 80, 106, 108, 118, 122, 131-2, 142, 145-6, 149, 150, 160,
l6l, 170, 182, 210-12, 215, 222, 233, 237-8, 244, 259, 280, 285.
fntrofettctfat.
Recent researches1 have thrown a flood of light on much that was before dark and obscure, and many disputable assertions are now well on the way to becoming commonplaces. In this brief sketch only a straightforward account, which should be sufficient as an introduction to the cases contained in this volume, will be attempted.
To begin with the origin of the name, " Star Chamber," as to which there have been many theories. Smith, Coke, Cowcll, and Stowe derive the name from the stars that adorned the ceiling of the room in which it met, Lambarde from the Anglo- Saxon " steoran," to steer or govern, Blackstone from the fact that the room at Westminster where the Court sat was the depositary of the Jewish bonds called " Starra "- (corruptly from the Hebrew " Shetar "), and Hudson3 from the judges, who like stars shone in the legal world deriving their light from the royal sun ! Without attempting to decide between these various theories, beyond suggesting that the first appears the most obvious and least strained, it may be noticed that the name in the form Camera Stellata first appeared in the reign of Edward III. as a description of a room in the palace of Westminster, where the Chancellor, Treasurer, Chamberlain, Lord Privy Seal and other members of the King's Council sat to compel William de la Pole to restore charters and deeds retained by him.4 Some years later Sir William Coningsby was bound over in the Star Chamber to keep the peace, restore money he had extorted and bonds obtained by him under duress. Thus whenjt first emerges from the mists of the past we find that the " Starred
' The Introductions written by Mr. I. S. Leadam for the Mar Chamber Cases, published by the Selden Society, are invaluable, and Miss Scofield's able monograph, A Study of the Star Chamber, is full tion. A catalogue of the manuscripts in the British Museum relating to Star Chamber was made by John Brice (Add. MSS 28,201 A fc This has been added to by Miss Scofield and printed by her, PP-*£°
* This theory has been examined and rejected by Caley m Ar>
VOl'3VHudson's Treatise on the Star Chamber is very ; valuable as ; he had access to documents which are now lost, but it is wn tenth the object of defending the Court from the outcry aga.nst it legal powers.
4 Close R., 29 Edw., m. 26 d.
fntrotfuctfon.
Chamber" was already known as a place where the King's Council met to do justice on great offenders who were too powerful for the ordinary courts to deal with effectively. A long period follows during which allusions to the Star Chamber are isolated and almost accidental. What records there are, however, go to prove that the existence of the Court was continuous and its character unempaired. By the reign of Henry IV. we hear of the purchase of " rich cloths, tapestry and cushions for the advantage and accomodation of the lords and nobility appointed to consult together on behalf of our said lord the King in the Star Chamber within the king's palace of Westminster."1 It can be proved that the King's Council continued to meet in the Star Chamber and transact judicial business there during the reigns that followed.2 Late in the reign of Henry VI., however, the Privy Council records come to an end, and they do not begin again until 1540. It is in this interval of obscurity that the famous development of the Court, which has led to so much confusion and dispute, took place. The modern view is that the Council continued to sit in the reigns of Edward IV. and Richard III. and deal with judicial busi- ness as before, and this view can be supported by trustworthy, if scanty, evidence.3 The first two years of the reign of Henry VII., before the passing of the Star Chamber Act of 1487, are of special importance, and the evidence fortunately becomes more full. In 1487 the office of usher of the receipt and Star Chamber is mentioned/ in the following year a fine made before the King and his Council in the Star Chamber is referred to,5 and on another occasion the judges of the Common Bench went to ask for advice from the Chancellor and lords of the Star Chamber.6 Lambarde states that during the first two years of his reign
1 Issues of the Exchequer, p. 274.
3 Here assertion only is made. For proofs see the evidence collected by Miss Scofield and by Mr. I. S. Leadam.
3 Year Books, 13 Edw. IV., fols. 9-10 ; 2 Ric. III., fol. 4, 22 ; I Hen. VII., Mich. Term, No. 3 ; Coke, Institutes, pt. iv, cap. 5 ; Paly rave, Kin^s Council j note F. F. ; Lambarde, Archcion, 137, 152.
4 Rot. Parl., vi. 366.
6 Campbell, Materials for the Rei^n of Henry VII. (Rolls Series), ii, 91. • « Year Book, 2 Hen. VII., Mich. Term, fol. 9.
faitnrtJuctum.
Henry VII. sat twelve times in person in the Star Chamber,1 and this statement is upheld by the discovery of a manuscript containing notes of the business transacted in the Court during these two years.2 In the first year we find the king himself hearing a case of riot with the assistance of four bishops, twenty one councillors, and the attorney general, and later dealing with the murders, robberies, and other violent disorders that were distracting the counties on the Scotch borders.
This brings us to the famous Act of 1487 which, from the late sixteenth century until comparatively recently, was regarded as the origin of the Court of Star Chamber. Even in the rapid sketch given above it may be seen that there Is overwhelming evidence of the existence of the Court long before the reign ot Henry VII. The view that the Star Chamber originated under the Act of 1487 was very tempting to the political theorists who looked askance at its vast despotic powers. The heresy arose early and spread wide. It gained official sanction in an Act ot the reign of Elizabeth,3 and practically held the field until the end, when the Act abolishing the Star Chamber traced its origin to the statute of 1487.* Yet there were always some men who challenged this theory. Hudson for instance calls it " a doating which no man, that had looked upon the records of the Court, would have lighted upon." Several other writers in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century took what appears to us to be the historical view on the vexed question of the origin of the Court. Camden in 1586 writes of it as deriving its origin and authority from the King's Council, and its name from the reign of Edward III., pointing out that Henry VII. did not found the Court but merely added to its powers by Parliamentary authority : — " Verum huius authoritatem prudentissimus prmceps Henricus septimus ita parliamentaria authoritate adauxit constabilivit ut nonnulli primum instituisse falso opinentur. •
1 Lambarde, Archeion, p. 139.
2 Harl. MS.| No. 305, art. 2. This MS. conta.ns the Liber Intmtionum or Book of Entries, which, from its nature, as Miss Scofield
o be a book of Council minutes. Scofield, op, ctt., p. o.
3 5 Eliz., cap. 9.
4 1 6 Car. I., cap. 10.
6 Camden, Britannia, ed. 1594, P- "2.
JhitttrtJurtt'on.
Sir Thomas Smith, alluding to the increase of the power of the Court during Wolsey's Chancellorship, speaks of it as beginning long before.1 He mentions, however, some " inter- mission by negligence of time," of which we have no evidence. Lambarde, though writing at a time when the evil reputation of the Star Chamber was clouding its earlier history, and leading men to take the narrowest possible view of its powers, takes the historical view that the Act of Henry VII. added to the powers of the Council in dealing with particular cases without touching upon its original jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, however, the men who supported the theory of the early origin and extra-statutory powers of the Court were those who were the most ardent champions of arbitrary royal power. Their theories, though historically correct, shared the hatred aroused by their politics, and the action of the Star Chamber itself in the dark days before its unmourned fall justified the bitterest onslaughts of its enemies.
On the other hand it is easy to show that the work done by the Star Chamber Court in the early Tudor period, with which this collection deals, was as admirable as it was detestable later. Henry VII. came to the throne in a time of disorder and violence. The Wars of the Roses had left their bitter legacy of hatred and civil strife, and the King's throne itself, the only hope of the common people for respite from aristocratic factions, was threatened by pretenders within the kingdom, who were backed up by all the princes of Europe, and supported by the over powerful nobility with their hordes of liveried retainers. Within a year of the King's accession he had to fight for his throne on the field of battle. The restoration of order and of reverence for the law was a pressing necessity, and much of the King's success was due to the action of the Court of Star Chamber. It was characteristic of Henry's genius for kingship that he was able to fashion so apt a tool of despotism from an already existing court.
The Act of 1487 created no new court ; it simply gave statutory sanction to the judicial powers long exercised by the Council. It followed the precedent of the statute of 1453, which,
1 Commonwealth of England, ed. 1 589, Bk. iii, chap. 4.
$ntrot(uctfon.
passed at the time of Jack Cade's rebellion, gave the Council authority to summon offenders accused of breaking the King's peace to appear before it by writs of privy seal. Yet in many ways it improved upon the Act to which it owed its " statutory pedigree." The Act of 1453 had been of a temporary character and had expired in 1461. Henry VII. intended to arm himself with a permanent weapon to face his greater difficulties. In his resolve to be obeyed and to restore order to his kingdom, he strongly reinforced the authority of his Council, and here the gift that he, like all the Tudors, possessed, of enforcing his will through compliant Parliaments, served his turn. The Commons, finding their only hope of peace in the King, willingly sacrificed their old jealousy of the royal Council, and armed it with further powers to be used against the disorderly nobles. "That which was principally aimed at in the Act," says Bacon, " was force and the two chief supports of force, combination of multitudes and maintenance or headship of great persons."
The Act of 1487, after rehearsing the particular mischiefs it was designed to check— maintenance, the giving of liveries, signs and tokens, retainers by indentures, promises, oaths, writing or otherwise, embraciaries of the King's subjects, the untrue demeaning of Sheriffs in making of panels and other untrue returns, corruption of juries, great riots and unlawful assemblies- gave the Chancellor, Treasurer and Keeper of the Privy Seal or any two of them, calling to them a bishop and a temporal lord of the Council and the two chief justices of the King's Bench and the Common Pleas, or two other justices in their absence, "upon bill or informacion put to the seid Chauncellor" authority 1 summon before them by writ of privy seal the said rnisc examine them at their discretion, and punish them accordi law. . , ,
Thus the Act enlarged the sphere of jurisdiction forwhi Council had Parliament as well as prescription be acknowledged its long disputed claim to issue writs of s or privy seal, and finally gave the Council statutory authont examine defendants on oath, a practice exercised long 1 doubtful authority, almost abandoned under popular prc now put on a sound footing.
8 {ntrotfuctfoii.
Thus armed, this powerful court became a terror to the evil- doers whose violence brought them within its sphere. Riot, bullying of all kinds, tyranny, oppression and contempt for the weak found prompt, swift justice, free from red tape and formalism. The Somerset magnate who terrorized his neighbours
O C5
and overawed juries, ruling with the strong hand unjustly, found himself brought to heel by men so highly placed that they were far above corruption or intimidation.
In comparison with the ordinary law courts the Star Chamber was both swift and cheap, and its rapid action did much to secure its hold on the people. From this collection of cases it can be clearly seen that the Court actually was, as it professed to be, accessible to the humblest litigants. Yeomen and husbandmen, from the then remote west, found themselves able to set in motion the powerful machinery of the Star Chamber, which proved itself undoubtedly to be the Court " to bridle such stout noble- men or gentlemen, which would offer wrong by force to any meaner man, and cannot be content to demand or defend the right by order of law."1
Something must be said here about the procedure that was regarded by contemporaries as so simple and effective.2 It consisted of bill, summons, and answer, the examination of the defendant on oath, rejoinder, replication, the examination of witnesses and judgment.
The first step was the drawing up of a bill of complaint by the plaintiff, in which he recited the injuries of which he complained. According to the Act of 1487 the bill had to be addressed to the Chancellor, but the absence of stereotyped usage, characteristic of the Court, is illustrated here at the outset, and there was much diversity of practice. Sometimes the Act was obeyed and the Chancellor was addressed, sometimes the bill was addressed to the King, sometimes to the King and the Lords of the Council, sometimes to the Lords of the Council alone. These Somerset cases contain examples of all these forms of address, except that to the Chancellor and the Lords of the Council, but by far the most common was the address to the King alone, the form being:
1 Smith. Commonwealth of England.
2 For a full discussion of the procedure of the Court, see Leadam, S/ar Chamber Cases, vol. i, Introduction, xviii-xxxiv.
flntrotturtum.
" To the King our sovereign lord," a variation found once only being " To the King's highness." The address to the King is actually found in thirty-seven of the cases contained in this volume, and by the end of the reign of Henry VIII. it became the almost invariable form. Three bills address the King and the Lords of the Council, one the Lords of the Council alone, and one the Archbishop of Canterbury, perhaps in his capacity as Chancellor.1
These bills, which were drafted and signed by counsel, are of very varied length. The bill usually ended with the prayer that the defendant might be summoned to appear before the Court either by writ of sub pcena, letters of privy seal, or by the despatch of the serjeant-at-arms to compel the defendant's appearance. The first method of summons was commonly employed. Twenty-nine of the bills in this volume prayed for the issue of the king's " dradde " or " graciouse " writ of sub pcena, sometimes to all the defendants jointly, sometimes separately to each. From the reign of Henry VIII. onwards this form of summons was by far the most common, and it became almost invariable in the seventeenth century.2
It has been suggested that summons by letters of privy seal- a more intimate and personal method of summons — was usually though not invariably used when the defendant was a peer.3 We have no instance of a peer as a defendant in this volume, but letters of privy seal are asked for in five or perhaps six4 of the bills contained in it. The despatch of the serjeant-at-arms only once asked for, in a case when the defendant was known t< be in London.5 In addition to these three forms we meet as usual with several variations. In one case the Star Chamber asked to add a writ of injunction to the sub pcena,6 i 'their lordships order concerning the premises" is asked 1 third the plaintiff is content with his prayer to the Star C
' See note i, p. 62, below.
2 Hudson, Star Chamber ; Leadam, op. at., i, xiv-xvi.
3 Cowell, in his Interpreter, takes this view.
* The "letters of sub poena" asked for in the suit of Doyll (see p. 109) probably mean letters of privy seal.
5 Bole v. Caraunte, see p. 87.
6 Draper v. Rodney, see p. 200.
7 Brown v. Richeman and others see p. 256.
to Jfntrottuction.
without asking for the defendant to be summoned1 ; in a fourth the plaintiff only asks for his discharge from the payment of a certain rent.2 In a fifth case the bill becomes elaborate in its demands, asking for the summoning of the defendant for direction and punishment, for the compelling of the defendant to give surety, and for the appointment of a commission of indifferent persons, these special precautions being perhaps a measure of the terror inspired by the redoubtable John Rodney.3
There is considerable variety too in the way in which the plaintiffs described the tribunal before which they prayed that the defendants might be summoned.
Mr. Leadam has found the following variations : —
1. The King " ubicunque fuerit."
2. The King and Council in the Star Chamber.
3. The King or Council in the Star Chamber.
4. The King in the Star Chamber.
5. The Council.
6. The Chancellor.4
7. The Chancellor and Council.
8. The Chancellor in Chancery.
9. The King and Council.
10. The King and Council at Westminster.
IT. " This honorable court."
These Somerset cases throw further light upon the practice. Of the first, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and eleventh forms this collection gives us no example. The second form is used fourteen times, the third, which Mr. Leadam thought might be exceptional, appears twice. There is but one instance of the use of the fourth form, the ninth form is used nine times, the tenth form five times. Three other forms, not found by Mr. Leadam, occur here ; " the Council in the Star Chamber " is named in six bills, the " Council at Westminster " in one bill, and " the King at Westminster " in one bill.
But various as are the descriptions of the Court given in the bills, the plaintiffs all wanted the same thing — to compel the
1 Carter v. Lewis, p. 89.
2 Bradley v. Eyssham, p. 264.
3 Inhabitants of Draycott v. Rodney, p. 75.
4 This was found in a bill originally filed in Chancery.
fntrotJuctton.
ii
defendant to appear before the formidable Court at West- minster.
The next step was the riling of the bill by the clerk of the Court, and the summons of the defendant in one or other of the forms mentioned above to appear before the Star Chamber on a definite day.1 Occasionally an interim injunction was issued to restrain the defendant from the conduct complained of by the plaintiff until the case had been heard by the Court.2 The appearance of the defendant then followed, and the great power and prestige of the Star Chamber made cases in which the defendant dared to incur contempt of court by failing to appear very rare indeed. In this respect the contrast with the ordinary Courts is very marked.
The Star Chamber had very powerful machinery to deal with the exceptional case of a defendant failing to obey the writ of sub poena. A writ of attachment was issued to the Sheriff of the county in which the defendant lived. If he dared to disobey that, a proclamation of rebellion was issued, and finally a commission of rebellion was directed to six commissioners named by the plaintiff. No defendant however in these Somerset cases dared to match his strength with the formidable court.
Unless he was specially excused, the defendant had to appear in person at every session of the Court until he was discharged. After hearing the charge against him he was allowed eight days to prepare and bring in his answer, unless he filed an affidavit to the effect that documents vital to his case were in the country, when he was allowed until the beginning of the following term. Like the bill the answer had to be signed by counsel and an oath was administered to the defendant as to the truth of it. to avoid this hated obligation, hints the Prior of Bath, that the Abbot of St. Augustine's had filed his answer in the form of a petition, " of subtiltie and craft by cause the same ab not be sworne vppon eny answer by him to be made.
The character of the defendants' answers varied very r
' The bills are often endorsed with a note of the summons issued for the defendant's appearance.
'• IcofiISd,II^S:p8742- Hud'son, Tr^ of Cour, of Slar O-»r
(Collectanea Juridica> 1792, vol. u), 159- 4 See below, p. 43.
12 Introduction.
Sometimes it was a mere bald denial of the charges and gave the court no new information, sometimes it gave a reasoned denial, sometimes it took the form of a series of counter charges against the plaintiff and was both long and elaborate, sometimes it did not go beyond a denial that the case came within the sphere of Star Chamber action and a prayer to be remitted to the common law. Some such prayer was introduced at the beginning of a very large number of the answers.
The next stage was the examination of the defendant on oath, the very important new procedure directly set up by the Act of 1487. Hitherto the Council, when it arrogated to itself this power, had no authority for such a proceeding, which was regarded with much jealousy by the ordinary Courts. In the earliest period this examination was taken in Court, the Lord Chancellor administering a series of short questions1 ; later the procedure became more cumbersome, the interrogatories and the answers to them being written out at length. The plaintiff was allowed four days, from the time of receiving the defendant's answer, in which to prepare and put in these interrogatories. In this collection we have several examples of the answers of defendants to interrogatories of a very searching character.2
The next possible stages, the " replication," a further state- ment by the plaintiff, and the " rejoinder " of the defendant were very often omitted, probably, in Hudson's view, because there was a rule that no new charge could be brought forward in the replication, which therefore became a mere formality. The same thing may be said of the " surrejoinder " and " rebutter," introduced later by law clerks to pile up their fees, and drafted by them as mere formalities. Of the two latter it is natural that we find no example in a collection of cases drawn from a period when the Star Chamber was doing its best work with the least formalism. Instances of replication and rejoinder can be found in this volume.3 They rarely contain any new facts, and in order to economize space have not usually been printed here unless the absence of the bill makes them specially important, but their existence is always noted.
1 Hudson, p. 168.
2 See pp. 117-120, 141-4, 145-161, 177-9.
3 See pp. 54-5, 94-7, 109-110, 124-5, 138-14!'
Introduction.
After the pleadings on both sides had been taken the examination of witnesses followed. The practice of the Star Chamber was to issue a commission to certain local com- missioners nominated by the Court for the particular case, who were, says Hudson, " men of great worth in the county where the fact ariseth."1
The cases printed in this volume illustrate this, and members of many of the great Somerset families appeared as commis- sioners. The commission was known as dedimus potestatan-
Sometimes the authority of these local magnates was rein- forced by the addition of a great lawyer to the commission, but this was exceptional. The rules as to what evidence was admissible seem to have been of the most shadowy character. In one case we find a series of witnesses with extraordinarily long memories. One man plainly remembered the service he got 2d. for rendering forty years before. Another, aged seventy-two, gave as evidence something his father had said twenty-four years ago — his father being then aged ninety. A third reported what he had heard a servant of the Abbot's saying. This is not an isolated instance of extraordinary laxity in the admission of evidence,3 which was probably due to the fact that the com- missioners were laymen and not lawyers.
It is only fair, however, to notice that the parties often produced much more reliable evidence — deeds, charters, and court rolls bearing directly on the case1 — and it is probable that t he- assistance of men who had local knowledge far outweighed any disadvantages arising from their lack of legal training.
Occasionally witnesses were examined before the Court in London before or after the commission sat in the country,5 but this procedure seems to have been exceptional. The usual practice, that of taking evidence in the country, was one of the points that was specially admirable about Star Chamber proce- dure. It made justice more equal between parties by avoiding
1 Hudson, p. 202. At a later date the commissioners were chosen by the parties to the suit. Ibid, and Leadam, op. cit., Intro, xxxin.
2 See below pp. 181, 193, 196.
» See pp. 102, 104-6, 184, 212, and Delton v. Bourman, pp. 237-8. 4 See pp. 97-8, 103-4, 151-3, 202-3. 6 Hudson, i, 200.
14 fntnrtWftton.
the expense of bringing witnesses to London, which was then, even more than now, a very heavy and almost prohibitive expense to poor litigants.
There are several instances among these cases of another very useful process adopted by the Court, that of appointing commissioners with authority, not only to hear evidence, but to decide the case if possible, certifying the result to the Star Chamber.1
The next stage was the delivery of judgment by the Court, and here we come to a vexed question. It is difficult to decide who the judges of the Court really were. Actually all the decrees and orders of the Court have disappeared. Their loss was announced in 1719 by a Committee of the House of Lords, which naively reported that " they were last seen in a house in Bartholomew Close, London."2 How they reached this obscure, and insecure, resting place is unknown. Coke, writing in the seventeenth century, mentions the acts and decrees of the Star Chamber as " engrossed in a fair book," and Mill, a clerk of the Star Chamber, gave evidence to the same effect.3 In 1608, when Francis Bacon became clerk, he took over three calendars of Star Chamber orders ranging from the first year of Henry VII. to the thirtieth year of Elizabeth. By the time of Hudson — that is about 1625 to 1635 — the record keeping of the Court had become careless ; the books, he said, were negligently kept and many times lost, but when describing the early period he states that the practice was then very different : — " the judgments
were kept with such care, and remain in such order
as no records in the kingdom are more use than those remaining in the Tower of London." The early decrees of the Court were certainly then in exisience, and as clerk of the Star Chamber he had access to them, but we may suspect that the Court never reached the standard of carefulness and accuracy habitual in the ordinary law courts. It kept no formal plea roll, it did not consider itself bound by precedent — or certainly reverenced it less than other courts — and its character for swiftness militated against extreme carefulness. When the Court was abolished in 1641, its
1 See below, pp. 81, 97, 108, 184.
2 Scargill-Bird, Guide to Documents at Record Office, p. 198.
3 Hargrave MS. No. 216, art. 19.
fntrottticttott. 15
name was so universally odious that its records were not likely to be reverently handled. A few notices of orders, decrees, and fines can be found here and there, and very occasionally the decree itself has survived among the other documents of a suit One such exceptional survival appears in the present collection.1 Thus, as we have to depend upon the few decrees of the Star Chamber which chance has preserved for us, it is dangerous to dogmatize on the point as to which members of the Court were qualified to act as judges.
The intricacies of the question may fortunately be passed over lightly here. On the one hand we have a judgment of 1493, which expressly laid it down that the Act of 1487 appointed as judges the Lord Chancellor, Lord Treasurer, or Lord Privy Seal, or two of them, the other members of the Court being assistants and assessors and not judges.2 On the other hand it has been argued that the other members of the Court — the bishop, the temporal lord, and the two chief justices of the King's Bench — were also judges. Coke, for instance, gives the weight of his authority to the statement that the two chief justices were judges in the Star Chamber Court.3 After some discussion Mr. Leadam has come to the conclusion that the judgment of 1493, called contemptuously by Coke " a sudden opinion," was sound law in so far as it decided that the common law judges sat as assessors only, but wrong inasmuch as it seemed to limit the judges to the chancellor, treasurer, and privy seal. To put it shortly, the best modern opinion is that all the members of the King's Council who sat in the Star Chamber gave sentence as judges, having first taken the advice of the common law judges.*
One thing that is absolutely clear is that the composition of the Court constantly varied from that set out in the Act of 1487.
1 See below, p. 224. See also p. 293, n. i. A few notices of Star Chamber fines of the reigns of Edward VI., Philip and Mary, Ehzabe James I. can be found in the Accounts of the Exchequer and Que Remembrancer, in the Record Office. A manuscript entitled He causes in the Star Chamber temp. Hen. VII." is in the Harleian C (Harl. MSS. 68 1 1, art. 2.) Notes of the rules and fees of the ' Lansdowne MSS. No. 335, art. 3.
2 Year Book, 8 Henry VII., fo. 13, pt. 7-
3 4 Institiites, 62.
4 Leadam, op. «'/., i, xlvi-xlvii.
1 6 Jfntvofcuttt'on.
Sometimes one or other of the statutory members is absent, sometimes many lords of the Council in addition to the one provided for by the Act were present. Often the Lord President of the Council, who was not named in the Star Chamber Act, presided as judge1, sometimes the two common law judges were not summoned. Sometimes, on the contrary, there was a very large legal contingent ; the chief baron, the puisne judges, the attorney and solicitor general, and the King's sergeants-at-law. Yet we never find in any of the suits the plea that the com- position of the Court did not conform to statute. The whole point of the statute of 1487 in this connection, was to make it easier for the Star Chamber to meet and despatch its business. It was designed to reinforce rather than limit, and it gave to a small -committee of the Council the power to act for the whole body in dealing with certain specified cases of disorder and violence, the prevalence of which formed a crying evil. The com- mittee perhaps took up its abode fairly permanently in the Star Chamber at Westminster, and stayed there while the King and his court were moving about the country, other members of the Council making their appearance when the King's court came back to residence in the capital. This would explain the great fluctuation in the size of the Star Chamber. Size was a matter of convenience, not of principle, the Court was as much " the King's Council in the Star Chamber " if there were four members present as if there were forty. The Act of 1487 was never regarded as restricting the composition of the Court for all time to the officials set down in the Act. Indeed it is obvious how great an inconvenience that would have caused. Fox, Bishop of Winchester, who was Lord Privy Seal when the Act was passed was not even then available for constant sitting in London2 ; the Earl of Surrey, appointed Lord Treasurer in 1501, was much occupied by military duties.3
1 An Act of 1529 added him to the number of judges. Stat. 21, Hen. VIII. cap. 20.
2 The period 1494 to 1497 was one of specially irregularity and some- times neither Chancellor, Treasurer, nor Lord Privy Seal was present. Hudson i, 23. It was a critical period in the King's reign, when he could ill spare great officials for judicial work.
3 Scofield, op. tit., p. 5.
Introduction. 17
In short, if the Star Chamber had considered itself bound by the Act of 1487, which made the presence of Chancellor, Treasurer, and Lord Privy Seal, or any two of them, imperative, it would have done very little work. Yet we know that it was so active during the reign of Henry VII. that, according to Hudson,1 it sat every day during term time. It certainly sat at least three days in every week. We may perhaps explain the judgment of 1493 as an attempt of the common law judges, inspired by their well- known jealousy of the Star Chamber, to limit its activity by stereotyping its composition, but the attempt failed utterly. We actually find men who were not even privy councillors acting as judges in the Star Chamber. This was brought about by the King's summons to the individual, who thereupon took an oath as Councillor, and sat in the Star Chamber.2 Among the individuals who sat in this way in the Court during the reign of Henry VII. were Dr. Hatton of Trinity College, Cambridge, the Warden of Merton College, and the President of Magdalen College, Oxford, the Deans of the Chapel Royal and St. George's Chapel, Windsor.
The Court of Star Chamber was theoretically supposed to be held before the King, and an empty seat was reserved for his use. Henry VII. and James I. sat fairly often,3 but only one record of Henry VIII. sitting has been found. The fact that the " source of justice " occasionally appeared himself probably added to the elasticity in the composition of the Court, the judges being after all merely his delegates. As Mr. Leadam puts it : " The Court was always supposed to be held before t King .... and whether the officials nominated by the Act were sitting or not, was, in the presence, real or constructive, ol from whom its jurisdiction flowed, a matter of no legal i
Another very intricate question, that of the exact relatu
« ?his'poini is more than usually obscure. There is Considerable conflict of evidence. See Hudson, p. 36, Fortescue, Governance of England (1885 ed.), p. 147, Coke, Institutes, part iv, cap. 5-
l of Lord Geo. Carew (Camden Soc.) p. 36- James sat in the Star Chamber in June, 1616, "where he made a long speecc the admiration of the hearers speakinge more like an angel 4 Leadam, op. tit., p. Ivii.
1 8 fottrottuctton.
between the Star Chamber and the Council, has been the subject of many elaborate discussions, the final outcome of which appears to be the decision that, though the two bodies were closely related in personnel, there was always a distinction between them. The Council was primarily deliberative, the Star Chamber judicial in action ; the latter had a much stronger legal element, since the two chief justices, who were standing judges of the Star Chamber,1 were not members of the Council ; the Star Chamber sat in public and only in term time, while the Council deliberated in secret and at any time found convenient.
It is possible that the Council exercised a concurrent jurisdiction, even in riot for some time, though the case of 1500 quoted does not appear to be conclusive.2 In any event, the Council soon gave up considering cases of this kind in its deliberative meetings, referring them to its judicial meetings in the Court of Star Chamber, where it was reinforced by legal experts and its procedure strengthened by statute.
When the Court proceeded to pass sentence, each judge spoke in turn, beginning with the councillor of the lowest rank and ending with the presiding judge. The sentence was given by the verdict of the majority, and the defendant often adopted an attitude of great humility, kneeling in the middle of the court to hear his judges pronounce sentence.
The scale of punishment was very wide, and varied from a small fine or a day or two of imprisonment to anything short of the death penalty. The commonest of all the punishments inflicted by the Court was a fine, and the Court gained great notoriety from the very large fines it inflicted. In the reign of Henry VII. some very heavy fines were levied, especially for livery and maintenance. A list of the fines received by Dudley for the King, between 1505 and I5o8,3 gives an idea of their amount. We find Sir William Capell and his son Giles fined ;£i,ooo ; the " parson of Clyve " £20 ; Sir William Say, " for his discharge of his intrusion into certein lands in the West Country
1 Their presence was very valuable, and perhaps aided the great develop- ment of the Court in the Tudor period.
2 Mr. Leadam takes the view that the Council did concern itself with riots. Leadem, op. tit., liii, liv.
3 Lansdowne MSS. No. 160, p. 320. (Printed in Archaeologia, vol. xxv 390-3-)
fntrofcuctton.
of the inheritance of one Hill, his first wife," 2,500 marks ; the Earl of Devon for keeping retainers, 1,000 marks; Giles, Lord Daubeney, for receiving money at Calais which belonged to the king, £2,000; the Earl of Northumberland, £10,000; and the Abbot of Glastonbury, £20O.1 In the reign of his son and successor heavy fines were the punishment of heresy. Thus Tyndal and Patmore, for distributing New Testaments, were fined £18,840 os. lod. In the reign of Elizabeth there were other instances of heavy fines.2
Imprisonment by order of the Star Chamber was also fairly common. The Court also showed great ingenuity in devising punishments which were supposed to fit the offence. It showed a great fondness for inflicting some kind of spectacular humilia- tion upon the offender, ordering him to ride round Westminster Hall with his face to the horse's tail, to do public penance in an adornment of torn papers, and so on. There is grim humour in the order that the leader of a sect which taught the unlawfulness of eating swine's flesh should be committed to prison and fed on pork.3
Many defendants had to advertise their humiliation as a preliminary to the grant of a pardon by the Court. Thus Robert Devereux, who confessed himself of guilty of " hainous riots," had to walk through the streets from the Tower to Westminster barefooted and in his shirt, to ask pardon of the Court, and many other instances might be quoted.*
The punishments inflicted by the Court became increasingly severe when despotism passed from its climax under the Tudors to its decline under the Stuarts. It is then that the cruelty often associated with conscious weakness appears, and though corporal punishment had often been inflicted before, it is then we find frequent record of the brutal and vindictive punishments for political offences constantly associated in the popular mir with the Court of Star Chamber— the cropping of ears, si of noses, branding the letters S. S. (sower of sedit
1 See J. S. Burn, Notices of Court of Star Chamber.
* Harl. MS. 425, art. 8 ; Exch. Q.R. Bdle. 119, No. 21. A part of heavy fines was often remitted, the view apparently being that judgments, even if not recoverable, would have a deterrent e
3 Burn, op. cit., i, 74.
* Burn, op. «'/., pp. 45, 47.
20 Cntrotructton.
hot irons into the cheeks, and the use of the pillory and the rack.1
On the whole, a review of the procedure of the Court shows it to have been swift, simple and economical. It is comparatively late (1597) before we hear of the inordinate length and multi- plication of documents, and the piling up of mountainous fees,2 and then reform followed swiftly,3 though the same complaints reappear later.4
The Court occasionally acted in an even more summary manner, by the procedure known as " ore tenus," under which the presumed delinquent was arrested by an Order in Council issued on private information,5 or " by the curious eye of the State and King's Council."6 The accused was privately examined (torture being sometimes employed in the later period), and if he denied the offence was remitted to the ordinary formal process. If he acknowledged the offence, a written confession was obtained and judgment was passed.7 The rule that the confession was not to be extorted by compulsion, and that it was to be acknowledged in open court,8 was more honoured in the breach than in the observance,9 and we can understand Mill's comment that " many mischiefes mingled in that manner of dealing."
Practices like the above, though condemned by the law, were not infrequently used by royal officials whose zeal for the royal prerogative made them very untender of the subjects' liberties, and we can easily trace the appearance of the autocratic methods
1 See the trial of Leighton for seditious libel in 1630. Rushworth, Historical Collections, 55-8.
2 Lansdowne MSS. No. 86, art. 42.
3 Ibid., 2310, art. 5. An order of Elizabeth's limited the length of the bill to fifteen sheets, and the interrogatories to fifteen articles which were not to contain more than two or three questions each.
4 Ibid., 4022. In the reign of Charles I. the unhappy defendant some- times had to answer interrogatories of fifty articles, each containing twenty or thirty questions.
5 This was part of the hateful " informer " system, raised to a fine art, as a means of getting money, by Empson £ Dudley.
* Hudson, p. 126.
7 Archaeologia, vol. xxx (1844), pp. 64-110.
8 Hudson, p. 127.
0 E.g., Proceedings v. Lord Vaux and others for receiving Jesuits. Archaeologia, loc. tit.
fattroKuctfon. 2I
that finally made the Star Chamber the best hated court in the kingdom.
After each sitting, the Star Chamber judges dined together in the Inner Star Chamber at the public expense. They dined luxuriously, and the growing cost of these dinners was a source of vexation to Elizabeth's careful Lord Treasurer. In 1509 their lordships were able to dine for £i IDS. ;</., though the sum mentioned included the cost of washing and the cook's wages but by 1588 a dinner cost £18 5 s. 2dl
To turn from the procedure of the Star Chamber to its work. Its value to society at the early period with which this collection is concerned can hardly be exaggerated. It was one of the most powerful of all the weapons used by Henry VII. in dealing with the grave social disorders that faced him at his accession. The action of the Court in this connection is fully illustrated in this volume, and we find it hard at work repressing the evils of riot and maintenance, the corruption and intimidation of juries, and the frays, assaults and broils that were the evil legacy of years of civil war.
Nearly all the cases we have before us allege riot in some form or another. In fact the bills of the plaintiffs betray a suspicion that where no riot could be alleged the defendant might claim to be removed from the jurisdiction of the Star Chamber, and hence we get the constant allegation of riot in the forefront of cases which seem otherwise to be within the scope of the common law courts. We may surmise that an anxiety to benefit by the swift justice of a court removed far above local jealousies or local fears led men to speak of " riot and route and weapons invasive " with great alacrity.2
Rioting had long been an offence recognised by common law and statute,3 but the law had been flagrantly disobeyed. The
1 Burn, op. at., 24, 25 ; Add. MSS. 32117. D.
2 Suits in which the allegation of rioting either does not appear or is very obviously dragged in are those of Heith v. Speke, Welles v. Doble, Browne v. Richeman, Croke v. Bycombe, Bradley v. Eyssham.
3 2 Edw. III., cap. 3 ; 2 Ric. II., st. i., cap. 6 ; 13 Hen. IV., cap. 7 ; 2 Hen. V., st. i, cap. 8, 9 ; 8 Hen. VI., cap. 14 ; Rot. Parl., vi, 198 ; Lans- downe MS. 83, art. 72. Even after the Star Chamber was reorganized tl was need of further legislation. See n Hen. VII., cap. 3, cap. ^.
22 Jhttrotmctton.
evil example of royalty and the nobility had been imitated on all sides. Owing to the weakness of the central government in the fifteenth century, habits of lawlessness had been unchecked, and however peacefully inclined the people generally may have been, they were at the mercy of the turbulent spirits who found that violence brought no punishment. The north of England was a by-word for disorder, but the Paston Letters show how generally prevalent the evil was. The accession of Henry VII. and the " sharp justice " of the Star Chamber at last checked a practice which had become a danger to the central government. The Court found plenty of work to do in Somerset. It is clear that brawling was very common, and serious rioting by no means rare. The carrying of arms was an offence at law,1 but in practice the law was systematically ignored. Men wore weapons at their work and used them on slight provocation. Armour was not infrequently worn. We read of many Somerset men who wore harness, coats-of-mail, breast-plates and backs, and helmets. The weapons mentioned in the cases include swords and bucklers, bows and arrows, halberds and axes, pikes, daggers, bills and staves, " battes," hand guns, and an otter spear.
Such elaborate preparations imply premeditation, but those who found themselves without any orthodox weapons gave a very good account of themselves with picks and shovels. The Richards family of Martock who came out arrayed in breast- plates and armed with bows and arrows soon cast the latter away " and fell to theyre corne pykes." 2 On another occasion a man did considerable execution with a " fire scrape." 3
One of the most warlike scenes took place in Wedmore, when some sixty of the men of the Dean of Wells came in battle array to resist the men of the Abbot of Glastonbury. They rang the bells of Wedmore church, and proclaimed inside the church that if the Abbot's men again broke down the bank that had been the cause of the dispute " they should be betyn and slayne and fryed in their own grese in their own houses." Their deeds did not go to the length suggested by these alarming threats, but they beat the constable and the tithing man of North Load " so
1 2 Edw. III., cap. 3; 20 Rich. II., cap. n. z See p. 283. 3 See p. 103.
Jfntrotouctum.
that they were in Juperdie of their lives." l Many illustrations of rioting of this kind could be given.
Violence arising out of a family quarrel is the theme of the suit Cappis v. Cappis. We are told of the attack made on his step-mother by Robert Cappis, " a person of most ragyous and wilfull condicion," accompanied by three armed men, one of whom came "with a vyzar by cause he woulde not be knowyn." Robert suddenly plucked out his sword and threatened to run his step-mother through : " Ah, thow step-dame by goddcs blodde y care not thought I thrust my swerde thorowe the ! " but was restrained by one of his companions. The step-mother, it is said, was in such dread and agony of mind that she fell ill, and as long as she lived would be the worse for his " ragious " demeanour.2
The scene in Minehead church over a disputed pew came very near to being a riot. Giles Doble put his wife to sit in a certain pew, in the seat next to the door, and when she refused to let the other man who claimed the seat pass he had to " lepe over the sayde pewe " in order to get out. Next time when she clung to the pew and refused to let him pass, he "yn sober manner lawsyd her arms," and put her out of the pew, whereupon the lady "wythe owpen mowthe gave him . . . manye unfyttynge wordes." Her version of the story was that he put her out into the aisle and so beat and illtreated her that she fell into such a swoon or sickness that she was likely to have died. In the end Doble's adversaries broke the pew down ; alleging they were driven to do this " for quyeting of the parishe and to advoyde the murder that was like to ensue."3
One more example of rioting in Somerset — this time of a kind widespread in the years following the dissolution of the monasteries and the suppression of chantries. On the plea that it was a chantry, not a free chapel, some of the inhabitants of Catcot acting for the grantee from the Court of Augmentations there, carried off the bells, broke down the cage, plucked up and destroyed the font, pulpit, and seats, and broke the windows.* violent scenes in Bath arising from disputes between William Crouch and the Prior will be noticed in another connection.
See pp. 56-62. \ See pp. 264-267.
See pp. 121-125. * See pp. 286-293.
24 fetrotfuctton.
In all these cases the rioting came before the Star Chamber as the result of a bill of complaint put in by the aggrieved party, but an Act of 1495 gave the justices of the peace power to act on private information without indictment by a jury. A riot of more than forty persons, or a riot considered by the justices to be " hainous," was to be certified by them to the Council.1
Much of the prevalent social disorganization was due to the custom of livery and maintenance ; nobles and gentlemen surrounded themselves by bands of followers, who wore their liveries, fought in their quarrels, and terrorized their weaker neighbours. The custom of giving liveries had attracted the hostile attention of many Parliaments. Successive acts passed in the reigns of Richard II., Henry IV. and Edward IV. had prohibited under heavy penalties the giving or wearing of liveries, by prelates as well as laymen, and forbidden the practice of "retaining" men by oath and indenture, which was an attempt to obtain the service of sworn-followers while evading the laws against liveries.2 Yet all these laws had been disobeyed. Even the fact that an informer could claim half the fine did not tempt men in those violent days to brave the anger of a powerful neighbour. In vain the Commons, in 1472 and 1482, petitioned for the enforcement of these salutary laws,3 in vain Henry VII. forced the Lords and Commons of his first Parliament to take a solemn oath against the practice.4 It remained as prevalent as ever, the fact being that the justices of the peace before whom the information against retaining had to be laid sympathized with the offenders and shared the same habits.5 Henry VII., however, had made up his mind to be obeyed, and the develop- ment of the powerful machinery of the Star Chamber was the first really effective measure.6
1 ii Hen. VII., cap. 3, cap. 7.
2 20 Ric. II., cap. 2; i Hen. IV., cap. 7; 7 Hen. IV., cap. 14; 13 Hen. IV., cap. 3 ; 8 Hen. VI., cap. 4 ; 8 Edw. IV., cap. 2.
3 Rot. ParL, vi, 8.
4 Ibid,, vi, 198.
6 Many of the county magnates who held office of one kind or another under the Crown gave liveries on the plea that they were royal officials, and a special Act had to be passed to restrain them. 3 Hen. VII., cap. 12.
0 Another general Act against livery and maintenance was passed in 1504. 19 Hen. VII., cap. 14.
The prevalence of the evil is illustrated by many of these cases. At the very outset we meet with the Prior of Bath commonly riding with " eighteen horses or thereabout and his servants all in one livery or clothing," but this is not used as a ground of action against him, and is only introduced incidentally to prove that he had exaggerated the poverty of the house after the late Prior's depredations, perhaps with a shrewd suspicion that such evidence would prejudice the lords of the Star Chamber against him.1
In 1533 we hear of the Prior's successor attended by fifteen or sixteen servants, " som afore him and som behind him wayting upon hym."3 That this retinue was not for mere show we know from the complaints that were made of the Prior's servants preventing an officer from serving a sub pcena upon their master threatening that "they wold cutt off bothe his eyres." But this was only a mild manifestation of the power of the Prior over his men. On a later occasion some sixty of his servants and tenants laid siege to a house in Bath which sheltered a man with whom their master had a quarrel, the Prior rewarding them for their prowess by sending them 40^. " to make merye withal." A few days later some twenty of the Prior's servants, all armed with various weapons, lay in wait for their master's enemy half a mile out of Bath, seized him, had him set in the stocks with iron fetters on his legs and kept him there for three days and nights, a butt for the insults of the Prior's servants. Bath must have been an awkward place for anyone who offended the Prior to live in. The very bailiffs who arrested his servant Horner had to flee for their lives before an armed force of some sixty of his servants and tenants, who then besieged the house where they had taken refuge, attacking it with hatchets and axes anc fusillade of arrows and calling for fire to burn it. When 1 had reached such a pitch as this, there is no wonder that 1 plaintiffs complained that, owing to the "bearing and mai ance " of the Prior's friends in the county, and the f servants were " knytt together in confederacy and
they could get no justice.
An unbiassed observer, reading the answers to these c
and the depositions of witnesses, cannot fail to s i see p. 49. 2 See pp. 131, W "I*
26
allegations against the Prior and his servants were well founded, though many witnesses deposed that the Prior himself was " a good religious man in his living and conversation." At the same time the counter charges that the plaintiff was a common quarreller and maintainer of thieves and vagabonds, were supported by the evidence of many citizens.1 The record of the misdeeds of this man, one William Crouch by name, is an example of the disorder that could be caused by the influence of a man in a much lower station than the Prior's. Crouch was certainly a formidable adversary. He seems to have terrified the Prior into believing that he would not be allowed to keep St. John's Hospital annexed to his priory in spite of the Bishop's licence, and thus he obtained the mastership of it for his kinsman. Again, he did not scruple to lay complaints to the King's Council against the Prior, whom he summoned twice before the Star Chamber. His exact position in Bath is difficult to determine. He had at one time been a servant of the Prior's with a yearly fee of 2Os. and 13^. ^d, for his livery, but by the time of these suits had gone far beyond that. He was rector of Inglishcombe and Castle Gary, and seems to have gained strange influence in the city of Bath. A prominent clothier, who employed three hundred people in his trade and was Mayor of the city, was so terrified because Crouch threatened legal proceedings against him for using the King's seal of the aulnage and because he called him " cankerd churl and knave," that he dared no longer dwell in Bath, and migrated to Bristol. This strange story had its counterpart in the following year when another ex- May or and clothier fled from Bath to Salis- bury for fear of Crouch and his adherents '! to his utter undoing for ever." The secret of the sway he exercised in Bath does not appear. There must have been some other source of his power than the fact that he was followed by six or eight armed men "of ill name and fame." They seem to have been a rascally crew ready with furious words followed up by blows. One old man of seventy- two, an alderman and ex-Mayor, was so frightened of Crouch and his men that he dared not go outside the city to see to his sheep farms, his only hope being that God would " putt itt in the king is counsaill is myndes to drive the said Crouche and his adherentes owt of the said countreye," Some of the
1 See pp. 145-149.
fintrotouctt'on. 27
witnesses told a dark story to the effect that Crouch had caused the death of one William Skidmore who had a life interest in Wellow parsonage, the reversion of which he had bought. It was alleged that he had bribed Skidmore's doctor to poison him, promising him £6 i$s. 4^. for his labour, "and a nagge to carry him out of the countre," but the story as told by the deponents hardly carries conviction.
By the end of the reign of Henry VII. heavy Star Chamber fines had made men chary of keeping liveried retainers in defiance of the law.1 The bulk of the later cases deal not with the open violence committed by the sworn followers of great men in obedience to their master's orders, but with a less crude form of bullying. Men who were wealthy and powerful could find many ways of tyrannizing over their neighbours, though their followers no longer wore their liveries or shouted their war-cry.
The difficulty of obtaining justice in such cases led men to bring their woes before the Star Chamber. Thus Sir William Courtenay, as a man of " grete substance of lond and goodcs and also of grete myght and power," was brought before the Court by the plaintiff who was "but a younger broder," with only the disputed property to live on.2
The Abbot of Cleeve was also accused in similar terms, and his tenants in Treborough and Luxborough were described as being instigated to a riot " by maintenance and great supportation " of the Abbot. It is only fair to say, however, that the evidence of maintenance seems conspicuous by its absence, unless permissible to glean it from the next suit in which I asserts that the Abbot's men. constantly threatened him and 1 servants with violence so that they dared not go to t market town.3 With the allegations brought against Rodney we reach the class of case that the Star < procedure was specially designed to meet. He seems been overbearing as a lord of the manor and unplca- neighbour. It was alleged that he forced his tenants his ploughing, and to carry the wood, timber anc
• Noblemen were of course allowed to have their household sen-ants in
livery.
2 See p. 52.
3 See p. 69.
28 Jhttrottttctton.
required for his building operations, not only without payment but even without an allowance of food and drink, by sheer weight of terror, threatening to " hang bete and mayhem them."
He took his tenants' horses and mares without leave or licence and overworked them so shamefully that he sent them home only to die or too worn out to do any more work. His red deer lay daily and nightly on their corn, and for fear of their lives his tenants dared not drive them away. They were even forbidden to keep dogs to protect their crops, and their " litle houndes " were killed by Sir John's orders. It was also alleged that he got hold of their " writtingis," their copies of court rolls and returned them " rased," that he took fines for leases which he then refused to grant, besides distressing his tenants with enclosures.1 It is no wonder, then, that the harassed tenants prayed the Star Chamber to take surety from Sir John for his " good aberyng." They estimated the loss they had sustained at 500 marks, and urged that sooner than endure their present sufferings they would throw up their holdings and go begging for their living. Sir John's answer cannot be said to be very convincing. He denied most of the charges brought against him, alleging that his tenants had helped him with their ploughs, etc., " of their good mind and free will," that he had recompensed them for the labour of their cattle, and so forth.3 His grandson and successor, another John Rodney, seems to have been of a similar temper, and was accused of having stirred up rioters to evict a man from his holding.3
The allegation of maintenance against the Abbot of Athelney as to 40 rioters who broke down a defensive wall in Saltmore seems purely formal ; it seems to have been concerted action by the tenants to protect their lands.4 The power of the next defendants, described as "gret men and gretly alyed," two Tredennicks, Geoffrey Arundel and others, does not seem to have been very overwhelming, judging from the obscure part they played in county history, but to the plaintiffs, who lived in Cornwall two hundred miles away, and were of great age and sickly, they may have seemed formidable enough to warrant an appeal to the Star Chamber.5
1 See below, pp. 72-81. 2 See pp. 78-79. 3 See pp. 198-200. 4 See pp. 170-174. 5 See pp. 188-190.
fotrotmrn'on.
A riot in Martock was alleged to be due to the maintenance of Thomas Phelipps of Montacute, though if we accept his own account of it no one could have given more peaceful counsel than he did : " Better it is to suffer wrong than to do wrong ; the more wrong you sustain the more pitiful will your complaint be," but the result of his advice seems to have been a fray with hand to hand fighting.1
Another type of " maintainer " was William Hartgill of Kilmington. He harboured a desperado who had been out- lawed years before, connived at his thefts of cattle and shared in the proceeds. Hartgill was a very unruly person. He constantly hunted with ban dogs in the royal forest of Selwood, and boasted that he had had a cart load of wild boars out of the forest in a single year, while one of his servants, in the same vein, boasted that his master had in his tubs, vats, and stands more brawn than the three next parishes could eat at one meal. He supported the outlaw in spite of the complaints of all his neighbours, and punished them for laying information against him, by maiming their cattle and getting them set in the stocks. His sons and servants were of the same violent temper, constantly drawing their swords on their neighbours and successful in rescuing criminals from justice.2
William Carent was another of the landowners who intimi- dated his neighbours ; he was able to send eleven men to execute his "malycyus and ryottose commaund." The plaintiff complained that William Carent the younger was "a man of grett power and well kyned alyed and frended— having many lyght persons aboute hym att all tymes to fulfyll his balcfull purpose and commandementes."3 Many years later we find him accused of stirring up 60 riotous persons to rescue goods distrained.4 The next to be accused of maintenance i Lord Daubeney. From what we know of his position at Court i is not surprising to find a plaintiff alleging that certain I yeomen acted by his order in attacking one Henry Haselborough, a man " feble, impotent and in gret age. B such unequally matched opponents the interventK Chamber was very necessary.6
' See p. 285. 2 See pp. 207-216. 3 See p. 86.
* See p. 192. fl See p. 109.
30 foitrottuctum.
Sylvester Sedborough, described by Mr. Chadwyck Healy as " a fiery and litigious young man," was another of the men whose unlawful bearing and maintenance were complained of. He seems to have behaved in a very brutal, bullying way to a poor widow — one Joan Soly — beating and ill-treating her till her son-in-law remonstrated : " I mervaill whie ye handle and intreate my mother after such faschion as ye doo, and also put the child that she bearith in her armes in such feare." Sedborough's only excuse was that she " pressed in upon him."1
These examples are sufficient to show how prevalent was the evil, and how salutary the action of the Star Chamber.
A landlord could make his method of levying a distress an oppression in itself, though it was a well known maxim that the things taken by way of distress were to be returned in good condition. Driving of cattle to a great distance was a common form of oppression, and legislation had been directed against it from the Statute of Marlborough (1267) onward, the slaughtering or concealment of such distrained cattle being made felony in
The first example we meet of this kind of thing is not very serious. - The plaintiff's plough oxen were maliciously, and perhaps illegally, distrained, driven from Milborne Port to Marnhull in Dorset, and sold there by order of the defendant.3 The conduct of Sylvester Sedborough, who caused the cattle of his tenants to be seized and driven off to four separate pounds thirty miles and more distant from the place where he took them, was more serious. He calmly admitted that many were " tired by the way," as to others he could not say where they were, even when an injunction came down from the Star Chamber that he should re-deliver them pending the trial.4 The method in which Anthony Stowell took a distress was even more unreasonable ; he drove cattle and fat sheep twelve miles along roads so deep in mire that many of the sheep died by the road side and others after they reached the pound. He gave no notice to the plaintiff of the whereabouts of the cattle, and neglected to feed them sufficiently while in the pound, the
1 See p. 244. 2 28 Hen. VI., cap. 4.
3 See pp. 83-88. 4 See pp. 241, 243.
fntrotouctt'on. 31
result being that the plaintiff alleged that the sheep were "utterly perished," and the cattle " moche empared."1 Over- bearing conduct of this kind called for further legislation and in !555> probably very shortly after the case noticed here, an Act was passed which forbade the driving of cattle beyond the limits of the hundred in which they were taken.2
The prosecution of jurors for giving untrue verdicts was one of the matters specially assigned to the Star Chamber by the Act of 1487. The corruption of the jury system was an open scandal in the beginning of the reign of Henry VII., and in a time of disorder when the securing of convictions was very necessary in order to restore a proper reverence for the law, the escape of guilty persons was a grave political danger. On the one hand we have all the large class of cases in which the jury were overawed by some great man, on the other, cases where they gave wrong verdicts, without compulsion, by their own perversity, or through sympathy with the accused. The common law process was ineffective under it. The writ known as Attaint was used against jurors who had given a false verdict, and the original jury was tried by a second jury of twenty-four. At first the decision that the jurors had given a false verdict meant imprisonment and the forfeiture of their lands and goods,3 but the penalty was so heavy that the Grand Jury constantly failed to convict ; and a new Act was passed (n Henry VII., cap. 2) which lowered the penalty to £20 from each juror in cases above the value of £40, and to £5 each if below that value. This Act, at first temporary, was continued by subsequent legislation,4 and was the law at the period from which these cases come.
In many cases, however, there was urgent necessity for ; reinforcement of the ordinary process by the action of the Star Chamber.
In the suit of Brown and Hales v. Richcman and otn the offences for which the jury had failed to convict were
1 See pp. 267-73.
2 Leadam, op. tit., i, cxxxi.
» ; .9 Hen. VII, cap. 3, ; V Hen. VIII, cap.
* See pp. 251-260.
32 flntroifuctum.
first-rate importance, and though there is evidence of great laxity on the part of the local officials — the constable of the hundred and so on — there is not so much evidence that the jury corruptly failed to convict. The jury were able to make out a very good case for themselves, pointing out that they distrusted much of the evidence given before them because the witnesses took upon them more knowledge than they could possibly have had. They pointed out, for instance, that two of the witnesses gave a graphic description of the sensations of the man whose house was burgled, how he came home at night and went into his house in the dark "not mistrusting anything," how he found the alleged burglar asleep on his bed " and therwith abasshed went forthe agayn for company," but that neither of the two witnesses knew anything about the affair until long after- wards, when they were called to the house by the tithing man. They also declared that they had been bound to reject even the testimony of the two great men of the neighbourhood, Mr. Mallet and Mr. Halswell, because it was hearsay evidence. The case gives a very amusing account of the whole affair, and of the very free and easy way in which the constable of the hundred guarded his prisoner.
The other case in which a jury appears to have failed to give a correct verdict, at all events at first, was much more serious — the murder by Thomas Michell, of Cannington, of his wife, Joan, and her sister, Eleanor, and his subsequent suicide. There seems to have been something very like a conspiracy on the part of all the officials, from the sheriff down to the coroner, to prevent the jury from returning a verdict of felo de se, which meant the forfeiture of all Michell's goods and chattels to the King, whose almoner had the disposal of them. The coroner and his officials certainly acted irregularly, if not fraudulently. The coroner did not get to the scene of the crime for three days, and then found that the under- sheriff and the almoner's deputy were there before him. They, however, had been forestalled by Sir Thomas Warre, and it was alleged that he had taken possession of the goods, and ordered the burial of the bodies without any inquest. The jury could not at first agree upon their verdict, and the case was twice postponed on various excuses, one day owing to the coroner's
Introduction. 33
illness, another day because certain of the jury were " watermen and passyd in theyr viage," to the next assizes, when they returned a verdict of suicide. Anyway, owing to all this bungling and delay, the goods of the suicide, who was reputed to have been very wealthy, were filched by one or other of the officials and their friends. The under-sheriff was alleged to have driven off a number of cattle to Bridgwater, others were said to have been sold by Sir Thomas Warre, and sheep and swine, corn and furniture had been got rid of in the same way. All the officials accused one another. One or two admitted having bought goods belonging to the deceased, but only things of suspiciously trifling value, "a simple flocke bedd, a nolde carpett, and iij cousshyns," and so forth. It was certainly a case for the intervention of the Star Chamber, and it is some satisfaction to know from the decree — which is one of the very few that have been preserved — that the Court ordered full restitution of all the goods with an inventory and detailed accounts.
With these cases we come to the end of the special offences aimed at in the statute of 1487, but we are still only on the threshold of the many other misdemeanours with which thi Court later concerned itself. When, by its beneficent acti riot and maintenance, the overawing and corruption of jui had been almost completely stamped out, the Court great powers to other diseases affecting the body politic. / the old difficulties dropped out and new ones arose, the Lour modified its composition and sphere of action, fitting it new circumstances with an elasticity strangely contrast the conservatism of the ordinary law courts. Gradi acquired more work and wider powers, finding t this extended action, not in any further endowment by but in the large judicial powers which the Star Chamber , King's Council in its judicial capacity possessed by an prescriptive right. Though a court of law the Star was the offspring of the royal prerogative, and regardc as endowed with some of the emergency power , k m Tudor impatience of delay, and appreciation of an apt. ns of despotism helped to swell the business of tt : Court.
Already before the end of the reign of Henry VI I L the bta Chamber took cognizance of cases of murder, rot ry, pei
34
debt, seduction, and abduction, libel against the government, slander, offences against proclamations, and the enclosure of common lands. Its supervision of gilds and municipalities was an accomplished fact, and its control of the press was fore- shadowed.1 Some of these developments of the action of the Court are illustrated here, others are not.
The enclosure difficulty which became prominent in the reign of Henry VIII. was, as is well known, caused largely by the conversion of arable land into pasture by landowners who hoped to share in the prosperity of the wool trade. Some enclosures were made for the purpose of adding land to parks, and a few took the form of the enclosure of arable land, hitherto lying open and cultivated on the strip system, for the purpose of improved farming. The cases of enclosure dealt with in this volume cannot be classified. The most important one, in which Sir John Rodney was the defendant, touches on several kinds of enclosure, Sir John having added part of the common pasture to his park, and also enclosed 200 acres from the royal forest of Mendip. The allusions to the pulling down of tenements and so on suggest enclosure for the purpose of sheep farming. Sir John's defence was that it was lawful for him as lord of the manor to " emprowe himself in his own ground " provided he left enough common for his tenants.2
We have only one example of the cases of slander which afterwards took up much of the time of the Court. Actions for slander could be brought in the local courts, or, in cases where the alleged slander took a " spiritual " form (i.e., the calling a man heretic, schismatic, or adulterer), the cause came within the scope of the ecclesiastical courts.3 The Council had statutory authority to consider cases de Scandalis Magnatum^ and if a man slan- dered a prelate, duke, earl, or great noble he might expect to be haled before the Star Chamber, but it was a very liberal inter-
1 See List of Star Chamber Proceedings, Record Office, vol. i ; C. L. Scofield, op. tit., pp. 29-37 ; Lansdowne MSS., No. 1576, art. 7 ; No. 2217, art. 57 ; No. 6265, art. 19, 20.
2 See p. 76. Other cases are those of Catcotte v. Welssh (pp. 186-8), and Bole v. Caraunte, 83-8.
3 Cowell, Interpreter.
4 2 Ric. II., cap. 5 ; 12 Ric. II., cap. n.
introduction. 35
pretation of the sphere of the Court to extend its authority to the slander of a private individual. The slander alleged in this Somerset case was against a parson, and the quarrel seems to have arisen through his constancy to the pre-Reformation settlement.1 Accusations of slander, perjury, heresy, and treason were bandied about on both sides, and the case is a good illustration of the appearance of the political activity of the Star Chamber which attained such rank growth later. The parson had been accused of uttering words " soundyng to treson." He had been brought before the Council of the West, and the Court of the bishop at Wells, where he was acquitted, and finally before the Star Chamber, where he obtained the King's pardon. A renewed dispute was submitted to the decision of com- missioners.
A large number of the cases have churchmen either for plaintiffs or defendants. Of them all, the three suits that concern Bath Priory are the most interesting. The first gives a picture of that famous house at the end of the fifteenth century, which is specially valuable owing to the scantiness of our knowledge of the Priory at that date.3 Prior John Dunster, of whom we are told so much, is little more than a name to historians of the house he ruled.3
The state of affairs as revealed by this suit is familiar enough in religious houses at the end of the fifteenth century, the e complained of being secularization and bad finance rather than immorality. John Dunster's motto all through his career at Bath seems to have been to snatch at any possible means < raising money without regarding the burdens he was laying on the house for the future. There is the usual story of grants of pensions and corrodies at extravagant rates, c borrowing sums of money for which he mortgaged the manors, of releasing rents due to the Priory in return for a lu sum down, which he converted to his own use and of the manors of stock. But we find that he did not stop J and he was accused of "great, unreasonable, an
1 See p. 230-39.
' f^Zat' Chart. (Somers. Rec. Soc.), Introduction ; Warner, Bath; Somers. Relig. Houses (V.C.H., Somers., ik>
36 JhUroKuction.
. . . . wilfull damage," of having carried off a quantity of plate and other goods with him to Canterbury, to make a good impression in his new office, promising " on his presthode " to restore them. In addition to valuables he actually took away the furnace oven from the brewhouse and left the monks with only enough provisions for a fortnight, and burdened with a crop of his unpaid debts.
The result of the suit is not known. John Dunster lived in peace at Canterbury until his death. Perhaps the Star Chamber, alarmed by the skilful hint that his successor rode abroad in great state, followed by men of his livery, did not believe much in the latter's story of " grevous poverty." Cauntlowe himself, the plaintiff in this suit, soon got into trouble himself for neglecting the Priory church.1 Some forty years later we get another glimpse of Bath Priory — on the eve of the Dissolution — but this time we hear more of a feud between Prior William Holleway and William Crouch2 than of the affairs of the Priory. Incidentally we get the only notice of town life that appears in this collection — a few slight references to the town officials and to the cloth trade. The Prior's accounts of tenements unlet and decayed in the very heart of the city suggest that Bath was not entirely prosperous, and there were no doubt other reasons for the migration of prominent clothiers to Salisbury and Bristol than Crouch's baleful activity, which is suggested as the cause.3
It is very unfortunate that our cases do not give us a single example of the action of the Star Chamber in the regulation of town gilds, of municipal elections and bye-laws, and of its control of trade disputes, weights and measures, and the coinage.4 Other collections give a fair number of illustrations of this part of the work of the Court, by means of which the Tudors brought the local authorities directly under the control of the Crown.5
Several suits in this volume deal with the unlawful hunting of
1 See below, p. 39, n. i.
2 See above, p. 26.
3 See pp. 145, 146.
4 See Liber Intrationum (Harg. MS. 212) ; Harl. MS., 305, art. 2 ; Add. MS., 4521, art. 9 ; Scofield, op. cit., pp. 18, 19, 50.
5 See Star Chamber Cases (Selden Society), i, ii.
Jfntrottuctum. 37
the deer in private parks. In one case the marauders hunted by night in direct defiance of the Act of Henry VII., and not only shot deer with arrows, but trapped them with nets in a most unsportsmanlike way. They succeeded in killing twenty deer, and set their heads on the park palings in defiance of the bishop.1
Cases in which contempt of court was alleged are numerous. Among the Courts thus disrespectfully treated were the Arch- bishop's Court of Audience, the Court of Common Pleas, the Assize Courts, and the Court of Chancery.2 Several times there was open defiance of the sheriff's authority. Contempt of a Star Chamber decree was rare, but we hear on one occasion of a rabble of about a hundred persons resisting a sheriff who came to execute a decree of that Court3 In extenuation of their conduct they declared that they thought it a " forged writing " because it had no seal.
Among the miscellaneous matters on which the suits give us information are the manorial customs relating to copyhold tenure and the taking of waifs and strays, the payment of rent in grain, disputes over rights of way, and the duty of keeping watch and ward on the sea coast.
The cases in this volume reveal the action of the Court at i most useful period, but they leave untouched many of the matters which occupied it at the zenith of its power and unpopularity. As England became peaceful and settled, and the excuse for harsh measures disappeared, the Star Chamber became ever more active, more tyrannical, and more hateful. Its control of I press, its activity in scenting out seditious libel and pumsl barbarously, the penalties it imposed for breaches of the multi- tudinous Stuart proclamations, added to its vast powers, gathered to itself an inquisitorial power over men's private which was deeply resented. Its action became political r than judicial, and its powers were used with merciless ^ bigot for the persecution of political opponents. Thus when the ( of Star Chamber was abolished by the Long Parliament in 6 left an evil reputation which long biassed any enquiry 11
oweWmanpp. ^ See also pp. 86, '3', 3 See p. 1 1 5. Another case of contempt of a Star of Doble v. Foxe, p. 186.
STAR CHAMBER CASES. 1485-1547.
Prior of Bath u. Abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury.
HENRY VIII., BUNDLE 24, No. 396. DATE: I483-7.1 To the king oure souereign lord.
Shewith vnto youre Highnes and the lordes of youre moost honourable coimsell your contynuall Oratour Thabbot of the monastery of Seynt Austyn2 in the Countie of Kent that where
1 The documents filed in this case cover a considerable period. The schedule of the Prior's misdeeds is dated I4th February, 1483-4, and the original petition of John Cauntlow must have been addressed to the Council before it obtained the special powers given to it by Henry VII. in the Act of 1487. The answer of the abbot of St. Augustine's, which is in the form of a petition, appears to refer to the Act of Henry VII., and to have been drawn up in 1487. Star Chamber Cases (Selden Soc.), ed. Leadam, Intro., vol. i, Ixxix.
2 John Dunster, formerly Prior of Bath. The dates during which he held office at Bath are not quite clear. Dugdale in the Monasticon and Mr. Hunt the editor of the Bath Chartidary (S.R.S.)do not mention any name between that of Richard who was Prior in 1476 and that of John Cauntlowe, Prior from 1488 to 1499. (Dugdale, Monasticon, ii, 64, 256; Chart, of Bath Priory (S.R.S.), Intro., Ixvii.) This John Dunster came between. He is mentioned as Prior of Bath in 1481 and 1482 (Cal. of Pat. R., 1476-85, pp. 278, 310), and was transferred to Canterbury before July, 1482, and later in that year we have Peter, Prior of Bath, mentioned. (Ibid., p. 571.) Dugdale's date for John Cauntlowe appears from this suit to be wrong, as John Cauntlowe was already Prior in February, 1483-4. The "Peter" whose name is found in the Patent Rolls has not been met with elsewhere, and his rule at Bath must have been very short. John Dunster was Abbot of St. Augustine's till his death in 1497. (Dugdale, Monasticon, i, 123.) John Dunster's mother was apparently the Alice Slougge who is mentioned below (p. 46), and it is suggested that he may have taken the name Dunster from the place of his birth. Leadam, loc. cit. , p. 20, n. 2.
Chamber Caat*. 39
of late a grevous sclaunderouse vntrue fayned and surmysed bill of compleynt hath bene and yit is pursuyd ayenst youre saide Oratour before the lordes of youre moost honourable counsell by one John Cauntlowe1 prior of the Cathedrall Churche of Bathe to the greate grevouse and Importunable charge costes and lossis of youre saide Oratour And for the insufficiente and vncerteynte of the vvhiche bill youre saide Oratour ought not to be put to aunswere nevertheless youre saide Oratour saith that by a Statut made in the tyme of King Edward the thurde thexlij ycre of his Reygne- it was actid and ordeynyd by the same Statut that no maner of person shuld be put to aunswere without it were apon a due presentment afore his Justices or ellys by mater of record or else by a originall writ accordyng to the auncien lawe of the land as more playnly apperith by the same estatut And forasmuch as the saide bill of compleynt of the saide prior of Bathe implyeth no presentment takyn afore noone of the Kinge's justices nor is mater of record ner due originall writ your saide Oratour askyth jugement if he ought to be put to aunswere contrarie to the fourme of the saide estatut And ouer this saith that in youre last parliament holden at Westminster it was agreed concludyd and affermyd by youre grace and the lordes of your moost honourable counsell in the same present parliament asscmblyd That from thensforth no maner a persone nor persons shulde
1 Prior of Bath from 1483-4 to 1499- Though he built a manor house at St. Catherine's, and a chapel at Holway with a small hospital for lunati it, he seems to have neglected the Priory church, and "great rum ami « owing to the carelessness of many Priors" was reported by C then Bishop of Bath and Wells, at a visitation held by _ him jusi Cauntlowe's death in 1499. The Bishop complained that , discipline, feasting and idleness, and directed that £300 yearly c income of £480 should be set' aside for the rebuilding of the i convent church. For accounts of Bath Priory see the introduction to the C Bath (S.R.S.); Victoria County History, Somerse / ii, 69-81 5 I Monasticon,\\, 256-270 ; J. Britton, History of Rath Abbey.
* Stat. 42 Edw. III., cap. 3 ! Rot. Part., iv, 156. By this Act.
already provided for in the ordinary courts. See Intro.. Ixxix-lxxxi.
40 £tar Cijamfctr Cast*!.
not be grevid nor vexid upon any privy Scale to be suyd by reason of any compleynt theruppon made without so were the mater therin conteynid concernyd a great cause of Ryot forcible entre vnlaufull and riotouse assemblees or ellys great and grevouse pouertee concernyng eyther of the parties that so sayth or compleyneth.1 Wherfor your seid Oratour praieth that foras- muche as the saide bill of compleyns comprehendeth no Ryot nor vnlaufull assembe3 and youre said Oratour & the saide prior be persons ablee and sufficient to suye for their remedy by the lawes of youre land for all iniuries & wrong to theym commytted & doone that youre saide Oratoure may be dismissid oute of this Court with his resonable costes and damages for his wrongfull vexacion susteyned in this behalf.
Indorsed : Responsio abbates sancti Augustini Cantuariensis etc ad billam Prioris Bathoniensis.
The declaration [of the] matere in variaunce betweyne the abbot of the monastere of seynt Augustyn of Caunterbury and the prior of Bath.
The [seid Prior] sayith that his bille is gode true sufficient & certain to put the seid Abbot . . .3 Whereas the seid Abbot alleygeth that the same prior owght [to] sue in ... of the mater and charges comprysyd in his seid bill the same Prior is . . . said priorie beth in grete pouertie for . . . manye causes whe . . . soden ruyn of the most of the church of the seid Priorye the charges and costes of repare . . . seid . . . place. And othere greate vrgent & inevitable cause of the same pouertye is the grete vnreasonable and gruggful . . . wilfull damage done by ... of ... hereditamentes juelles goodes and catalles of the same pryorye done & commytted vnfatherly to the same place by the seid ... as appereth by
1 This must refer to the Act/r<? camera stellata (3 Hen. VII., cap. i), but the wording is confused and inaccurate. " Great and grevouse pouertee," for instance, is not mentioned in the Act. It has been suggested (Leadam, op. «'/., p. 21, n.) that the petition was drawn by a draftsman without having the Act before him, probably before it was printed.
2 Sic.
3 The parchment containing the Prior's replication is in a bad state, injured by damp, and torn.
&>tar Chamber Caata. 41
the articles & matere ensuynge redy to be proved emonges dyuers othere grete inconveyent A ... to the hurt and ympouerysshyng of ... Fyrst the same Abbot beynge then Prior of the seid Priorye causyd a yerely rent of ix marcs parcell of the heritaunce of the seid Priorye due therto by the maire and com[monalty] of the town of Plymouth1 to be relessyd & dischargyd forever to the grete hurt & disheritaunce of the same howse & the same abbot receyued therfore c & viij //. Whiche [he t]oke with hym & conuertyd to his proper vse & to thevse of the seid abbathic wherof he is nowe abbot Also the seid abbot then beyng Pryor of the seid Pryorye caused the [sa]me Pryorye & thenheritmentes therof to bechargyd perpetuelly with one yerely rent of xb. grauntyd in his tyme to one Johane at Welle2 & to her heires & assignes & ressayvid [the]rfore of her c li, which he toke to his propre vse & to the vse of his abbathie & also causyd the same pryory to be chargyd perpetuelly with an other annuel rent of [vi li.} to Thomas more of Cheldre8 in fee symple & receyved therefore [ccc] marcs which he toke & conuertyd to his propre vse & to the vse of his seid abbathye. Also he causyd the same priorye to be charged in his tyme perpetuelly with an other annuel rent of x //. grauntyd to John Twyneo4 in fee symple & receyved cccc marcs [which] he in lyke wyse applied to his propre vse and to the vse of his seid abbathye Moreouer the seid abbot beynge pryor of the seid priorie receyved of diuers other persons for ... of yerely rentes corodyes pensyons & fees & morgages of londes to theym made in his tyme for terme of their lyves & for discharges & releeses of the rightes & possessions & sale of ymplemente the same priorie and for manumyssions & fynes in his tyme made
> The rights of the Priory of Bath in Plymouth were commuted in 1440 for an annual fee farm rent of 10 marks, which was probably redu< sum of 9 marks about twenty years later, when another fee farm ren by the town was reduced. R. N. Worth, History of Plymouth, p. i o.
- The will of Joan Atwell, widow of Richard Atwell of G last on (who died in 1475), was proved in 1485. Somerset Medieval I
ReC* The'wnP'of Thomas More of Cheddar, proved in 1493, is printed in Somerset Medieval Wills (Somers. Rec. Soc., xvi), p. 3°4-
* The will of John Twynyho of Cirencester (co. Glouc, in 1488. Smith, Wills, ii, 537-
42 J!?iar Chamber
& grauntyd as appeareth by a scedule thervnto annexyd amount- ynge to the some of vjclxvij li. xijj. i\\}d. to the extreme ympouerysshynge of the same Priorye And furthermore the seid abbot beynge Pryor of the seid Priorye gretly mynysshed the Store of the mansion & possession of the same Pryorye to the grete disperses1 damage & ympoverysshynge therof And also in his tyme & at the time of his departynge the same Priorye was indettyd in viijxx & xj li. & the same abbot toke and conueyed with hym the juels plate siluer vessels goodes and catalles specified in the bille of the seid Prior with dyuers other goodes & ymplementes of the goodes of the same Priorye which beth not conuenyent to be expressyd in this high court levying in the same place no some of money ne other stuff necessarye to the sustenaunce & mayntenaunce therof as in mete and drynke to find theym by the space of a fourtnyght but of his gredy couetous2 havynge special mynde to depart therfro toke all that he myght of the same place to the vttur ympouerysshynge therof. And moreouer the seid abbot the day of his departynge from the seid Priorye havynge in his possession the juels plate siluer vessell & goodes of the same Priorye specified in the same bille the couent3 of the same Priorye beynge bifore hym made to hym request to haue deliuery to theym of the same juels plate siluer vesell and goodes the same abbot then & theire esspecially desyred and requyred the same couent by verrey subtile and crafty meanes that he myght haue the occupacion of the same juels plate siluer vessell & goodes for a certen season to be in his rewle & tobe brought with hym to the seid abbey of seynt Augustyns & therby he shuld haue the grettere love of the couent of the same place of seynt Augustynes & it were grete reproch to the same Priorye he to departe so pore from thens not havynge eny substaunce with hym & thervppon he leynge his hand vppon his brest made there a solempne oth & promyse vppon his presthode to the same couent to restore ageyn to theym the seid juels plate siluer vessell & goodes in as goode and better value & condicion than he receyued theym. Morouer
1 /.£., dispersals.
2 I.e., covetise, an early form of covetousness. — Murray, Dictionary.
* The early form of convent, in use till the seventeenth century. — Murray Dictionary
Chamber Ca$tjj.
the seid Prior seith that the seid abbot hath by his writynge made with his owne hande grauntyd to restore ayen the seid siluer vessel Chalesse pax & half cruettes of siluer in more and bettere value than he hadde theym Neuerthelesse the same abbot to thentent to coloure therby more couertly his seid grete wronges hath made a bille to the kynge cure soueraign lord & rehersynge therin in a generaltye the compleynt of the seid Prior praynge for so moch as there is no matere by presentement ne mater of record due originall by the cours of the law riot riotous assemble ne forcibly entre comprysed in the bille of the seid Prior that therefore the same abbot myght be dysmyssyd out of this Court accordynge to the ordynaunces of certin statutes in that behalf ordeynyd the which bille of the same abbot is made in fourme of peticon & not by eny fourme of answar to the bille of the seid Prior only of subtiltie & craft by cause the same abbot wold not be sworne vppon eny answer by hym tobe made diretly to the bille of the same Prior ne yef eny answer direct therunto which is a right ieopardous president tobe begon of newe And by the causes and consideracons alleggyd herin it may be by the consideracion of this high Court pleynly acceptyd and adiugyd grete pouertie tobe in the seid howse of Bath All which maters the seid Prior is redy to prove as this Court wille awarde And for asmoch as the seid abbot in his bille & answer hath not denyed the hauynge of the seid juels plate siluer vessell & goodes spec-fled in the seid bille of the seid Prior & other iniuries conteynyd in the seid bille therefore the same Prior praeth that by iugement of this high Court the same abbot may be adiugged othere to yeld to the same Prior the juelles plate siluer vessell and godes specified in his seid bille & to make such ferthere restitucion & recompense to the same Prior & his howse of Bath of the premysses as accordeth with right and £ conscience orelles to make ferthere pleyn & direct answer asv to the mater specified in this replicacion & therevppon t examyned by his othe as he shuld haue be vppon a pleyn answare made to the matere of the bille of the same Prior.
Indorsed: Prior Bathoniensis contra abbatem sancti Augustini Cantuariensis.
44 Star Cfjambn-
A schedule, in Latin, of the misdeeds of the late prior follows, which is here translated.
To all the sons of holy mother church to whom these present writings shall come.
John Cantelowe, prior of the priory of the cathedral church of Bath and the chapter of the same place, perpetual greeting in all safety. We have brought to the notice of you all by these present writings that one father Sir1 John Dunster, Abbot of the monastery of St. Augustine by Canterbury, lately prior of the priory of this church of Bath, during the time when he was prior damaged, detained, dilapidated and wasted the rents and profits and alienated other goods of the said priory and also greatly deteriorated the said priory by debts, pensions and corrodies and burdened it by grants to servants and officers and in other ways as follows :
In primis he released an annual rent of 9 marks payable to the prior and convent of the said cathedral church of Bath by the commonalty of the town of Plymouth for which release the said reverend father Sir John Dunster, lately prior as aforesaid, received cviij li.
Item he burdened the said priory by granting to Joan Atwell of Glastonbury in the county of Somerset, widow, her heirs executors and assigns a perpetual pension of 40^. yearly and received for this pension c li. which he took with him.
Item he burdened the said priory by granting to Thomas More of Cheddar, in the county of Somerset (etc.), an annual pension of vj li., for which pension he received ccc marcs which he took with him.
Item he burdened the said priory by granting to John Twynho of Cirencester, in the county of Gloucester, an annual pension of x //., and he received for the said pension cccc marks, which he took with him,
Total of the pensions granted by which the said Priory is perpetually burdened : xix //.
1 This is dompnus, i.e., dominus, the usual title given to churchmen at this period.
Chamber
Sums of money received for the said pensions and subtracted or taken away by the said prior : viijc marks.
Item the said prior carried away with him from the said priory, two large silver basins, the interior part gilded.
Item the said prior carried away with him the whole "garnysh" of silver vessels, viz., 12 platters, 12 . . .l and 12 saucers, together with two chargers, and as it is said, one other charger. Value of the silver ... the platters iij //.
Sum total Ixxxiiij //'.
Item the said reverend father carried away with him two cruets (phiolas), partly silver gilt, and one silver " paxbred," wholly silver gilt.
Item he carried away with him one silver chalice, partly gilt, and one silver flagon (olla), wholly gilt, weighing 13 ounces.
Item he alienated one pair of vestments, the gift of Thomas Bekynden, formerly Bishop of Bath and Wells,2 worth 4 marks, with one silver salt cellar (salerium), and with a silver basin (cratera) belonging to the refectory there.
Item he alienated one old implement belonging to the brewhouse (pandoxatorium), viz., the furnace oven (le furneys euen) Ix //'. vis. viij</.
Received by the said reverend father (etc.) at the time of the building of the refectory.
Item the reverend father received from lady Estmounde, widow, for a certain annuity of 10 marks, with which the said priory is burdened until the present time vijx* (//.).
Item he received of John Chaneys3 of Wilmington4 in the county of Somerset, 100 marks, for which he mortgaged the
1 Perhaps " lances," dishes.
2 He was bishop from 1443-1465.
3 This appears as Champneys in the fragment printed below. \N ill Champeneys of Wylmyndon, gentilman, was one of the legatees i Thomas Chaunceler, citizen of Bath, proved on 9 March, 1497.— £M Medieval Wills (S.R.S., xvi), 342.
4 Wilmington, a hamlet in Priston. Pnston had been granted to Bath Abbey by Athelstan. Collinson, Hist. ofSomers., i, 43° 5 Du£d-» «*i "» 2°2'
46 &tar Cfyamfcrt
manor of Chelworth1 to the said John, and in addition the said priory is burdened with the payment of an annual pension of 26s. 8d. to the said John and to his son William, during the life of them and of each of them (sic).
Item he received of John Chaunceler2 of Keynsham in the county of Somerset 100 marks for the payment of which the said priory is burdened and on account of this he granted to the son of the said John Chaunceler an annual pension of four marks until the time when he should promote him to a benefice of 20 marks.
Item he received of Richard Canynges3 of Hampton near Bath for a corrody for himself and his wife and his son for the term of their lives and of the life of the longest liver, xl marks.
Item he received of John Broke4 of Abbots Leigh near Bristol for a corrody for himself and his wife . Ivij marks.
Item he received of John Baboure5 of Twiverton near Bath for a corrody for himself and his wife (etc.) . xlviij (marks).
Item he received of Alice Slougge6 his mother and Agnes Exsten his aunt for a corrody to them for the term of their lives xl (//.).
Item he received of William Castell of Bath for a fine for his tenement xx (//.).
Item he received of William Schote7 of Hampton, near Bath, for the reversion of a tenement iiij (//.).
1 The manor of Chelworth or Chelwood belonged to the Priory at the Dissolution. Dugdale, Monasticon, ii, 273.
2 His will, proved 16 July, 1489, is printed in Somerset Medieval Wills (S.R.S., xvi), p. 282. He was the father of the Thomas Chaunceler a prosperous citizen of Bath whose will is mentioned above, p. 45, n. 3.
3 He was possibly connected with the Canynges family of Bristol, though his name is not found in the pedigree given in Memorials of the Canynges Family (G. Price).
4 The will of a John Broke of Pill was proved in 1496 (S.R.S., xvi, 335), but this man may perhaps be identified with the John Broke, gentleman, who is mentioned in a will of 1498 as holding land by grant of John Kenne. (Ibid., p. 375.)
5 His will was proved in 1534. — Wells Wills, 176.
0 The will of John Slogg of Bath was proved in 1530. — Wells Wills, 7. 7 He was perhaps a member of the Shute family which lived in Bath- ampton. Will of John Shute proved 1596. — Smith, Wills, iv, 377.
Chamber Casts. 47
Item he received of Lady Hungerford1 for the release of a title in the manor of Cricket St. Thomas (Crykoff Thomas) ........... xl (//.).
Item he received of a certain Irishman called Parys,2 for a fine for one tenement situated in Ireland3.
Item he received of Master John Drover for a corrody granted to him for life ......
Item he received of Sir Robert, his chaplain, for a corrody granted to him for life ....
Item he received of William Walley* of Bath, for a fine for a mill .........
Item he received of John Cole of Oldeston5 in the county of Somerset, for his manumission . x //'. xiijj. ihj</.
Item he received of John Gravell of Inglisbache,6 near Bath, for a fine of a rectory appropriated to the said priory and farm (to the said John) . ,
Item he received of John of Bathwtck, near Bath, for a corrody granted to him . ' , -
Sum total of the above receipts, vf Ixvij h. xiijj. 11 Item the said reverend father wasted the store c (of the priory).
. This is who became Baroness Hungerford m ,485 , byt* «»«, ^.^ , 5,,
attainder («e below p 'f ^^Gj^honUs bflonged to the Hungerford
'- any right of the Priory in ft. mano
has been found.
I ?hf Sy'ha^cells at Waterford and Cork.-Dugdale, ii, *63 ;
Chart. (S.R.S.), Ixxix. -Collinson, i, 31 ; Smith, 11'Ms,
* This family was well k"7" ^J?£hed King and Watts, App. xxix. iii, 324, iv, 433 ; - Bath ^S^ often referred to in the
«*
H' 2e73Englishbatch or Inglesbatch, a hamlet in Englishcombe
Bath Chart. (S.R.S.), ii, tfS,W "• - h d to livestock and so on o
' These accusations of acts of waste ^refeat them Out on the " stock and the manors proved that thenor and crave nr ietn doned at the
Monasticon, ii, 272, and
48 &tar Chamber
Imprimis of the manor of Sothstoke,1 4 oxen, I bull. Item, Combe, 3 cows, 3 bullocks and 5 ...
Preston, I bull, 13 oxen, 8 cows, 5 calves.
Coston, 10 oxen, 8 cows, 13 bullocks, I bull.
North Stoke, 2 oxen, 7 cows, I bull.
Lymcombe, 12 oxen.
Hamewell, 30 head of oxen, cows and bullocks. Debts incurred during the time of the said reverend father for which the said priory is liable to certain creditors, as follows : —
Imprimis to the fraternity of St. George3 in the church of St. James of Bath, vi /z., which he received.
Item to Isabel Broke of Bath, xxxix /z'. x'rijs. i'rijd., which he received by way of a loan.
Item to John Barbor3 of Bath iiij /z.
Item to Andrew Bedforth4 of Bath .... xj /z. Item to Richard Fluet of Penford5 . . . Ixxxxij h. Item to John Gaynard of Bristol, merchant . . xx /z'.
Item to John Payne6 of Mells vj /z'.
Item to Walter Lyncell of Bristol, merchant . . iij /z. v]s.
Sum total of the said debts, viijxx xj /z.
Dated 14 February, 1483, in the first year of the reign of King Richard the Third.
1 South Stoke. Dug., Mon., ii, 272 ; see also Bath Chart. (S.R.S.). Corston, ibid. Lyncombe, ibid. This is Hamesvvell, Hamswell or Hareswell, a manor belonging to the Priory in Cold Ashton, Gloucestershire. Bath Chart., ii, 327, 327 n, 599, 808.
2 No notice of this fraternity has been found. It was obviously one of the religious gilds which flourished at this period. See Churchwardens' Accounts (S.R.S.).
3 The Barber family was well known in Bath. Somers. Wills, v, 106. Somers. and Dors., N. and Q., v, 178.
4 An Andrew Beddeford or Bedforth was one of the members for the city of Bath in 1467. — Warner, Hist, of Bath, 161 ; Collinson, i, 21.
5 Pensford. The will of Richard Fluett of Bath was proved in 1497. Somers. Med. Wills. (S.R.S., xvi), 354.
6 The will of Walter Payne of Mells was proved in 1496. Ibid., 333.
&tar Chamber Ca$«f.
(A small piece of parchment, injured by damp and torn, gives an English version of part of the above document It begins : " [Fijrst the seid Abbot then prior of Bath ressauid of the lady Esemund wydoe for a certen annuite of x marcs to her grauntyd cxl //.," and ends with the note of the corrody granted to John of Bathwick.)
The shewyng off John thabbott off seynt Augustynez besides Canterbury concerning a matier bitwen hym and the priour off Bath.
The seid Abbott seith that the matier off the byll off the seid priour is insufficient and he owith nott to be putt to answere thervnto nor to be called hider opon the said matier for such consideracion as haith ben shewed by the seid Abbott in a byll late putt in by hym as by the statute alleged by the seid Abbott and by the statute off magna carta in which the grete sentence of holy church1 is yeuen opon them that be brekers theroff and by dyuerse other statutes it haith bene laudably ordcytied enacted and establisshed. And wher the seid priour surmitteth pouerty in hym and his monastery to thentent to cause the seid Abbot to be putt to answere her the seid Abbott seith that that is no consideracion to cause hym to be putt to answer her and is butt feyned by the seid Priour to putt the seid Abbott and his monastery to coste treble and vexacion. For the seid priour nor his monastery is nott in any such pouertye as is by hym surmitted. For the seid priour commonly rideth with xviij horses or theraboute and her servauntes all in one lyverey or clothyng. And useth nott hym self lyke to a man being in pouertye nethyr in his ridyng ner in his other decles. \\ hert the seid Abbott prayeth and demaundeth as he haith prayec and demaunded in his other bill etc.
1 This refers to the Confirmatio Cartarum of Edward ., i-9 "And that all archbishops and bishops shall pronounce great excommunication against all those that by word, d( contrary to the foresaid charters or in any point break or undo Select Charters (1890), 496.
50 J^tar Chamber
Courtney u. Courteney.
HENRY VII., No. 14. DATE: 1487-1512. To the Kynge oure souereigne lorde.
In most humble wise shewith unto your highnes your feithfull liege man Piers Courtney1 of your countie of Devonshire esquyer. That wher as Sir William Courtney knyght his fader was seased of the manors of Bere & Borow3 and oder londes & tenementes in Hamp3 Gaskyn4 Haller'5 Saltmore6 Northmore7 &
1 These Courtenays belonged to the Powderham branch of the family. The defendant in this suit was Sir William Courtenay of Powderham, who succeeded his father Sir William on the death of the latter in 1485. Sir William the elder, who was High Sheriff of Devon in 1483, left three other sons, Philip, Peter and James, and two daughters, Joan wife of Sir William Carew, and Margaret wife of Thomas Rogers. The third son Peter was the plaintiff in this suit. Very little is known about him, but he must not be confused with Peter Courtenay Bishop of Exeter, who died in 1491, or with Peter Courtenay of Ugbrook in Devon who died in 1551. He married Joan the daughter of Sir Thomas Beaumont, and the widow of William Reigny. Certain lands in Chudleigh (co. Devon) had been settled by Sir Thomas upon Joan and her husband Peter Courtenay, but she had died childless on 24 January, 1495-6 (Cal. Inq. p.m. Hen. VII. (Rec. Com.), No. 1231 ; Cleave- land, Hist, of Courtenay Family?) Sir William married Cecily, daughter of John Cheyney, and died in 1511-12, but the date of Peter Courtenay's death has not been found. Sir William, it may be noticed, spells the family name with an e, his brother without.
2 The manor or manors of Bere and Borow, or Bere and Burgh, were not easily identified, but they appear to have been in the parish of Aller. In 1548 the heirs of Courtenay were withholding a rent of wax due to the parish church of Aller from the manor of Bere in that parish. Somerset Chantries (S.R.S.), 106, 290. Fortunately an indenture of a grant of the same date (1549) has been preserved, by which James Courtenay grants lands in Bere in the parish of Aller to be held by rent and suit to his court "holdenat Bere and burough." Cat. Anct. Deeds (P.R.O.), A. 12609. In 1599 Sir William Courtenay and James Courtenay held the manor of Bere and Burgh. Feet of Fines. Div. Cos. Mich. 41, 42 Eliz.
The more obvious identifications of Bere fail, owing to the fact that we cannot prove any of these other places to have ever been held by the Courtenay family, though some connection with the manor of Beer in Canning- ton might be presumed from the fact that that manor was held by the Bonvile
Chamber Casftrf.
half yerd within your Countie of Somerset in his demene as of fee whiche is to the yerely value of xxx It. and so beyng seased uppon to promyse & couenaunte for manage made betwen the said Piers and on Johan doughter of Thomas Beaumount knyght an astate of all the premyssez was made by the seid Sir William Courtney to your seid Orator his son & to the heires of his body begotyn by vertu wherof your seid Orator was therof seased in his demeane as of fee tayle and so beyng seased one William Courtney knyght son & heir to the seid Sir William and broder to your seid suppliant by his dede relessed all the right title & interesse that he had in the premyssez to your seid Oratour & to the heires of his body And ouer that by the same dede bound him & his heires to warant the seid manor londcs & tenementes to your seid Oratour & to the heires of his body And so it is most gracious souereign lord that your seid besecher by reason of the premysses was laufully seased of the seid manor londes & tenementes and pesibly had and enjoyed the same from the tyme of the seid gyft duryng all the lyfe of his seid fader And also after the deces of his seid Fader unto the tyme the seid Sir William Courtney broder to your seid oratour contrarie to his own reles and contrarie to the graunte of his seid Fader through his extort myght & power in riotous wise & with force assembled & toke to hym Thomas Walton Richard Baker Robert Prowse William Hole Robert Wattes & diuers oder persons his seruantes to the nombre of xvj or ther aboute to
family. The manor of Burgh probably took its name from Sir Thomas Burgh, kt., whose widow Margaret (formerly the wife of Botreaux) held it in the reign of Edward IV. and at her death Inq. p.m. Hen. VII., No. 482. Bodleian Library Charters, g
• This is perhaps Ham in Creech St. Michael, or High Ham i
asyn may be identified with a tenement called Gascoigne formerly held by Sir William Bonvile, from whom we know that I descended. The same Sir William also owned a manor er near
Combwich (in Cannington) and land in Saltmoor. Inq. p.» Aids, iv, 436.
er
• Saltmoor in the parishes of North Curry, Si athe, etc ? Northmoor, in Huish Episcopi by Langport. MS*. . Wells (Hist. MSS. Com.), pp. 177, 484.
52
your seid suppliant as yet unknowen wrongfully & in riotous wyse with force entred into the seid manors londes & tenementes & thereof wrongfully & with force put out your seid oratour ayenst all right lawe & good consciens and so from that tyme hederto the seid Sir William his broder by his gret myght & power hath taken thissuez & profites of all the premyssez by dyuers yeres & yet doth to the disheritance & utter undoyng of your seid oratour & his heires for euermore ayenst whom your seid oratour is not able nor of power to sue for his remedy of & for the premyssez by the course of your comen lawes of this your realme for so moche as the same Sir William is a man of grete substance of lond & goodes and also of gret myght & power in your seid countie and your seid oratour is but a yonger broder hauyng no more to lyve on but the seid londes and tenementes into the whiche he dar not entre for the myght & power of the seid Sir William In whiche cace he is lyke to be undon & disherite for euermore onles your speciall grace be to hym shewed in this behalf wherfor please it the same your highnes the premyssez graciously considered to direct your gracious letters of prevy seall to be directed to the seid Sir William Courtney comandyng hym by the same to appere before your highnes & the lords of your most honourable & discrete counsell at a certen day & under a certeyn payne to answer, &c.
Appended are
(i) The answer of Sir William Courteney, knight, who says that : — the said Sir William Courteney his fadyr was seased of the said manors londes & tenementes specifyed in the said byllin his demesne as of fee tayle of the gyfte of William Bonvyle knyght1 therof made to hym & Margaret his wif doughter of the said Sir William Bonvyle & to the heires of their two bodyes cumyng and the seid William Courteney so being therof seised of such estate therof dyed seasyd after whos clecesse the said manors londes & tenementes discendyd to the said William Courteney as son &
1 This was the Sir William Bonvile who was beheaded after the battle of Wakefield in 1460-1, his son and grandson of the same name both being slain in that battle. He settled the property in dispute on his daughter Margaret on her marriage with Sir William Courtenay. She died in 1487, two years after her husband. G.E.C., Peerage.
Chamber <£ast«. 53
heire of the said William & Margaret by fors wherof immedyatly after the deces of his seid fadyr by his officers entred & wos & yet ys therof seasid in his demean as of fee tayle and syth the tymc of his said fadyr is decesse the same Sir William cam neuer at the said manors ne eny of the premisses ne the said Pyerssyth his said fadyr is decesse neuer claymed eny of the premisses untyll now of late but the said Sir William in peasable maner hath contynued his possession in the same and to the intent that your good lordshippis may haue the better knovvleche of the truthe of the said untrue surmyse the same Sir William besechith your good lordshippis to gyue comaundement by wrytyng to the shrief & justices of peas within the said countie of Somerset to inquier of the said ryot & fors surmytted to be don by hym & to certyffye your good lordshippis of the truthe therof and ouer that the said Sir William seith that he hath payed sith the decesse of his fadyr yerely to his brother Pyers Courteney xx It. out of the said manors of Bere & Burgh & other the premiss tyll now of late that the said Pyers of his unkyndynes trobled the said Sir William & also the same William of his frewill hat geuyn to his said Brother Pyers londes & tenementes in Coltl alen1 in the countie of Devon to the yerely value of x //. by caus his said fadyr couenaunted to geue to the same Pyers xx It. o of the said manors londes & tenementes specyfied in the saic which couenaunt made by his said fadyr was voyde by r by cause the said manors londes & tenementes were intaylcd ar ouer that the said Sir William seith that the_ seid Courteney his fadyr contynued his possessyon in he sai. of Bere & Burgh & other the premisses as well after the maryag bytwene the said Pyers Courteney & Jane his wif the same paying to the same Pyers xx //. *£*f%S£5 londes & tenementes & takyng to his owne use the resydue therof and also the same S.r VV .ham his after the said maryage as bifor hyld the courtes he ^ d manors in his owne name & so dyed seased therof « Sir William Courteney made sealed or ££"h to the said Pyers as ys surmytted by t
. Land in Coltbury Allen was held of Peter Courtnay, Esq., as overlord in 1491. Cal. Inq. p.m. Hen. VII., 1, No. 7<
54
Sir William seith that the said relesse is sealed with his moders seal which after hir deth remayned in the kepyng of the same Pyers and the same Pyers in his moders liffe neuer pretendyd eny title to the said manors londes and tenementes and how be yt the same relesse had beyn the dede of the same Sir William as in dede yt was not the same relesse ys voyde in the lawe by cause the said Pyers was not then in possession of the said Manors ne eny of the premissis and without that the said Sir William ys gylty of eny royet or fors as ys surmytted by the said byll all which matters he is redy to proue.
(2) The replication of the said Piers Courtney, in which he says that : — for the mariage to be had betwen him and the said Jane suster of the seid Thomas Beaumond the seid Sir William Courteney the fader for gret somes of money to hym contented & payd couenaunted & promysed by Indentur that the seid Piers should haue parcell of the manors londes & tenementes of the said Sir William to the yerely value of xl li. ouer all charges & to haue xx li. therof in hond & xx //. after his deces and ther uppon the seid Sir William the fader in parte of perfourmance of his seid promyse made estate of the seid manors londes & tenementes specified in the seid bill to the seid Piers to haue to hym & to theires of his bodie by aggrement then had betwen them that the same Sir William shuld haue duryng his lyfe as moche of the issuez & profites therof as shuld be aboue xx li. yerely accordyng to the premyssez and ther- uppon the seid Sir William Courtney his son in the presens of his seid fader & of his moder and of diuers oder honorable persons made the seid reles with warrantie unto the seid Piers and because the same Sir William the son had no seall of his own as he then seid he then and ther borowed the seall of his moder & therwith sealed the same reles and deliuered yt to the seid Piers as his true dede and the seid Piers by reason therof contynually after that had and occupied the seid manors londes & tenementes duryng all the lyfe of his seid fader and had xx //. therof yerely to his own use and his seid fader the residue accordyng to the seid premysez And after that the seid Sir William Courtney the fader for asmoche as the same manors londes & tenementes were but of the yerely value of xxx //. willed that ymmediatly after his deces the seid Piers shuld haue
&tar Chamber Case*. 55
oder manors londes & tenementes to make up the value of xl li. accordyng to his seid promyse and decessed after whos death the same Sir William according to his seid faders will & promyse made astate to the seid Piers of the seid londes & tenementes in Coltbury Alen and how be yt that they be now aboute the yerely value of x li. they wer not then of the yerely value of vij //'. and so by reason of the premysses all the seid manors londes & tenementes of right belong to the seid Piers and that notwithstonding the seid Sir William sent his seruantes a gret nombre in riotous wise in harnes and wrongfully with force put him oute without that that the seid William Courtney the fader was seased of the seid manors londes & tenementes in fee taill or died therof seased as is surmytted by the seid answer and also seith that the seid Sir William the fader made the seid astate unto the seid Piers with warantie and that the seid Sir William Courtney his son hath sufficient londes and tenementes descendid to hym from his seid fader in fee symple so that he hath no right ne title to the same manors londes and tenementes ne eny parcell therof though they were entayled as they be not and for asmoche as the seid Sir William the son denyeth not but that his seid fader made the seid gift to the seid Piers praith to be restored therunto and also the seid Sir William hath atteyned to his possession the indenture & odcr wrytynges that were made for the suertie of the seid astate uppon the seid manage which belong to the same Piers wher fore he praith that the seid Sir William may be compelled to delyuer them t< the same Piers.
(3) The rejoinder of Sir William Courteney which conta
new facts.1
' The result of this suit is not known, but the d.sputed manors arc r found in the possession of James Courtenay, a . yc William Courtenay who was the defendant in this si
therefore that Peter Courtney failed to make h« cla im, a
might be expected from the way in wni« "'">> ™V» for the difficulty
and from the lame explanation he put about the seal.
56
Dean of Wells u. Hardwich and others.
HENRY VII., No. 36 [MS. in bad state], DATE: 1493-1498.
To the King our soveraign lord and the lords of his most honourable CounseilL
In the most humble wise sheweth and complayneth unto your highnesse your daily oratour John Gunthorp clerk1 deane of your cathedrall church of Welles in youre countie of Somerset that whereas he in the right of the seid deanry was & is seased of and in a more and certeyn londes called Wedmore More con- teynyng xvc acres or theraboutes in the parisshe of Wedmore3 in your seid countie which more and londes hath bine used and accustomed tym oute of mynde by the same deane and his pre- decessours deanes of the same churche & other tenauntes there to be enclosed with walles and other thinges therunto nedefull for the defence of the said more and landes from daunger of ragious flodes of waters commyng and adioynyng to the same and according to the same usage and custume a walle called Kumnorwalle3 extend- ing in length from a village called Theel4 to a [river] called the yoo which is the space of a myle and aboue of olde tyme was made by the seid tenauntes and the predecessours of the said Deane for the defense of the seid more and landes from the said ragious flodes and waters which wall without lette or interupcon of any your subgiects heretofore hath stoude and bein upholden in
1 John Gunthorpe was Dean of Wells from 1472 until his death in 1498. He was chaplain to Edward IV., prebendary of Lincoln 1471-98, and Keeper of the Privy Seal in 1483. He was sent on many diplomatic missions in the reign of Henry. VII. (Diet. Nat. Biog.) His will, dated 25 June, 1498, has been printed in Somerset Medieval Wills (S.R.S., xvi) p. 361. It contains a bequest of ,£30 to Wedmore Church.
2 Wedmore was given by Harold to the Bishop of Wells who held it at the date of the Domesday Survey. V.C.H. Somers, i., 458. In about 1150 Wedmore with the hamlets of Mudgley and Mark was granted to the Dean and Chapter. It formed a prebend of the Cathedral being valued at 60 marks in 1428. Feudal Aids, iv, 415 ; MSS. of D. and C. of Wells (Hist. MSS. Com.) i, 80.
3 This reading is doubtful ; much of the MS. is in a bad state.
4 East Theal and West Theal are hamlets in Wedmore. Collinson, Hist, of Somers., i, 189, ii, 243.
&tar Chamber €a$!ta. 57
fourme aforesaid till of late most gracious soueram lord the ij<*. daie of this present month of Juyn Hugh Hardwich Richard Dwale Richard Sidnam the yonger William Combe anc John Martyn of Glastenbury accompanyed with other disposid and riotous persons of the same town in grete nombre whose names be as yet to your suppliaunt unknowen arai maner of werre that is to say with bowes billes and other wcpyw defensible by the abetting procuring and stirmg of^Wm«u Tyntenhull of Panburgh* John ^pham John More R Counsell Robert Chalcroft John Algare William Algare . Thevre Tohn Collerigge of Theel and John of Martsey alias Barowe of Panbureh afo re 3d in your said countie the seid seconde da.e of this present moneth of Juyn riotously contrary to your lawes ^nd pea's came to the wali "aforesaid & there c-Uy and w, h
& other wepyns diuerse baryers that stoa £ ^ ^
in diuers places therof as well to fc**^ of vj, acrcs
«
from ... as for the . . . « H f he parcell of the seid xv'. acres **"*•£*;£ drOwned and therof wherby the ^J^^^^M orator & his ... to the grete hurt & dam^^fO* ^ seid orator for the tenauntes there which tennauntes £r%BW* as they hadd saluacion of the seid more and Ian 1 asson^ ^ *g ^^ knowlege therof came to . . • ^ persones beyng
& . f . the seid waters and the heir bowes bent &
and abidyng at the ^\ wa^e ^ ^^^" ^ arowes in theym redy to haue : shot at the ten ^ ^ H
orator so that they
then the seid tenaumcs « /- the same wall to their grete co: persones in executing therec
[ to the Abbey
i Panborough, another hamlet i »JJ» >Ojr/ sVtr-) ;,',, 89.
of Glastonbury from the iotl:
58 &tar Chamber
ijde. day of Juyn with like force cutte and cast down the same wall in the same place & surrounded the same more & land and let the waters into the same and the seid tenauntes of your suppliaunt assone as they hadde knowleche therof eftsones amended the same walls to their grete cost & charges . . . by the procuring and stiring of the persons aforerehersed came by nyght araied in maner of werre as is aforesaid & brake & cast down the said walle in other v places of the . . . londes was drowned and surrounded in such wise that therby it is in case to be utterly distroyed & wasted foreuer as well to the grete hurt and disheritance of the said church of Welles . . . dean and his successours . . . hurt and empouerysshing of their seid tenauntes Therfor it may pleas your highness upon con- sideracon of the premises to graunt your gracious letteres of privy seall to be directed to the seid riotous and evil disposed persons comaundyng theym & euery of theym by the same to appear befor your Grace & the lords your most honorable counsel.
Appended are the answers of (i) all the defendants (except Hardwich and Dwale) saying that they are in no wise guilty, (2) Hugh Hardwich and Richard Dwale, who say that :—
Richard abbot of the Monastre of our Lady of Glastonbury1 is & his predecessours long tyme passed have ben seased of the maner of Norloode2 in the said countie & of a more called Yoo More conteyning by estimacon vij or viijc. of acres adioynyng to the said more called Wedmore More in their demesne as of fee in the right of their said monasterie and that the said abbot & his predecessours & all they whos estate the said abbot hath in the seid maner out of tyme of mynd haue ben seased of commen of pasture and used to haue commen of pastur for theym & for their farmors & tenauntes at wille of their said maner of Norloode with & for all maner of bestes euery tyme of the yere in the said more called Wedmore More through whiche to mores that is to
1 This was Richard Bere, Abbot of Glastonbury from 1493-1524. V. C. H. Somers. ii, 94 ; Collinson, ii, 255.
2 The manor of North Load in Wedmore parish belonged to Glaston- bury Abbey. There were several disputes between the Abbey and the Dean and Chapter as to tithes from this manor. MSS. of D. and C. of Wells (Hist. MSS. Com.), i, 226.
Star Chamber Ca*t*. S9
say from the more of the said abbot called Yoo More descendyng into & thrugh the said more of the said Dean called Wedmore More ther hath ben by the said tyme unto now of late a commen Sewer to advoyde all ragious Modes waters comyng & dissendyng from a brigge called the castell brygge and also from a place called Muddesley1 wherof the seid Deane is seased in the right of his seid deanrie which water descendyng from the said brigge called Castell brigge & the seid water descendyng from the seid place called Muddesley mete att a place called Booderiggewere & from thens descendyng to the said more called Yoo More of the said abbot and from thens to the seid more called Wedmore More of the said Deane & from thens into a grete ryuer called the Yoo enteryng into the same ryuer at a place called Lang- londisham byneth a place called Coklake2 as it doth openly & evidently appere and bycause that the said waters discendyng by the same sewar ofte tymes drowned & surrounded the seid more called Wedmore More wherby as well the predecessors of the said Deane & their tenauntes3 as they whos estate the said abbot hath in the said manor called Norloode & their tenauntes often tymes loste the profiles of their comen aforeseid and the deane of the seid churche of Welles & his tenauntes att that tyme beyng percevyng that the seid surroundyng was greter losse unto theym than it was to the owner of the manor of Norloode & his tenauntes made a grete sewyng4 dyche within the seid more of the seid deane
1 Mudgley, another hamlet in Wedmore, belonged to Glastonbury Abbey.
2 Cocklake is also in Wedmore parish.
3 From a very early date there had been disputes between the Abbey ol Glastonbury and the Dean and Chapter as to their respective rights of common on Wedmore (see MSS. of D. and C. of Wells passim). Occa- sionally the matter would be settled for a time by joint agreement, only tc reopened again later on. By one of these agreements, reached n instance, the Abbey acknowledged the right of the Dean and Uiapt enclose 600 acres of land in their moors below Wedmore between
and North Load, surrendering their rights of pasture thorn OB that common of pasture in the rest of the moors -througho saved to the tenants of the Abbey in " Patheneberghe I^eneye am ware." MSS. of D. and C. of Wells (Hist. MSS Com.), i, 226. , Hist. MSS. Com. Rep., iii, 2oia, 3623, and Warner, 6fe
« The word " sew "was used in the i6th century for a cote, open ditch. A "sewyng dyche " is, therefore, obviously a d drained the moor.
60 J^tar Cfyamfor
called Wedmore More bytweene the same more & the seid more called Yoo More the same dyche begynnyng att a place called Thele Wille & so procedyng & descendyng to a place called le ledesham Corner & from thens to the place called Briddesham1 & from thens to the seid place called Langlondisham unto the seid Ryuer of Yoo by which sewyng dyche so new made all the flodes & waters that used to descende from the seid More called Yoo More into the seid more called Wedmore More passed unto the seid grete Ryuer called the Yoo & therby the said More called Wedmore More dried & grew to grete profites & is of gretter profite to the seid deane & his seid tenauntes then it was by fore and by the castyng of the seid new sewyng dyche the seid banke specified in the seid bill was made whiche banke the seid now deane & his predecessors & their seid tenanntes haue used to repaire from the tyme of the makyng therof and the seid now abbot & his predecessors & all they whos estate the seid now abbot hathe in the seid manor of Norloode & their seid Fermors & tenauntes by all the seid tymes sith the makyng thereof haue hadd & used to haue pass [age] & ... with their bestes from the said manor to the seid More called Wedmore More and from the same more to the seid manor without lette or inter- rupcion unto now of late within a yere last past or lytell more that evill disposed persons tenauntes to the said Deane whos names ben to the seid Hugh & Richard unknowen with force & armes sett & fixt upon the seid walle barriers & stakes so that the bestes of the seid fermors & tenauntes of the seid abbot myght not passe that way to the said comem as they hadd at all tymes byfore and also diuers bestes of the seid fermors & ten- auntes of the seid abbot were by the same stakes hurte & destroyed which barriers & stakes if they shold haue so contynued shuld haue ben to the disheriteson of the said abbot & his succes- sors and therfor the said Hugh & Richard by the comaundement of the Steward of the said monasterie the seid secunde day of June by daylight in peasible maner toke downe the barriers & stakes and forsomoche as oon of the said barriers levied & fixed to the nusance of the said abbot & his seid fermors and tenauntes
1 Biddisham and Langland, with which these may be identified, were places in Mudgeley, frequently mentioned in the MSS. of the D. and C. of Wells (Hist. MSS. Com.), 50-2, 206, 210, 216, 227, 228.
Chamber Catfea. 61
was fastenyed & fixed depe within grownde uppon the said bankc in the same place where as the said olde comen sewer used to passe descend from the seid more called the Yoo in & thrugh the seid more called Wedmore More the same Hugh & Richard in peasible maner brake the erthe of the same banke wher as the same barriers were made to take theym downe & by the brekyng therof the water which was used to passe by the seid new sewyng dyche made by the predecessors of the seid Deane for his grete profite was stopped & might not passe by the same new sewing dyche as it hadd used to doo but surrounded the seid grounde of the seid abbot & also grete grounde of his tenauntes adioynyng therto for lak of scowryng & clensyng therof in the defaute of the seid deane & his tenauntes entred by the same brekyng of the same bank into the seid more called Wedmore More in to the same place where the seid olde comen sewar was and so passed in to the seid grete ryuer called the Yoo as it used to do of olde tymes and afterward the tenauntes & seruantes of the seid Deane with other evill disposed persons to the numbre of Ix & moo arrayed in maner of werre that is to say in Jakkes1 salettes2 brigandyrens3 bows bent & arrowes gunnes & other armes defensible rynging the bells of the paroche churche of Wedmore ... & alarom to cause the parochens & other persons by thcym prouokcd to be of their affynytie to assemble togeder and so assembled went & newly made the said stakes & bankps in the places afore . . . & openly proclayming in the paroche churche of Wedmore aforesaid that if the tenauntes of the said abbot callyng them chorles breke downe the bank or stakes eny more they sholde be betyn & slayne and fryed in their own gresc in their own houses and then & ther contynuyng in executing their cruell & malicious disposicon toke oon William Tyntenhull then bcynj constable & tethyngman of the same town of Norloodc & o Agnes More then beyng with child & thcym bete ft intreted that they were in Juperdie of their lyves and when the said riotous persons were departed the said J Richard breke the said bank and stakes by the comaundcmcni the steward & so . . '. of the day breke theym aycn v
i Jackets * Sallets or helmets.
• This is 'the i6th century form of brigandine, a coat of mail co, of iron rings or plates sewn upon leather or canvas. Murray, Ofi
62 J*>tav Chamber
they were newly made as lawful was for theym to doo without that that the said Hugh & Richard lete in the water in to the seid more in any other place then the said water was wont to haue her course & passe or that they breke any walls or barriers by nyght as in the said bill is specified or breke & pulled upp theym in any other wise then is specified in the seid aunswer.
Powe u. Newman alias Elys.
HENRY VII., No. 62. DATE: 1504-1513.
To the moost Reuerende father in God my lorde arcliebisshop of
Caunterburye}
Moost lamentablie compleyneth unto youre good and graciouse lordeship your contynuall Oratoures and dayly beed- men Thomas Powe2 and Thomas Towker of the diocese of Bathe and Welles. That where as your said Oratour Thomas Powe hathe a quearell dependyng in your noble Courte of the Audience3 between hym of oon partie actif and oone John New- man otherwise called Elys of the same diocese of the other
1 The bill was probably directed to Archbishop Warham in his capacity as Chancellor. He was Archbishop of Canterbury from 29 November, 1503, until his death in 1532, and was Lord Chancellor from 1504 to 1515. The erasures suggest that the petition was originally meant for the Archbishop alone, but was later changed and directed to the Star Chamber, as the " untrew arrestes " might be regarded as bringing it within the jurisdiction of that Court, which interpreted its sphere of action in a very elastic way.
2 A family named Powe were settled in Langridge which is about six miles from Combe Hawey. Collinson, i, 133. A John Powe was rector there in 1582. Weaver, Somerset Incumbents, p. 275.
3 The Court of Audience was a Court belonging to the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was " of equal authority to the Court of Arches though inferior to it both in dignity and antiquity." It has been described as " the ecclesiastical counterpart of the Court of Requests," a court for the speedy hearing of poor men's causes. It formerly followed the Archbishop in his visitations but was fixed at Lambeth about 1500. It was presided over by two judges called Auditors. It seems often, as here perhaps, to have been exploited by malevolent persons for the annoyance of their neighbours. Cowell, Interpreter ; I. S. Leadam, Star Chamber Cases (Selden Society), Intro., Ixxxv-xc.
Chamber Catfeif. 63
partie defendant. And the same John for his contumacie obteyned by your houourable auditoure lawfully to be suspended out of the churche1 and upon the same hadde oute your letteres of execucion so to denounce the same John Newman in the parishe churche where he dwellethe and so it is moost gracious lorde that for bicause oon of your forseid Oratoures Thomas Towker whiche at thinstant desire and diligent requisicion of the seid Thomas Powe your oratoure aforeseid brought your foresaid moost reuerend letters of execucion and them deluyered to the parish prest or Curate of the parishe churche of Comehawie of the same diocese for to denownce suspended the foresaid John Newman in the seid parishe churche and otherwise to doo according as the tenor of the seid letteres makethe mencion. The foresaid John Newman of all the premisses hauyng know- lege and assone as your moost reuerend letteres were so executed and by the reason of the same not only the foresaid Thomas Towker your mandatorye in that behalfe pullynge and halyng hym by the bodie wrongfullye intreted hym and to him spake many iniuriouse and vilependiouse wordes but also caused your oratoure and mandatorye wrongfully at his syvvte to be arrested and him like a felon his handes bounde behynde hym led to preson and also caused the cattell of the seid Thomas Powe your oratoure and the cattell of the fader of the seid Thomas to the numbre of x oxen to be arrested and dreven awey by force the seid Thomas Powe then being at London geuyng attendaunce upon his councell of your honourable courts where the fader of the seid Thomas bey[ing] of the age of Ixxij yeres ferying the utter undoyng of himself and also of his sonne was feyne to make him frendes to take the seid John Newman other- wise called Elys vij ti vj s viij d to have his catell agey . . . where there was no peny due and after the manner of extorcion orels brybery3 the seid John Newman witholdeth and kepeth the seid some of vij ti\] s viij d wrongfully to the grete lost and hinder- aunce of ... seid olde man fader to the seid Thomas Powe your
1 This was a temporary excommunication inflicted for minor offences such as brawling and quarrelling. The letter of denunciation had to be read by the incumbent in the parish church.
2 Bribery in this connection has the old meaning of robbery with violence. Murray, Dictionary.
64 &tar Chamber
Oratoure And when the seid John hadde the seid some of money he thretenyng the olde fader with maliciouse wordes seying this money shall finde the . . . thy sonne plee y nowgh Beforce where of it wyll ensewe to the utter undoying of your seid ora- toures onlesse your lordeship the more gracious be shewed to theym in this behalf hit now please youre good lordes[hip] the premissez tenderly considered and also the untrew arrestes made to thentent your seid oratoure shuld surcesse his seid accion yn your courte to graunt a writ subpena to be directed] to the seid John Newman otherwise called Elys commaundyng him by the same to come and make answere before the King our soueraign lord & his most honourable counsell at a certen day. Appended is the answer of the said John Newman, in which
he says : —
That he as serjaunt & baylly unto oon Edward Stradlyng squyer1 & by his commaundment distreyned the said fader of the said Thomas Powe as a tenaunt unto the said Edward his mayster for arrerage of his rent and fcrme dewe unto unto hym the which arreragez amounteth to the said sum of vij ti vj s viij d as is sur- mitted in the said bill the which he will averre and prayeth to be dismyssed out of this court.
Hameleyne u. the Abbott of Cleeve.
HENRY VII., No. 77. DATE: c. 1506. To the kyng oure souerayng lorde.
Humble sheweth and complayneth unto your most noble grace your true subiect and liege man Alexander Hameleyne3
1 Edward Stradling was the eldest son and heir of Thomas Stradling, who was lord of the manor of Combe Hawey at this date. He married Elizabeth daughter of Sir Thomas Arundel of Cornwall, was knighted in 1513, in which year he made the presentation to the Church of Combe Hawey, and died in 1535. The family of Stradling had owned this manor from the reign of Edward I. (See Ministers' Accounts, P.R.O., bundle 1148, nos. 2, 8). Court Rolls of the manor for the reigns of Henry VI., Henry VII. and Henry VIII. are preserved at the Record Office. See also Collinson, iii, 335 ; Shaw, Knights of England.
'2 The Hamlyn family had owned land in Cleeve from the fourteenth century onwards. In 1346 Robert Hamlyn held one-quarter of a knight's fee
jz>tar Cijamfccr Cages. 65
that where as your said oratour and subiecte was lawfully seased yn his demeane as of fee tayle of certeyn londes meadowes and pastures with their appurtenances in Lullekkesburgh2 yn your countie of Somersett by which grownd their ys a high waye lyyng callyd Sydewaye for alle your liege people to cary ryde and to goo at alle tymes which high waye hath ben there usyd by the tyme that no man can remember the contrary tille nowe of late John Abbott of Clyffe2 John Ewen Richerd Western George Pytte John Prouse of Crowedon3 John Herward of Treburgh thelder John Herward of Slowurthy4 John Beydon of Lye thelder and John Herwerd of Lullekkesburgh with other riotouse and other evyll disposed persones to the nombre of
there, the remaining three-quarters being held by the Abbot of Cleeve (Feud. Aids, iv, 342, 431). A William Hamlyn was living here in 1399 (Ing. p. m., 22 Ric. II., No. 124), and John Hamlyn held the estate in 1431 (Feud. Aids, iv, 431), but no trace of other members of the family has been found until the Alexander Hamlyn of the suit. We know from his replication that the latter was the son of Thomas and the grandson of John Hamlyn. In 1560 John Hamlyn was holding land in Cleeve. Feet of Fines, Somers., Mich., 2 and 3 Eliz.
1 Luxborough. Gerard refers to this old form of the name. Survey of Somers. (S.R.S.).
2 John Paynter was Abbot of Cleeve in 1506, but in the following year the Abbot was William Dovell, who held office from 1507 until the surrender of the house in 1 537. ( V. C. H. Somers., ii, 1 1 5.) The Cistercian abbey of St. Mary, Cleeve, had been founded by William de Romare, Earl of Lincoln, between 1186 and 1191. At the date of the Dissolution the Abbey held the manors of Old Cleeve, Treborough, Brown (in Treborough) and Sandell, with manorial rights on Luxborough and Clatworthy, and lands and rents in Bilbrook, Washford, Hungerford, Golsingcote, Roadwater, " Lunda," Leigh, " Octro and Smallcombes," Blackford, Sloworthy, Dunster and Marsh. Dugdale, Monasticon, i, 734 ; V. C. H. Somers., ii, 115-8.
3 The wills of members of the Prowse family of Crowedon or Croydon in Old Cleeve may be seen in Somerset Wills (ed. Crisp), iii, 74, 76. An ancient deed preserved in the Record Office contains a curious agreement by which George Prowse bound himself to provide dinner and supper twice yearly at Croydon Grange for the Abbot of Cleeve and his men (Cat. And. Deeds, P.R.O., A. 13069). A pedigree of the Prouse family is found in the Visitation of 1623 (Harl. Soc., xi, 89, 90), but they lived at Tiverton, Devon, and there is no evidence of any connection with this family.
4 Cleeve Abbey had acquired land in Sloworthy about 1203, and still held it at the Dissolution. Valor Eccles (Rec. Com.), i, 217. It was granted by Henry VIII. to John Wyndham of Orchard. L. and P., Hen. VIII. (xv), No. 106, p. 1 1 5.
K
66 g»tar Chamber
xj persones to your supplyaunt unknovven riotousely whith force and armez that ys to saye with staffes bylles swerdys long knyues and other defensible wepyns yn maner of a newe insurrexion the Fryday nexte after the fest of seynt George last passyd, came in to a certeyn grounde callyd forty acres in Lullekkesburgh and stopped uppe the said high waye that no man may ryde yn the same and there and then with their wepons kutte and brake down the hegges of your said sup- plyaunt beyng for his closure betwene hys grownde and the high waye and then made the high waye ouer the grownde of your said supplyaunt where as was neuer any high waye usyd and so the said ryotours by meyntennaunce and great supportacion of the said Abbott contynuelly usyn the same high waye uppon his seueralle grounde and so doo alle other your subiectez that com that waye because the olde comen high waye ys so stopped and dyked and also the s[aid ryotjous persones haue kutte downe xxiij carte lodes of wodes of your said supplyauntez whiche was growyng at lullekkesburgh forsaid and caryed awaye the same as to their owne use contry to alle reason and concyens and for asmoche as the said abbott ys a man of greate myght and powre yn that countree and chieff causer and meyntenor of all the said iniuryes and wronges done your said supplyaunt dar nott nor ys nott of power to cause reformacion and remedye for hym to be hadde yn the premyssez by the course of your comon lawes please yt therfore your most noble grace the premyssez graciously to consyder and to commawnde your gracious letters under your prevye scale to be directed to the said Abbott and other forsaid riotous persones commawnding theym and euery of theym by the same to appere personally befor your grace and your most honorable cowncell to answere to the premyssez &c.
Appended are : — (i) The answer of John Abbott of Cliffe to the other defendants named in the bill of complaint, who say that the matter is determinable at the common law and further state : that the said John now Abbott and his Predecessours abbotis of the said monastery be and haue ben seased of the said parcel 1 of grounde called forty acres in their demeanes as of fee in the right of their said church as ther seuerall frehold and the said complaynaunt entending to put the said Abbott from thaduauntage and proficte of the said grounde utterly claymeth and pretendith to haue a
Chamber Casf3. 67
high waye within the same . . . ther is nor by the tyme that any man can remembre haue ben eny high way had or used within the same grounde without that that the said defendauntis or eny of theym haue stopped the said high way called the Sidway as in the said bill is surmysed. The said John Ewen saith that he was and is tenaunt of certeyn grounde in lullekkys- bourgh unto the said Alexander by reason of which lesse he accordyng to the custome of the countre ther hath cutt resonable fuell and frithe1 for his heggis groueng apon his said ten[ement] and without that that the said defendauntes or eny of theym by the mayntenaunce and supportacion of the said abbott usen eny way ouer the seuerall ground of the said Hamlyn all which maters they ben redie to proue.
(2) The replication of the said Alexander Hamelyne in which no further facts appear ; he states that the said John Ewen has no such lease as alleged.
(3) The depositions for the part of Alexander Hameleyn. Roger Westcote of the age of four score years or ther[e]abowte
examyned and sworen sayth that he hath seyn a waye ouer [the] xl acres and knowen by the name of the waye ouer the xl acres but whether yt be the waye called the syde[way] or not he knoweth not and he herd saye that ther was a crosse yn the same way. Also the sayd Roger sayeth that John Ewyn one of the defendauntez stoppyd the sayd hygh way lyyng ouer the xl acrez butt he knoweth not that the other of the defen- dauntez were prevy therto and more he knoweth not.
John Westcote of the age of xl yerez or there abowte examynyd and sworen sayth as Roger Westcote hath sayd as towchyng the waye also he sayth that Richerd Western and John Ewen stoppyd the sayd hygh waye lyyng ouer the xl acres. Also he sayth that Richerd Western was seruaunt to John Herward and kutte downe certeyn wode yn pyrlewode yn lullekkesburgh . . . iij or iiij carte lodes by hys estymacyon whiche wode the said Richerd Western said that he ... of John Forster and more he knoweth not.
John Beydon of the age of xlvj yerez or ther ab[oute examynjyd and sworne sayth yn alle thynges concernyng the high waye as Roger Westcote sayd and more he [knoweth] not. 1 Underwood, brushwood.
68 £tar Chamber Cages.
William Darche of the age of Ixvj yerez sworen and examynyd sayth yn alle thynges concernyng the waye [sayth as Roger Westjcote seyd. And he sayth that he hath seyn the mote of the crosse that stode yn the waye . . . that Richerd Westerne and John Herward fader yn lawe to Richerd Western stopped the sayd waye.
Robert Herward of the age of Ix yerez sayth that Richerd Western stoppyd the said waye by the commaundement of the abbot of Clyve predecessor to the abbot that now ys. Also he saith that Jobn Ewen had no lese of Alexander Hamelyne of any tenement yn lullekesburgh.
John Syterffyn1 of the age of xl yerez saith that Richerd Western kutt downe viij lodys of wode yn pyrly wode.
John Pole of the age of Ix years saith that one Robert Smyth Fermer of the said ground called the xl acrez bette a woman for levyng opyn of the yate of the sayd waye and that was don xxx yerez past.
(4) The Deposycyons of the part of John Abbott of Clyve and other.
Thomas Coke otherwise callyd Thomas Richerdes of the age of Ix yerez sayth that he hath seyn that men haue gon and rydyn yn the way ouer the xl acrez butt he knoweth not who stoppyd the said waye.
John Chapman of the age of four score yerez sayth that he hath knowen a waye usyd ouer the xl acrez by the space of xx yerez.
Similar depositions were made by John Vycar otherwise callyd John Truscombe of the age of 1 yerez ; John Chester of like age ; and Robert Vycary of the age of Ix yerez.
1 The Siderfin family was well known in West Somerset. — Chadwyck Healey, Hist, of West Somerset, 43, 150, 160, 374, 399, 400. William Siderfin married Wilmote, the daughter of John Forster, who owned the manor of Luxborough Eve in the reign of Elizabeth (Chanc. Proc. Eliz., file 3, No. 54). William was followed by his son Robert Siderfin. V. C. H. Somers., MSS., Luxborough.
€&3t<s. 69
Hamlyn u. Ewen.1 HENRY VII., No. no. DATE: c. 1506. To the kyng our soueraygne lord.
Humble sheweth and complayneth unto your most noble grace your true subiect and lige man Alexander Hamlyn of your Countie of Somerset. That where as your said complayn- ant was peasably and rightfully possessed and seased in his demeane as of fee of a mese xxli acres of londe iiij acres of medowe and xxli acres of pasture with their appurtenances in Lullekkesburgh in your said countie one John Ewen of Lullekkesburgh by supportacion ayde and mayntenaunce of William Hewyt of Dunster John Prouse of Crowdon John Herward of Treburgh thelder John Herward of Sloworthy George Pytte and John Rakysworth with force and armes that is to say with billes swords and staffes riotously the xxij day of Apriell the xxjth yere of the reign2 of your most noble grace entred into the said mese londes medowes and other premysses and so contynually kepeth and taketh all issues reuenus and profectis therof growing contrary to right and consciens and ayenst all good order of your lawes and also the said wrong- doers manessen and threthen your said suppliaunt and his seruauntes so that they for fere of body harme to theym by the said riotours to be done dar not goo to their market towne as they have usid to doo for their nessessary causes pleas it therefore your most noble grace in consideracion of the premissis to graunte your gracious letters under your pryvie scale to be directed to the said mysdoers and to euery of theym commaundyng theym by the same to apere before your grace and your most noble counsell to aunswere to the premisses.
Appended are (i) the answers of John Ewen and the other de- fendants who say that : — at a court of the said Alexander and Alice
1 This appears to be an echo of the former suit, and by the age given by the deponents must have been about the same time. It should be noticed that the age of John Siderfin is given as 40 in the former and as 60 in this suit, but this appears to be a slip. 2 1 506.
70 &tar Chamber €a$«(.
his moder holden at Lullekkesburgh in the countie of Somerset the vth day of Juny the vij yere of the reigne of our soueraign lord kyng Henry the vijthl the same John Ewen graunted for the fyne of xls truly content and payde to the said Alexander and Alice in her full court toke of the said Alexander and Alice the said mese londes meadowes and pasture specified in the said bill to haue to hym [for] terme of his liffe by forse whereof he entred and occupied the same as lawfull was for hym to doo and by reason of the said lease the said John contynued his possession till now of late the said Alexander contrary to right and good conscience hym put oute of the same without that the said William Hewyt & the other defendants entered into the said mese londes and other the premisses or kepeth or takith the issues and profictis of the same as in the said bill is surmysed or that they or any of them manessen or threten the said Alexander or any of his seruantes in maner and form as in the said bill is alleged.
(2) The replication of Alexander Hamlyn in which he says that: — on John Hamlyn was seasid of a mese xxli acres of londe iiij acres of medowe xxl1 acres of pasture with ther appurten- ances in Lullekkesburgh in the said countie of Somerset in his demeane as of fee and soo thereof seased the said lond is and other by the name of all his londes and tenementes in lullek- kesburgh gaff to Thomas Hamlyn and Alice his wif to have and to hold to theym and to the heirs of their to bodies lawfully begoten by vertue whereof the said Thomas and Alice were thereof seased in their demeane as of fee taile and had issue the said Alexander and afterwardes the said Thomas died and the said Alice hym ouerlyued and hilde her in her possession in the same by vertue of the gifte in the taile aforesaid by survyvor and afterwardes at the court of the said Alice holden at Lullekkesburgh the vij day of June in the vijth yere of the reigne of our soueraign lord kyng Henry the vijth the said John Ewen toke of the said Alice the said mese and other the premisses to hold the same accordyng to the custome of the said maner by copie of court rolle and at the will of the said Alice. And afterward the said Alice died after whos dethe the said mese and other the premisses descended to the said
1 1492.
Ctyam&cr Cases. 71
Alexander as son and heire of the said Thomas and Alice by vertue wherof he entered and therof was seased in his demeane as of fee taile by force of the gifte aforsaid. And afterward the said John Ewen and other named in the same bill of complaynt entred into the said mese and other premisses and kut downe the said wodis as in the said bill of compleynt is expressed and so yet contynually taken all issues of the same withouten that that the said Alexander made any lese of the said mese and other premisses in maner and form as by the said aunswer is surmysed wherfore in asmoche as the said John Ewen and other, &c., haue confessed the said offencis and yniuries done the said Alexander prayeth that they may be compelled by auctorite of this court to satisfie the said Alexander aswell for his damages susteyned and had in the premisses as for his costes of and for the same.
(3) The deposycions of the parte of Alex. Hameleyn.
John Westcote of the age of xl yerez sworn & examynyd saith that the said Alex. Hameleyn was seasyd of a mese and certcyn londe with thappurtenauncez in Lullekkesburgh unto the tyme that John Evvyn by supportacyon of John Rakysworth and William Hewett entred yn to the said mease but whether that Alex. Hameleyn made any copy of the said mease or not to John Ewyn he knoweth not.
Robert Herward of the age of Ix yerez deposeth as above but that John Ewyn hadd no copy of Alex. Hamelyn of the said mease.
John Syterffyn of the age of Ix yerez deposith in like manner also John Pole of the same age.
Thomas Coke of the age of Ix yerez saith that John Ewen was putt owte of tenementes yn Lullekesburgh by Alex. Hamelyn uppon whom John Ewen entryd agayne but by what auctoryte he knoweth not.
Robert Vycar of the age of Ix yerez deposeth as John Pole aforesaid.
The deposycions of the part of John Ewen and William Hewett.
John Forster of the age of xl yerez saith that Alex. Hamelyn entryd yn to a mease and certeyn londe in Lullekes-
72 g>tar Chamber
burgh and was seasyd therof unto the tyme that John Ewen entred yn to the sayd mease and londe by supportacyon of John Rakysworth.
John Broke of the age of xlvj yerez saith that he was admytted tenaunt to Alex. Hamelyn at the first courte that the said Alex. Hamelyn held at lullekesborough and he saith that he hadd neuer copye of the said Alexander.
Inhabitants of Draycott and Stoke Giffard u. Sir John
Rodney, kt.
HENRY VIII., VOL. XIII, 83 AND 84. DATE: 1516. (2 bills and an answer copied on to one skin.)
To the Kinge our soveraigne lorde and to the lordes of his moost honorable and discrete counsel!.
Please it your highnes to understand of the wrongis oppres- sions and extorsions doon by Sir John Rodney, Knight,1 unto your power and faithfull subjectes inhabitantes within the townes and villages of Draycot and Stoke Gifford within your countie of Somerset, whose names resteth in sedule to this bill annexed,2 whereof some are tenauntis to the Lady Lisley your
1 Sir John Rodney belonged to the family which had held the manor of Rodney Stoke from the reign of Edward I. He succeeded his father, Thomas Rodney, in 1469-70 at the age of ten. Collinson, iii, 603. He built a great part of the manor of Rodney Stoke, the ruins of which could still be seen in the eighteenth century (Ibid., 604). The Rodneys owned other lands in the county, including the hamlet of Draycot, which was partly in Cheddar and partly in Rodney Stoke (Collinson, iii, 602). This Sir John Rodney presented to the church of Backwell in 1488 and 1510, to the church of Claverham in 1502, to the church of Saltford in 1505 and 1510, and to that of Winford in 1499 and 1524. Weaver, Somerset Incumbents, 233, 255, 284, 303. Sir John's eldest son, Sir Walter, who was sheriff of Somerset in 1511, died in his father's lifetime, and Sir John was followed on .his death in 1526 (for his will see Smith, Wills, ii, 542) by his grandson John. The will of the last-named, proved 31 Jan., 1548-9, mentions his mansion houses of Stoke Rodney and Backwell, Soniers. Medieval Wills (S.R.S., xxi), p. 103. See Somers. Visit., ed. Weaver, p. 70, and below, 198-200.
2 See below, p. 80.
Chamber CaSttf. 73
warde,1 some tenauntis to the Lord of Seint Johns3 and some tenauntis to the saide Sur John. First that where the said inhabitantes and their auncestres and all those whose estate they have in their holdes and tenures in the said townes and villages, by reason therof have used tyme out of mynde to have comen of pasture in a more within your said countie called Stokemore, wiche the seid Sur John hath nowe of late enclosed in to his parke of Stoke and taken as his severall contrarie to right, justice and good conscience, by reason whereof your seid subjectis must leave their tenures and holdes whiche is to their utter undoing. Also the seid Sur John hath now of late enclosed as his severall cc acres and more of a certain grounde within your said countie called Myndepe, parcell of your forest there, contrarie to all right and good conscience, whereas the seid inhabitantes have used tyme out of mynde to have comen in the seid grounde so enclosed for their beastes, by reason of whiche enclosure your seid subjectis are utterly undon. Also the seid Sur John hath stopped the comen way which all inhabitantes within the said townes and villages by reason of their tenures there have used to have to their seid comen. Also the seid Sur John wrongfully without colour or title of right but only of his extorte power and might contrarie to all lawes and good conscience hath taken from oon John Jenyn, oon of your seid subjectis, and from Mawde Jenyn and Jane Broke widowes, two tenementis and a parcell of their grounde thereto belongyng, and also pulled down their said tenementis or houses and hathe enclosed the same unto his seid parke, and yet the seid Sur John compelleth them to paie the hoole rent for the premisses contrarie to all right and good conscience. Also the seid Sur John at sundry tymes at his courtis holden within the seid manors of Stoke Gifford and Draycote compelleth suche of your seid subjectis as be his tenauntis to shewe him their writtingis that they have of their seid holdes, and when he hath theym in
1 Elizabeth Grey, suo jure Baroness Lisle, who succeeded her father on his death without male issue in 1504. She died in 1519, being still under age and a ward of the king.
2 Thomas Doewra, the diplomatist and courtier, who was Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem at Clerkenwell, is described in contem- porary documents as " the Lord of St. John's." The St. John barony was in abeyance in 1516,
74 &tar Chamber Cases.
his handes he raseth and delivereth the same so rased to his seid tenauntis ayen, by colour whereof he daily troubleth and manasseth thaim to put theym from their seid holdes and tenours contrarie to all right and good conscience. Also where as oon John Webbe, oone of your seid subjectis paied unto the seid Sur John twentie markys for a fyne and to the seid Sur John is wiffe xl s. uppon twentie yeres past for a tenement wherof the seid Sur John promised to make astate by his dede sufficient in the lawe unto the seid John Webbe and his wiff for terme of their lives, which dede and astate the seid Sur John denieth to make, albeit that they have oftentymes required him that to doo. Also where as oone William Kechyn nowe deceassed paid in his liffe unto the seid Sur John eighte pounde for a fyne for a tenement and certain lande in Draicote aforseid to thuse of John Kechin, oon of your seid subjectis, and Isabell his wiffe, terme of their lives, the same Sur John of his extorte power hath taken from the seid John Kechyn the best parte of the seid londe to the seid tenement belongyng, and not oonly intreteth the seid John Webbe and John [Kechyn] in this maner but also many and divers of your seid subjectis his tenauntis contrary to all right and good conscience. Also the seid Sur John daily compelleth your seid subjectis to leve their own besynes and to plowe his lande with their oxen and ploweis and also to carie his wode, tymbre and stone, to his owne house, without geving unto them any mete, drink or wages for the same. And if they sey him naix, he manasseth theim to hange, bete and mayhem theim contrarie to your lawes, and to their greate ympoveryssing and utter undoyng. Also the seid Sur John daily occupieth and laboureth their horses and mares as his owne without their leve or licence, and when the seid horses and mares can noo more labour he sendeth them home to your seid subjectis, whiche afterwardes for the moost parte dieth or else be never able to doo any more service. Also the seid Sur John, havyng red dere within his seid park, wilfully suffreth the same to lye daily and nyghtly upon the corne and grasse of your seid subjectis, who for fere of their lyves dare not ons dryve thaim awaie. And if thei put anny litle houndes upon thaim to dryve theim awaie, the seid Sur John and his servauntis killeth the same houndes, so that your seid subjectis canne kepe noo .maner
tar Chamber CasttS. 75
of dogges nor houndes within their houses to dryve awaie anny bestes out of their corne, and if remedie be not hadde the rather in the premises your seid subjectis must of fyne force leve their holdes and tenours and goo a begging for their lyving, for thei are not able nor of power nor yet dare to sue for their remedie in the premissis for fere of their lyves, and soo without remedie oonles your gracious highnes [sic] be unto them shewed in the premisis. And also whereas oon Sur Richard Carter,1 clarke, parsonne of Stoke aforseid, oon of your seid subjectis, was seised of certain lande and also to have comen in the forseid more in right of his seid churche, whiche comen and lande the seid Sur John hath kepte from the said Sur Richard thes many yeres by reason whereof the seid parsonage is decayed yerly above the some of iiij /*'. contrary to all right and good conscience, whereas the seid parsonne is not able nor of power to sue for his remedie in the premises at comen lawe and soo without remedie onlesse your moost gracious helpe be had in the premisses. Please it therefore your seid highnes of your moost habundaunt grace and pety the premisses to considere and to call the seid Sur John afore your seid highnes and your moost honorable counsaill at your palaise of Westmynster ... to aunswere unto the premisses, and to ordere such direction and punyshment in the same so that your seid subjectis may be recompensed of their seid injuries and wronges to thaim committed by the seid Sur John, whiche amounteth above the some of ccccc markis, and that the seid Sur John may fynde unto your highnes good and sufficient suerties of his good abering,2 and also to kepe your pease ayenst your seid subjectis and all other, soo that the same your subjectis maye hereafter lyve quyetly and peasably in your seid countie under your highnes according to your lawes ; and over that that it wolde please your seid highnes to directe your commission to endifferent persons to enquire of the extorcions and oppres-
1 He was parson of Stoke Rodney from November, 1496, to his death in 1541. Weaver, Somers. Incumbents, p. 188.
2 There was a distinction between surety of the peace and surety " of the good abearying " (de bono gestu\ in that the latter " might be broken without an affray either by the number of a man's company or by their weapons and harness." Cowell, Interpreter.
76
sions doon and committed by the seid Sur John to many and dyvers of your power subjectis within your seid countie, whiche your seid subjectis estemeth to be above the some of one M1 li. And your seid subjectis shall daily pray to God for the preservation of your moost royall estate longe to endure.
The aunswere of Sir John Rodney, Knight, to the above bill.
He seieth that the mater in the same conteigned is determinable at common lawe, whereto he praieth to be remitted. Neverthe- les for the declaration of the trought concernying the premisses he seieth as unto the furst and second articules that before the tyme of the enclosure supposed he was and yet is fully seased of the maner of Stoke in his demeane as of fee, wherof dyvers of the complaynauntis be tenauntis to him for terme of liffe by copie of courte rolle after custorne of the seid maner, and some be tenauntis for terme of liffe by dede, and some occupieth by sufferans and at pleasure of the seid Sur John without havying any copie or dede, and some of the seid compleynauntis be noo tenauntis ne occupiers of any lande in the seid lordshippis of Stoke or Drey cot, soo that the said persons whiche be noo tenauntis make their complaint of pure malice without any grounde or cause ; and as to those whiche be tenauntis he seieth that thei ought not ne mai not by the comen lawe prescribe to have common ayen the seid Sur John, owner of the seid maner wherof thei be tenauntis, and if thei might, as thei may not, yet the seid Sur John seieth that it is laufull for him that is their lord and owner of the seid maner and landes where they pretende to have com on, to enprowe himself in his owne grounde, leving to his seid tenauntis sufficient comen ther. And he seieth that he enclosed a certain other grounde, parcell of his seid maner, called the Allars, as it was laufull for him to doo, whiche is noo parcell of the seid lande called Stokemore, which enclosure the complaynauntis with divers other riotouse personnes to the nombre of vij score personnes and above riotously with force brake and pulled up the pale of the seid Sur John there and then did bren the same ; without that that the seid Sur John enclosed the seid more called Stokemore. And he ferther seieth that he suffereth his seid tenauntis to use comon in his seid more
Chamber Case3. 77
as he hath doon in tyme past at his will and pleasure without any right, in whiche more called Stokemore is more pasture thenne his seid tenauntis bene able to occupie, without that the seid tenauntis of Dreycot ought to have any comon in the said more, [etc.] And whereas it is supposed that the seid Sur John shuld have enclosed cc acres of landes of Mendepe, wherein the complaynantes claymeth comon, he seieth that he entendith to inclose abought xl acres and to leve more pasture in wast ground ther unclosed thenne all his tenauntis ben able to occupie, and made a litle wall ther begynnyng the same enclosure, without that that he hath yet enclosed any parcell of grounde ther, or that he entendith .to enclose cc acres [etc.]. As to his stoppyng of a comon wei to the more called Stokemore, he seieth that he and his auncestres hath suffered the said tenauntis to have weys to the seid more, wherof the oone wey was thorough the utter courte of the seid Sur John, and by cause it was a nusaunce he did stop it, as it was laufull for him to doo, and suffereth them to occupie the other wey, as esye for thaim as the other was, soo that thei be not graved thereby but their complaint only grounded upon malys. As to the iiij th articule he seieth that the seid Mawde Jenyns is seassed of two tenamentis in Stoke wherunto is perteinyng certain acres of landes, for terme of liff, the remaindre to the seid John Jenens for terme of his liffe, and thei bounden to repayre and repaire [sic\ the seid tenamentis, and she dwelled upon the oone and occupied not the other, but suffered it to be vacant and toke therof noo proficte, by reason wherof it fell in dekey, and to ease the seid Maude of the reparacion therof, it was agreed betwene the seid Sur John, John Jenens and Maude, upon their sute, that Sir John shuld take downe the seid house and inclose the cyte therof into his orchard ; and the seid Maude alwaies hath and doth yet kepe and occupie all the lande belongyng to bothe tenamentis, and soo she hath rather profecte thenne hurte. As to the house of Johane Brokis he seieth he is not giltye of the imparking therof ; she dwelleth in Dricote, and holdeth the same tenament, which lieth in Stoke, of the seid Sur John by copie of courte rolle, where the custome is that noo tenaunt shall make noo under tenaunt without licence of the lord upon payne of forfaiture, and she did let the seid holde in Stoke to another man without
78 &tar Cfjambtr
licence, by reason whereof the seid Sir John did sease a litell vacant house parcell of the seid tenament as lawfull it was for him to doo and yet suffereth the seid Johane to occupie the residue of the same tenament whiche he might laufully sease into his handes if he wolde. Also as to the fifth articule the seid Sur John seith that he never raased any dede of any of his tenauntis and forasmoche as that articule is very slaunderos the seid Sur John praieth that the said complaynauntis may be compelled to express the names of suche personnes whose dedes by their sufmise shulde be so raased and he shall make more presise aunswere thereunto. Also as to the sixte articule, the seid Sur John seith that he had a certain fyne of John Webbe for his tenament long tyme past but howe muche he hadde he is not perfitly nowe remembrid and whether the seid Sur John is wiff hadde anny money of the seide Webbe the seid Sur John knowith not but he seieth that allwaie sith the seid fyne taken by the seid Sur John, the seid Sur John hath suffered the seid John Webbe to occupie his seid tenament without any interup- cion and at diuers courtis hathe caused proclamacion to be made that all those whiche hadde paied their fynes for their tenamentis shulde make their dedes according to their couenauntis and the custume of the courtis and thei shuld be sealed soo the seid Sir John hath beene redie to seale his dede according to his covenauntis till nowe of late that the seid John Webbe with other riotus personnes agayne the kingis pease and contrarie to the custume of the maner rioutously assembled thaimselff and put the seid Sur John in great geopardie as by a bill put in to this Courte by the seid Sur John ageyne the said John Webbe and other more at large it dothe appere and if it be thought by your good lordship that the seide John Webbe shulde haue estate made notwithstanding his misdemeanre the seid John is redie to doo therin as it shalbe thowght by this courte. And as for the seuenth articule the seid Sur John seith that for the seid summe in the seid articule expressed he bargayned and solde a tenement to William Kechyn for terme of his own lyffe according to whiche bargayne he occupied the seid tenament for terme of his liffe without interruption of the said Sur John, without that he made any bargayne with the seid William for Johon Kechyn and Isabell his wiffe as is surmised by the seid articule. As to
&>tar Chamber CatfeS. 79
the eight articule the seid Sur John seith that at certain tymes long passed his seid tenauntis of their good mynde and free will to his knowlege haue holpen him with their plowes and he hath in like maner holpen theym with his plowes at their busynes after the olde custume and ferther seith that at suche tymes as his tenauntis did help him thei hadde mete and drink conuenient, and as far as he cowde knowe thei were well contented therwith. To the ninth article he seith that he never occupied any of the horses or mares of his seid tenauntis without their good will, as far as he remembreth ; and if he occupied any whiche miscaried in his service he hath recompensed the partie therefore, and praieth that the names of the persons greved and their wrongis may be in especialte remembred, and he shall make therto directe aunswere. And to his red dere distroying the corne of his tenauntis, and his killing their doggis, he seieth that sumtyme the seid red dere have brokyn out of his parke, and to his knowlege have don litell hurte in the seid corne, howbeit he hath oftentymes seid to his tenauntis that thei shuld present or prove at any courte of his what hurte his seid dere have doon, and he have bene alwayes redye to make thaim reasonable amendes ; as to the doggis, he hath commanded his tenauntes to clog their dogges for the distroying of his dere and waren, and thei wold not it doo, wherefore at certain tymes whene the doggis of his tenauntis hath troubled his dere or waren it may chaunce well that sume of his servauntis hath by chaunce of some stroke kylled some of their doggis. As to the parsones land, he seieth that he before this tyme hath occupied oone acre of lande of the seid parsons by his agrement, and truly hath paied the parsons former the rent therfore.
Appended to these copies of bill and answer is a copy of the bill of the said Sir John, complaining that : — John Webbe, John Hardwicke, Richard Chike, William Giffrys, John Genes, John Dultyng and William Cade, all of Stoke Rodney otherwise called Stoke Gifford husbandmen, with other riotouse and evil disposed persones to the noumber of sevyn score in all, in maner of a newe insurrection assembled the third daie of Aprill in the seventh yere of the King's reigne1 at Stoke Rodney aforeseid, and there with battis and other wepons a pale of the seid Sur John
1 1516.
8o J?tar Chamber Cased.
standing abought the weste parte of a wodde of the same Sur Johns called the Alders dedde breke downe a greate parte of the same pale of their vengeable and dispitefull mynde whiche thei bere agayne the seid Sur John dede ther and thenne brenne ; and when Sur John was enfourmed therof, entending under good and peasable maner to pasifie thaim, came to thaim with tow servauntis with him, and under faier maner intreate thaim to sease of brennyng of the seid pale, whiche thei wolde not, but gave to the seid Sur John many dispitfull wordes, and the seid John Webbe with a pike furke stroke two tymes at the seid Sur John entending to have slayne him, ho we beit the seid Richard Chike, one of the seid malefactours, bare the last stroke, seying let us not slee him for he is our maister. Wherupon the seid Sur John departed and left them brennyng the seid pale. Wherefore it may please your grace [etc. etc.].
[The schedule of names above referred to, being the inhabitants of Draycot and Stoke Gifford, complainants against the said Sir John Rodney : — ]
Richard Carter, parson of Stoke, Richard William, Richard Lane, William Hayne, John Webbe, John Hardwich, Richard Cheke, William Geffrey, John Jenyns, John Sultyng [sic], William Cade, John Busshe, John Arney, John Sterr, William Gyll, William Vowlys, William Stacy, Richard Shepard, William Randalff, Thomas Richard, John Bauler, John Kychewyn, John Martyn, William Stacy, John Churchehous, John Kychyn, John Hardwich, John Fowles, William Hayward, John Parsons, John Burden and John Goulde.
Appended is a writ, dated 5 July 8 Henry [viii]1, directed to Sir John Bourchier de Fitzwaren, Knight2, the Abbot of Glaston3, and Thomas Lovell, clerk4, and John Gilbert5,
1 1516.
2 Sir John Bourchier succeeded his father on the death of the latter in 1480. He was sheriff of Somerset in 1519 (Coll., i, xxvii), and was created Earl of Bath in 1535. Diet. Nat. Biog., G. E. C., Peerage.
3 Richard Bere was Abbot of Glastonbury at this date. He held office from 1493 to 1524.
4 At this date (1516) Thomas Lovell was sub-dean of Wells (Weaver, Somers. Incumb., 218). He died in 1524 and was buried in Wells Cathedral. Collinson, iii, 399.
* The Gilbert family were lords of the manor of Stert near Babcary
J?tar Chamber Casfetf. 81
appointing them to hear, enquire and examine the circumstances of the dissensions which have arisen between Sir John Rodney, Knight, and certain of the inhabitants of Draycote and Stoke Gifford, as set forth in the copies of certain bills and answers, exhibited in that behalf before the King and his Council at Westminster, and annexed to the writ, with power to pacify, conclude and determine the same according to their discretion ; and, if they are unable so to do, they shall report their proceed- ings to the King and his Council at Westminster, with what they may consider best to be done.
Bishop of Bath and Wells u. Seyntlaw.
HENRY VIII., VOL. III., No. 219. DATE: 1523-4.
To the king our soueraign lord.
In most humble wise sheweth unto your highnes your trew subiect and dayly orator John Busshop of Bathe and of Wells1 that where there hath ben dyuers estatutes made aswell in the tyme of the right high and myghty king of noble memorie, the king your father as in the tyme of other your progenitors agaynst hunters in Parkes and forestes by day and nyght2 conteynyng in themself dyuers and great penalties whiche not-
(Collinson, ii, 61). The will of John Gilbert, Esq., proved in 1557 mentions the manor of Stert. He describes himself as " unlerned in the law." He was in the Commissions of Peace for the county in 1509-14, and later.
1 This was John Clerk, Bishop of Bath and Wells from 1523-1541. He Thomas Wolsey's chaplain and agent, went on various diplomatic missions, to Rome in 1521,10 France in 1526,10 Rome again in the following year and to Cleves in 1540. He became Master of the Rolls in 1522-3, was appointed to the see of Bath and Wells in 1523, and died in 1541. During his episcopate, most of his diocesan work was done by suffragan bishops. From his will (proved 17 Jan., 1540-1) he seems to have been fond of splendour and magnificence. He made detailed bequests of satin gowns, rings, jewels and gorgeous plate. He died at Dunkirk in Flanders, and his will contained directions that his body should be buried " in the principal church of the town of Calais." Somers. Med. Wills (S.R.S., xxi), p. 62 ; Diet. Nat. Biog.
2 Hunting by night had been specially forbidden by an Act of Henry VII. I Hen. VII., cap. 7.
82
withstanding William Seyntlaw1 of Knight Sutton within your countie of Somerset esquier Robert Goodrich late of the same gentilman John Bademan late of the same yoman John Cham- penys2 of the parishe of Chiew within the said Countie gent John Thomas of Banwell within the sayd Countey yoman William Panter of Stawnton thelder in the countie of Somerset yoman gatheryd and unytid to thaym other evill and Riottows persons to the nombre of xvj persons in maner of warr harnessyd and arrayed being of oon confedracie to hunt in the parke of your sayd orator callyd Banwell park3 within the said Countie the xxviij day of Juyn last past abought xj of the clok of the same nyght with force and armys that is to say swordes and buklers crosbowys and other bowys and arowys the sayd parke broke and entryd and ther ayenst the will of your said orator huntyd and iiij bukkes and many other rascall dere kellyd and caryd awaye ayen the peax of your highnes and agayn the forme of the statutes in that caas provydyd and the said riottous per-
1 The family of St. Lo, a younger branch of the St. Lo family of Newton St. Lo, had long held the manor of Knight's Sutton or North Sutton in the parish of Chew. John St. Lo held it in 1428 (Fend. Aids, iv, 379). Sir Nicholas St. Lo, who died in 1486, seized of the manor of Knights Sutton (Cal. Inq. p.m., Hen. VII., i, 87. For his will see Medieval Wills (S.R.S., xvi), pp, 373-4), was followed by his son John, who died about two years later. The latter's heir was his son Nicholas, who was succeeded on his death in 1508 by his son John, then a minor. He played an important part in the county, and served in Ireland in 1535. He seems to have had a quarrel with the Bishop of Bath and Wells (L. and P., Hen. VIII., x, 625), but was very friendly with Thomas Cromwell, and obtained many grants of Somerset lands (L. and P., Hen. VIII., xv, 1309-13). He seems to have died about 1547. This William St. Lo was his son and successor. He was Captain of the Guard to Queen Elizabeth and chief butler of England. He married the famous Bess of Hardwick as the second of her four husbands (Collinson, ii. 96), and died in 1 565. Somerset Wills, ed. Crisp, vi, 24.
2 The will of John Champneys of Chew Magna was proved in 1524. Smith, Wills, \. 114.
* The manor of Banwell had been held by the Bishops of Bath since the reign of Edward the Confessor, and the bishops had made a deer park there, V. C. H. Somers., i, 457 ; Archaologia, i, 354 ; Ministers' Accounts, P.R.O., bundle 1131, Nos. 3-7, 9. Curiously enough this very William St. Lo whose depredations in Banwell Park had vexed the bishop, later obtained a twenty- one years lease of land in Banwell, and the office of park keeper and the herbage and pannage of the park for life. The manor had been sold by Bishop Barlow to the Duke of Somerset, by whose attainder it came to the
Chamber Caste!. 83
sons not satisfied with ther mysdemeanor before rehersyd