DRAFT WORKING OUTLINE Jonathan Rose College of Law_ Arizona State

Document Sample
DRAFT WORKING OUTLINE Jonathan Rose College of Law_ Arizona State Powered By Docstoc
					                                        DRAFT WORKING OUTLINE

                                                Jonathan Rose
                                   College of Law, Arizona State University

AFeodo de Compedibus Vocato le Sewet@ or Greasing Justice in Fifteenth Century England:
                   Sir John Fastolf=s Litigation and Will Contest

        AAnd the great rebuke and villainy should grieve me worst of all, for now adays ye know well that law
        goeth as it is favored and after that the attorneys be wise and discreet in their conduct, which I doubt me
        sore of namely in matters of so great charge as they be.@ Letter, John Fastolf to John Paston, May 3,

I. Introduction

>Item paid by Thomas Howes in the court of the king=s bench before John Fortescue justice with ,46
13s 4d to complete the sum of ,73 6s 8d adjudged to John Andrews on conspiracy and for certain
expenses and costs while the same Thomas was retained in person in the king=s bench for (omitted)
weeks as in the account of the said Thomas at the end of Michaelmas of the 36 th year of the aforesaid
king (1457) in the title, costs of pleas and for the fee of shackles called le sewet (feodo de compedibus
vocato le sewet) for him and John Porter while the jurors, impaneled in the attaint, appeared before the
justices of the king at Westm. ,62 17s 9d.= (Fastolf Paper 42 (1457)).

         The objective of this paper to study various methods used in late 15th century to influence the
outcome of litigation. In particular, this study focuses activities occurring in connection with the
litigation of Sir John Fastolf and the dispute over his will. Discussing and evaluating the practices that
arose in these disputes, however, requires putting them in a contemporary political context and
understanding their background.

II. The Fastolf Litigation

        A. The Contemporary Political Climate

        The second half of the 15th century, the period of the Fastolf litigation and will dispute, is one of
the most tumultuous periods in English history. It is the era of the War of the Roses and the reign of
Henry VI, who ascended the throne when he was 9 months old and was, by and large, mentally
incapacitated during his adult life and unfit to govern . Not surprisingly, this period has elicited
substantial interest among scholars. Although various political and constitutional ideas have been
advanced to explain the complex events of this period, the main thrust of modern scholarship, and
perhaps the one that dominates the historiography of the period today, begins with Prof. K.B. McFarlane
and continues with what is known as the McFarlane legacy. Three primary ideas run through this
scholarship. First, the incapacity of Henry VI was the primary cause of the difficulties in the central
government and had a significant impact on local governance as well. Second, groups of nobles, with a
powerful individual noble as leader, attempted to run the central government and that the individual

nobility was organized into affinities, large groups of supporters and followers, which were the dominant
influence in the various local areas. Third, in carrying out their constitutional governance rule, the
nobility had an interdependent and mutual, rather than completely hierarchical, relation with those in
the vertical chain - the king above them and the gentry below them. The latter notion, however, does not
completely exclude important horizontal aspects in governance, especially among the gentry.

        These concepts in the contemporary constitutional and political framework of 15 th century
England have important implications for East Anglia, especially Norfolk and Suffolk, where John
Fastolf had his ancestral base and where much of estate lay. (He also owned land and lived often in
London). The Duke of Suffolk was leading noble in the central government, functioning as the de facto
king, for most of the period from Henry=s majority in 1437 until Suffolk=s murder in 1450 and in East
Anglia, the Suffolk affinity was the dominant influence, both during this period. This period is when
Fastolf=s legal problems start and Suffolk and his associates, especially John Heydon, Thomas
Tuddenham, Philip Wentworth, and John Andrew, were Fastolf=s primary litigation adversaries. In
addition, the main competing, but much weaker, East Anglian affinity, that of the Duke of Norfolk, was
a sometime supporter of Fastolf. Fastolf also had connections with other nobility with influence in the
central government and in East Anglian affairs such as the Earl of Oxford and the Duke of York and
during his military career in the Hundred Years War was closely affiliated with the Duke of Bedford,
the brother of Henry V. Also, the noble influence in Norfolk was less clear, perhaps creating more
opportunity for economic mobility among the gentry, and possibilities for parvenus such as Fastolf to
establish an estate and local political power.

        In 1447, Suffolk=s leadership in the central government encountered difficulties and at the time,
and perhaps as a consequence, local difficulties increased in East Anglia, which had a reputation for
conflict and litigation. The Suffolk affinity=s control there seemed to decline and Suffolk adherents, like
Heydon, Tuddenham, and Andrew, became more active in local disputes as did some of the Suffolk
challengers. This time is the precise time when Fastolf=s primary legal problems arise and these
individuals are his most direct adversaries. Although Suffolk=s widow, Alice Chaucer, was influential
and the Suffolk affinity=s influence persisted after and despite his death, matters in East Anglia were
considerably destabilized.

         From 1450 to 1461, and in reality 1471, matters worsened in the central government. Changes
in leadership occurred and more conflicts developed and eventually, the War of the Roses commenced in
1455. Queen Margaret emerged as a powerful political force and her influence seems to have had some
connection with at least one of Fastolf=s legal disputes. York prevailed largely in 1461 and the Suffolk
affinity lost control, and old order ended and culminated with the rise of a new Norfolk affinity, under
the Howards rather than the Mowbrays. However, the conflicts persisted after 1461 under the influence
of Queen Margaret and the War of the Roses continued. Although Henry VI briefly resumed the throne
in 1470, he was put to death in 1471. Edward IV ascended and the Yorkists were in complete control.
(But of course not for long!)

         This substantial turmoil and civil war in the central government affected governance in the
localities, especially East Anglia, and was closely related to the events, period, and individuals involved
in Fastolf=s litigation. These matters are less clearly involved in the will dispute, which seems driven
more by the personal conflict between the Paston family and their adversaries, William Yelverton and

William Jenny, the family=s one time allies. However, the East Anglian conflicts among the Dukes of
Norfolk and Suffolk and their families and their relationships with the Pastons and their allies, such as
Fastolf, and with their adversaries, were somewhat still in evidence, especially in the fighting to possess
Caister Castle, the jewel of Fastolf=s estate and the centerpiece in the will dispute.

        B. The Specific Legal Disputes

         Like many of his contemporaries, Sir John Fastolf was involved in a fair amount of Anormal@
litigation regarding land, debts, and civil wrongs. He may have been a plaintiff more that he was a
defendant. In addition, the controversy over his Nov. 3, 1459 nuncupative will generated a fair amount
of litigation.

         However, Fastolf also seemed to be involved a number of lawsuits influenced by contemporary
politics and local rivalries described above as well as by personal animosity,. In particular, a number of
these suits pitted Fastolf aginst his local and political rivals, the Suffolk Affinity - Duke of Suffolk, the
de la Pole family, and Alice Chaucer, wife of William de la Pole, - and their supporters and associates.
The Suffolks were allied with House of Lancaster during the War of the Roses. Fastolf also had his
noble supporters such as the Dukes of Norfolk, Bedford, and York and the Earl of Oxford, some of
whom were Yorkists.

          This litigation with the Suffolks and their adherents resulted in various legal and tactical
activities and substantial payments and other expenditures by Fastolf. To a large extent, these payments
arise out of 10 years of Fastolf litigation regarding the manors of Bradwell, Beyton, and Titchwell and
an attaint brought by Fastolf regarding litigation against two of his staff. Fastolf felt very aggrieved by
this litigation and strongly believed that it was wrongfully pursued by his enemies. Fastolf Paper 42
          Here followeth certeyn paymentys and costys made by sir John Fastolf, knight against . .
          .(missing) [John] Heydone, John Andresus and others for the maners of Tychewell,
          Bradwell, and Beytone, seth it . . . by hand by the labour of John Andreus and the
          counseil of John Heydone by forged and feyned offic. . . namys colourably take
          unwetyng to the said Eschetours.@

He spent the remainder of his life fighting these legal battles, sometimes with ultimate success and others
with no resolution. In these disputes, he was involved in substantial legal activity and expended a large
amount of money, approximately ,1085 on all his litigation, most of which was spent in these disputes
with the Suffolks and their agents. Most of the evidence of these activities and payments are contained in
an account in the Fastolf Papers, FP 42 [Costs & Expenses Ten year lawsuit Epiph, 27 H VI to Epiph
37 H VI (1449-59) (Total , 1085)]. The legal expenses in the will dispute are set out in FP 71, an
account of Thomas Playter, the Pastons= lawyer in this matter. Information from other sources,
particularly The Paston Letters, supplements that contained in the Fastolf Papers.

         These actions and payments provide interesting information regarding the functioning of the
justice system and the norms of lawyers, judges, and officials in 15th century England. However, any
insight into the justice system and professional norms requires evaluating and understanding these
actions and payments in the context of this litigation. Thus, it seems useful to summarize this litigation.

         Sources: FP 42; Peter S. Lewis, Sir John Fastolf=s Lawsuit over Titchwell 1448-55, 1 The
Hist. J. 1 (1958); Anthony Smith, Litigation and Politics: Sir John Fastolf=s Defence of his English
Pollard ed. 1984). Anthony Smith, >My Confessors have extorted me gretely ther too . . .=: Sir John
Fastolf=s Dispute with Hickling Priory in ST. GEORGE=S CHAPEL WINDSOR IN THE LATE MIDDLE
AGES 57-69 (2001); Anthony Smith, >The Greatest Man of That Age=: The Acquisition of Sir John
Fastolf=s East Anglian Estates in Rowena E. Archer & Simon Walker, RULERS AND RULED IN LATE
MEDIEVAL ENGLAND 137-53(1995); Anthony Smith Thesis 169-281.

        A. Bradwell Litigation Summary: JF had acquired Bradwell between 1417-19 as feoffee of his
uncle, Hugh Fastolf, who died in 1417. Philip Wenthworth claimed title to Bradwell, alleging that JF
had illegally disseized HF. JF claimed that in 1449 John Andrews, John Ulveston, and John Heydon
acting for Philip Wentworth, Norfolk and Suffolk sheriff in 1447-48, the parliamentary representative of
Suffolk in 1447 and 1449, and Suffolk adherent, had falsely caused inquisition ex officio to be held by
which Bradwell was escheated to the King. As a result substantial litigation and conflict occurred
between JF and his antagonists in JF=s effort to traverse the inquisition & get Bradwell back. In addition
JF wanted Andrews and Ulveston indicted for forging this office and that of Beyton (infra).

        This litigation by both sides seems to be a tool or one characteristic of the political strife and
power struggle between JF and the de la Poles and other Suffolk adherents, which involved others land
as well. (e.g. Caister, Dedham, Beighton). Bradwell dispute seems also to entwined with dispute with
Wentworth over the wardship of Thomas Fastolf (infra). Legal activities seemed to have occurred in
almost every possible arena, the Chancery, the Exchequer, the Common Bench, the King=s Bench, Nisi
Prius, and perhaps even the church court as well as being the subject of arbitration. JF also made
numerous efforts to obtain the patent of King for this manor. JF was apparently not successful in any of
his efforts. Bradwell does not appear to be part of his estate when he died. Apparently, he ended up
farming it for the crown for 5 years, when it was ultimately returned to the King with the rejection of
JF=s traverse in 1453.

       Sources: FP 42; Paston Letters II G-159; I CR 225, 241-43; AS Thesis pp. 7, Table 1 & 16 n.
53 & check further; AS Litig & Politics 61; BMF, Eng 15th 183, n. 31, 196 n. 99.

        B. Beyton Litigation Summary. A similar, perhaps less important or active, controversy
involving the manor of Beyton. Beyton (Beighton) was the first significant property JF acquired,
purchasing it from Hugh Fastolf in 1415. Philip Wenthworth also claimed title to Beyton, alleging
again that JF had illegally disseized HF. The entries reflect that Beyton was also the subject of an
inquisition ex officio, perhaps the same one. JF again made numerous attempts to obtain a patent of the
King for this land.

        Sources: FP 42; AS Thesis; AS Litig & Politics 61.

      C. Titchwell Litigation Summary. JF purchased Titchwell form John Roys, widower of
Margery, a Titchwell Lovell, in 1431. His primary opponent in the litigation over this manor was
Edward Hull, who was also joined by Thomas Wake. Hull claimed the land through his wife and

alleged that JF=s title was defective. Hull was a powerful well-connected courtier associated with Queen
Margaret. John Heydon, a well- known Norfolk lawyer, MP and schemer assisted Hull in his efforts. An
October 30, 1448 inquisition post mortem was held into Margery=s lands at her death. The jurors
found against JF. On Dec. 14, 1448, Hull was granted the farm of the manor. JF claimed that Thomas
Shernbourne the escheator, who took the inquistion, instructed his assistant John Dalling to forge the
inquisition and there was doubt whether the jurors actually gave a verdict. On Nov 22, 1448, JF=s
feoffees entered a pleading against the inquistion, which had been returned into the Chancery on Nov. 5
and JF traversed the inquistion. The conflicting claims were very complicated involving two entails and
whether the Lovells held as chief tenants. The evidence was very elusive. JF made substantial efforts to
trace the pedigree of the Lovells and to search for the relevant documents. JF=s lawyers acted in the
Chancery in Jan 1449. In Hilary 1451, JF may have traversed again the Titchwell inquisitions as well as
those of Beighton and Bradwell. Toward the end of 1450, he enlisted Nicholas Bokking, his retired
servant and father of John Bokking, a servant actively involved in his litigation, to persuade the 1448
inquisition jurors to attest to its falsification and on Nov 15, they did so, denying that they ever sealed
the 1448 inquistion. JF had no success in Chancery and may have offered to arbitrate with Hull. Matters
changed significantly when Hull was killed in July 1453 in the last battle of the Hundred Years= War.
On September 14, 1453, JF obtained Titchwell in farm and began again to traverse the inquisition in
1454. Aided by his lawyers Henry Filongey and William Jenny, JF initiated a fictitious suit against
Hugh Fenn, a feoffee and servant. The case commenced in Chancery in Easter Term 1455 and
concluded in Mich 1455. Fenn defaulted and Wake did not resist. The jury found expansively for JF. JF
had regained Titchwell, not by prevailing through the evidence, but through the same kind of assertion
of power that Hull had used against him. On April 1, 1456, JF granted Titchwell to his feoffees.

       Sources: FP 42; Numerous Davis & Gairdner Paston Letters; Lewis, Titchwell Litigation; AS,
ALitigation and Politics;@ AS Thesis.

C. Attaint and Conspiracy Summary

         Understanding Fastolf 1454 attaint is somewhat more difficult than the land litigation. The
primary impetus seems to have been the conspiracy suit in the summer of 1454 against Thomas Howes,
Fastolf=s servant, sometime receiver and the pastor of Blofield, and John Porter, another Fastolf
servant, by John Andrew(s), another long time Fastolf enemy and Suffolk adherent. Andrews claimed
that Howes and Porter had falsely conspired to have Andrew indicted. What caused Andrews to sue is
not clear although an earlier Norfolk suit against him and others or comments by Howes at an oyer and
terminer session may have been involved. At the oyer and terminer session at Ipswich 1454, much to
Fastolf irritation, Thomas Howes told Andrews, in front of others, that Fastolf would indemnify Howes
for any liability arising out of Andrews suit. Fastolf=s attaint may also have been influenced by his
irritation with the litigation commenced by Philip Wentworth, another Fastolf enemy and Suffolk
supporter, in Easter 1453 against John Paston and Thomas Howes on a bond they made as surety for
Fastolf=s obligation to turn over the title of Bradwell to Wentworth after Fastolf lost his traverse on
Bradwell at Bury St. Edmonds in 1453.

        Andrews prevailed in the conspiracy suit and was awarded ,73 6s 8d. John Heydon and Thomas
Tuddenham, well-known East Anglian agitators and also Fastolf enemies and Suffolk adherents, seemed
to been allied with Andrews in his suit. Aggrieved by this action against his staff, Fastolf was determined

to respond and filed an attaint in the King=s Bench in the November 1454. Fastolf also considered and
may filed his own conspiracy suit or a writ of decies tantum against the jury misconduct in either or
both of conspiracy and bond litigation. But the attaint seemed to his primary vehicle of attack in this

        Beginning in Nov. 1454, Fastolf sought to protect Howes and Porter by sheltering them in the
household of the Duke of Norfolk. Although perhaps initially successful, the writs of exigent were
issued to outlaw Howes and Porter, who were in the King=s Bench prison in 1457. Although a jury was
summoned for the attaint in 1457, it was still pending in 1458 and apparently still unresolved at
Fastolf=s death. Fastolf paid out substantial sums in fees and expenses in the conspiracy and attaint and
associated legal actions as well as paying the judgment that Andrews received against Howes and Porter.
(Add Andrews maintenance v. Barker, FP 42 Attaint & JF maintenance, PL G)

       Sources: FP 42, 48, 58, AS Thesis 211-117; C1/26/621 29 H VI; Paston Letters: II Davis - 497,
506, 507, 509, 510, 511, 520, 543, 544, 548, 549, 569, 574, 886, II Gairdner (G)- 202, 251 & pp.
252, 326, 327, III G-265 (another Porter outlawry) & pp. 55-60, 61-63 ,112, 120, 121; Wedgwood:
Andrew citing I G 412, III/112 & I G 169, 225 & CPR 1450 436, 440,Wentworth citing V RP 371;
Hastings, CtCP 220-24; BL Add MS 34888, 39848; 29747.

        D. The Wardship of Thomas Fastolf and the Hickling Priory Dispute

        Two other longstanding politically inspired legal disputes connected to Fastolf=s Suffolk
enemies ought to be noted. The first, and most important, involved the wardship of lands and marriage
of Thomas Fastolf, the son and heir of John Fastolf of Nacton/Cowhawe (d. 1447), and great-great
grandson of Hugh Fastolf, JF=s uncle.. Fastolf believed it rightfully belonged to him by virtue of
Thomas= father=s will. But, on Nov. 18, 1447, Philip Wentworth, in what may be the inception of the
Fastolf-Wentworth battles, managed to get the wardship of Thomas awarded to Robert Constable, his
brother-in-law and then transfered to himself in 1453. John Paston and Thomas obtained the wardship
on June 6, 1454, but Wentworth regained it on July 16, 1454. Finally, in this seesaw battle, Fastolf
purchased the wardship from the King, voiding that of Wentworth and having a new award of the
wardship made to William Worcester and John Bocking, important Fastolf staff members, on Dec. 12,

        The other dispute involved money due from Hickling Priory. The Fastolf account contains only
minimal information regarding the expenditures on this dispute, which was still unresolved at Fastolf=s
debt. (Add more details later)

        Sources: FP 42, 48, 49; Paston Letters; 5 & 6H VI CPR & 18 & 19 CFR; AS Thesis

        F. The Fastolf Will Dispute

        This matter involved the notorious dispute over Fastolf=s 1459 death bed will. John Paston, a
barrister and member of a famous family, had served as Fastolf=s lawyer for many years, was one of his
most important counsellors, and apparently had great influence over Fastolf in his latter years. On
November 3, 1459, two days before he died, Fastolf created a nuncupative will, superceding his June

1459 written will. Paston memorialized this new oral will in writing, which made Paston its primary
beneficiary and one of its two chief executors. As a result of APaston=s deathbed >bargain= with the old
knight,@ a substantial controversy erupted over the validity of the will and the right to Fastolf=s
property. Litigation erupted on several fronts, including a 1464 suit in the Archbishop of Canterbury=s
Court of Audience contesting the will=s validity instituted by King=s Bench Justice Yelverton, also an
executor, and the serjeant, William Jenny, the leaders of the anti-Paston forces in the Fastolf will
controversy. Testimony was taken for several years with numerous witnesses on each side, with
numerous attacks on the witnesses= credibility and accusations of perjury resulting from bribery of the
witnesses. Several witnesses, including Paston=s co-defendant and perhaps Justice Yelverton, accused
Paston of fabricating the will in order to divert Fastolf=s large estates in Norfolk and Suffolk to himself.
Prominent persons - the king, important nobility including Chaucer=s granddaughter, judges and
lawyers, and religious figures - chose sides in the dispute and it raged for years. Although the Pastons
were victorious in the litigation with will declared valid by the Archbishop=s auditor, the dispute was
settled by a compromise in 1470 effected by. William of Waynflete, the Bishop of Winchester and now
the sole executor of the will. Ultimately, Waynflete obtained control over the property and used it to
support his creation of Magdalen College, Oxford, which he had created in 1458.

        E. Fastolf Lawyers

        During the ten years litigation Fastolf retained a very large number of lawyers, over 40. These
lawyers were of every variety- serjeants, attorneys, and others referred to as >counsel= or legal experts,
>jurisperitus=- and those associated with all the various legal arenas - the Common Bench, King=s
Bench, Chancery, and Exchequer. Included were many of most famous and highly regarded
contemporary lawyers: several king=s serjeants - Thomas Littleton later JCP & Littleton=s Tenures,
Richard Choke later JCP, Thomas Yong later JKB; and other well known contemporary serjeants,
Ralph Pole, William Wangford,; several attorneys general, John Vampage; William Nottingham &
Richard Illingworth later CBExch; Hugh Fenn Exch auditor & later under Treasurer Eng; Thomas de la
 Roo/Rowe Chancery Keeper of Writs; and other noted lawyers, William Jenny later serj & JKB & John
Paston, famous Paston family & eldest son Judge Wm Paston. His legal advisors, who did not appear in
court on his behalf, included William Yelverton, JKB and Henry Fylongey, longtime CB Keeper of

III. Payments of Money, Gifts, and Other Expenditures and Activities

        One way to classify Fastolf=s litigation payments is to divide them into two categories. One
category involves attempts to influence the outcome of the litigation and the operation of the justice
system through payments to judges and other officials and by activities outside the courtroom and
traditional legal advice. The other category is the cost of using the system. These costs include payment
to court officials to compensate for their clerical activities and payments to lawyers for their fees and

A) Influencing the Justice System
        Many payments seem to be routine compensation or reimbursement for expenses. Other
payments, however, are more noteworthy. Thus, they merit discussion regarding their nature although
they are not necessarily illegal or otherwise wrongful.

1) Lordship
1) Item paid by the hand of John Paston esquire at the feast of Easter year 35 th of the
         aforesaid King for costs and payments at Framingham with 6s 8d delivered to W. Barker
upon distrain to be made of the beasts of the tenants of TF at Nacton in the month of July year
35th of the King and that the said Paston will have a conversation with the Duke of Norfolk to
show him notice of the right of the patents of the Wardship by virtute of which emoluments and
rents of the manors of the said Wardship taken to the use of the lord as appears by the bill of
particulars ,4 7d (Other FP 42 Entries1457)
2) II G-158 Dec. 2, 1450 JF-TH, WJ & J Bokking, has written Duke of Norfolk about
3) II D-507, Sept 2, 1454, TH-JPI, Porter at/hiding Duke of Norfolk=s household
4) II D-511, Nov. 18, 1454, TH-JPI ltr, JF file attaint & Jenny get Duke of Norfolk to take TH
as his chaplain & John Porter for his servant & fears outlawry
5) II-518, March 29, 1455, JF-JPI, >then if ye think it to be done ye like to take upon you to
common with my lord of Norwich (G Norfolk) recommending me to his good and tender
lordship and declaring to him now and in what ways the said Sir Thomas was demened in the
oyer and terminer, and sethe how he wrongfully and without cause be vexed by John Andrews
and other and greatly troubled, whereupon this attaint is now grounded, in such ways as ye think
best to be done=
6) III G-278, April 2, 1455, JF-Duke Norf, >praying tenderly your Highness to continue your
good lordship and support in the matters touching your servant John Porter and my poor
Chaplain Sir Thomas Howes, trusting verily to God that, with the support of your good
Lordship, their matter shall yet come to a good conclusion in punishing of perjury and
embracery that many years hath been and yet is used in this shire, which were great merit, and to
my conceit, in you ar so noble a Prince, a singular renowned, ass ofr the best deed that may be
done for the weel of both shires=
7) II D-525, June 11, 1455, JF-JPI, on attaint, >wants him to go quickly to London, for there is
great labor against our intent. Wentworth hath gotten Debenham, Radcliff with others in my
lord=s house to be against our intent=

2) Soliciting Officials
1) on June 9 for battilage of the lord for speaking w/Chanc Eng for the same cause to have it
in farm 20d (Brad 1449)
2) II D-526, June 22, 1455, JF-JPI, re: suit v. JP & TH, >And I have word in another letter that
my lord Chanc is in the likewise disposed on our one side, and therefore that ye keep him in to
help bear the favor of this matter in all ways. And Bingham Justice (KB) full well disposed
3) II D-552 (III G-335 abs), June 7, 1456, J Bokk-JPI, discussion various legal matters, >Your
writ of ravishment is in this day, and William Broun (KB, CB official? KB Protho 1458-61) is
take up by Gresham and me in the matter and is well contented.=
4) II D-567, Oct. 16, 1456, James Gresham-JPI.          >As for tidings, my lord Chanc is
discharged and in his stead is my lord of Winchester. Any my lord of Shrewsbury is Treasurer;
Brown of your Inn is undertreasurer; if ye would send to him to grant you the naming of the
escheatorship of Norf, it were well do, for it is told me he would do much for you. Master

Lawrence Bothe is privy seal.=
5) I D-231 (III G-477. Aug 23, 1461, JPII-JPI, ...=I labored daily my lord of Essex, Treasurer
of Eng, to have moved the King both of manor of Dedham and of the bill copy of court roll
every morning ore (hour?) he went to the King in these matters. He answered me nay, saying it
was no time and said that he would it were osse fayne spedd (sense=move faster) as I myself. So
oft times delaying me that in truth I thought to have send you word that I felt by him that he was
not willing to move the King therein. Nevertheless I labored to him continually and prayed
Baronners, his man, to remember him of it. [more about difficulties & delay in matters & getting
Treas to act & how & how Treasurer=s man said he did move the King re: Dedham & how he
would show no favor of one man over another & treat JP no diff than poorest man in England]...
         My lord of Essex sayeth he will do as much for you as for any esquire in England, and
Beronners his man telleth me, saying AYour father is much beholden to my lord, for he loveth
him well. Baroners moved me once and said that ye must needs to somewhat for my lord and
his; and I said that I boasted well that ye would do for him that lay in your power. And he said
that there was a little money betwix your and a gentleman of Essex called Dyrward, saying that
there is as much between my said lord and the said gentleman, of the which money he desireth
your part. ....=

3) Influencing Parliament and Government Officials
1) Item payment to T. Yong & other counsellors lord for counsel re: certain bill to be put
forward at the King=s parliament v. ex officio inquest conspired J. Andrews & others for manor
Brad & for writing of bill on 2 occasions 23s 4d (Brad 1455)
2) Item feb in regardis factis secretariis cardinalis et domini de Cromwell pro certis litteris
scriptis in causa justice dicti maneri 10s (Brad 1453)
3) Item datum clerico scaccarii circa expedicionem materie predicti 20d (Brad 1454)
4) Item clerico Cancellari pro consilio et labore circa patentem ad adnullandum patentem
Phillip Wentworth 3s 4d (Brad 1454)
5) I D-52 (III G-301), July 25, 1455 probably, JPI-James Gloy, re: rumors JP & WY to put in
Parl a bill of diverse treasons done by my lord of Norwich Tuddenham & John Heydon, JP
unaware & no dispute w/Tuddenham now but not clear w/Heydon
6) II D-536, Dec. 11, 1455, JF-JPI, answer to Wentworth=s bill in parliament re: Bradwell
7) II D-569 (Add. 39848), Nov 15, 1456 prob, JF-JPI., > ...have again manor of Bradwell by
mean as clear as I had it before my unhappy release made. This how sum euere ye do, for ye
know well how the Chief Justice of England, as I am informed, raised (rectid) the matter in
Parliament before the Lordes, where and what time he declared my wrong in that that the office
was so untruely founden that I should have disseised Sir Hugh Fastolf of the manor, where as I
have sufficient evidences proving a true sale and purchase, as ye then and before full plainly had
answered for me more clearly than I can write at this time, etc=
8) II D-886, Nov-Dec. 1459, Wentworth petition to Parl (text v Rot Parl 371-72), concerns TF
wardship & Bradwell inquest, very detailed

4) Ex Parte Communication with Judges
1)II D-877, Nov. 1450 WY-JF ltr, evil will Tuddenham & Heydon, poss prob caused by Lord
2) II D-878, Nov. 1450 ltr,WY- J Bokking, similar 877

3) II G-158 Dec. 2, 1450 JF-TH, WJ & J Bokking, has written WY about problems
4) II G-359 (abs MS Add 39848, No. 268), Oct 29, 1457 JF/WW ltr WY re: John Andrews suit
v. TH
5) II G-162, Dec. 20, 1450, JF-TH, o & t commn Lynn, >Wherefor such persons as have found
them sore grieved by extortion as I have been, and have process or will have process before the
Commissioners, they most effectively labour to my Lord Oxford, and to my brother Yelverton,
Justice, that they will as far as justice, reason, and conscience do that justice may be equally
6) II D-510, Nov. 13, 1454,TH-JPI ltr, advice fr/WY & WJ & others re: JP filing attaint on JF
7) II D-511, Nov. 18, 1454, TH-JPI ltr, JF file attaint & wants matter speeded up so it >might
be had before my Master Yelverton in this vacation time, it were a great comfort=
8) II D- 516, 1455 March probably, TH-JPI, wants him to come talk to JF as WY & WJ will be
there, > at that time the conveyance of all matters shall be commoned of, and I know verily your
advice shall peyse deppere (weigh deeper) in my master=s conceit than bothin theirs shall do.=
(May involve keeping TH out of prison).
9) II D-526, June 22, 1455, JF-JPI, re: suit v. JP & TH, >And I have word in another letter that
my lord Chanc is in the likewise disposed on our one side, and therefore that ye keep him in to
help bear the favor of this matter in all ways. And Bingham Justice (KB) full well disposed
10) II D-544, March 24, 1456 perhaps, James Gresham-JPI. After due recommendation had,
please it your mastership to wit that Wm Yelverton was moved to common with my master, his
father ... did talk to his father & father has not acknowledged Fenn=s obligation & understood
that Fenn should have Haringby after Master F life & need Yelverton release.
11) II D-548, May 8, 1456, John Bokking-JPI, discussion of several suits, legal procedure& one
of the suits, maybe TH wardship & rent dispute w/tenants as ref writ of ravishment, against
Wenthworth, Andrews, Longe Bernard and Deyvill and say in connection with it that >Maister
Yelverton conceyvith it weel to your entent.=
12) II D-552 (III G-335 abs), June 7, 1456, J Bokk-JPI. >John Andrewe and Deyvill were here
the first day of the court and soore called on Jenny and Howes in the Common Place and hadden
never the more speed. As for the attaint, the Chief Justice is nought come. Markham called soore
upon the gown. Ye must help as ye have begun, that ye may bring him good tidings. Much there
is like to be done for the matter of rescuse pleaded.=
13) II D-557 (III G-338), June 29, 1456 probably, Friar John Brackley-JPI, Discussion
Tuddenham & Heydon 1450 indictments, extortion JF & others, Dedham, >At the reverence of
Jesus, forget not this matter, nor the matter of Dedham, etc I would ye asked my good lord and
master Yelverton if I send him any letter in the same matter.=
14) II D-565 (III G-345), Oct. 8, 1456, John Bokking-JPI, discussion TF wardship & Bradwell
problems, >And as to your issues, I shall acording to your letter speak with Gresham when he
cometh, and the judges and barons both shall be informed of the title of Wentworth as ye write,
and it is upon a false (feyned) deed upon a patent surrendered and cancelled etc, which Fenn
hath promised to do.= (Ex parte or in court?)
15) II D-569 (Add. 39848), Nov 15, 1456 prob, JF-JPI. >Item, Wm Barker writeth unto me as
this time again of a general treaty, whereof I have much marvel for I can give no answer further
than I have written thereupon to my cousin Yelverton and you, and also unto to the said

16) II G-359 (abs MS Add 39848, No. 268), Oct 29, 1457, JF-WY. begs him continue
kindness now that TH comes to appear before him & other king=s judges >by the cruel & hasty
suit of Androus and his affinity.= Hopes that process sued by him so eagerly >upon the unjust
condemnation shall be reformed and holpen (helped) by the attaint in chastising of perjury that
reigneth so much now a days.= It were a blessed deed if it were reformed by Yelverton. Desires
credence >my brother= Paston and Sir Thomas in the matter.= (In WW hand)
17) II G-360, Oct 30, 1457, JF-Stephen Scroope.          >...as much as the parson Sir TH cometh
up at this time by the grevious pursuit of John Andreus and Heydon, to appear before the right
and worshipful Sir, my right beloved brother, your father (Richard Bingham, JKB), and other
judges of the KB, I pray so heartily that you will have remembrance for to recommend me to
him when ye speak with him, and for to thank him for his rightful favor showed in Sir Thomas
matter, and in all other matters that toucheth me, which been attained in that high court.=
18) II D-579, July 3, 1459, JF-JPI. >...Item, as to such matters moved by Stevyn Scrope and
Richard Bingham, Justice, I have written a letter late by the said Daunson unto my said cousin
and to William Yelverton of my intent, and give him full power to appoint with them; and I said
also of my disposition and intent to them and I desire them to take the labor for to bring this
matter to a good end so that I have no cause to trouble with them.=
19) III G-373 (Abs Add Chart 17,246), JPI personal expenses 36 & 37 HVI. 23d for wine &
spice with Fortescue & Wentworth.
20) I D-88, Jan 28, 1460, WP II-JPI. Discuss w/John Stokes, auditor ct of audience, re: forged
will, probs with WY, tactics & law re: will, getting rid of WY as exec, proof of bargain.
Wentworth act is passed the king, which I doubt might not be w/o lord Chanc good will and
assent; and WW sueth to have copy thereof, which he might have had of me if I had list, etc.
21) III G-429 (abs MS 34,889, f. 156), Jan? 1461?, Fr John Brackley-JPI. >Know              that
commissary J. Heydon, your & my chief enemy, Philip Wentworth and J. Andrew malign/act
maliciously against you & Master TH and me and your others. WY judge with all counselof
John Heydon will act against you and me and Master TH in whatever he is able. ...W.
Rokewode was asked by WY judge to favor himself and Tendale against Wyndham esq for the
manor of Felbrigge, with pertinances, etc and then it will be known whether JH will favor
Wyndam or the judge, etc.

5) ALaboring@ Juries
1)Item per JB pro duobus copiis juratorum pro maneriis predictis impanellandorum 2s(Bray&
Bey 1451)
2) Item to Robert Dene ... for another copy of the jury of the aforesaid manor 4d (Brad 1451) 3)
Item to Robert Botiller servant of lord riding to Lond, Bury & Caistre for the cause of the nisi
prius and to labor the men of jury 4s (Brad 1453)
4) Hastings, CCP 222-24 & n49 - Fastolf reward sheriff for favorable grand jury on the attaint
& egs labor juries
5) Item by William Barker in defense of the assizes and pleas of said Prior for said rent to be
defended and on the jurors impanelled etc as in several parts of his bills 25s 52d
6) Item by Christopher Hansson for the defense of the assizes of said Prior and expenses on the
jurors as in his bills in the year 34 th and 35th of the aforesaid King ,4 7s 52d (Other FP 42

7) II D-518, March 29, 1455, JF-JPI, TH & sheriff & TH >exigend= & w/regard to the attaint-
>to the intent he might know the disposition of the people how they be sette, etc, for he (JF),
well advertised in this matter, shall be a great supporter of truth in this behalf, for the party
contrary will done that they can to labor the jury and done to have them ruled after their intent
and contrary to truth=
8) II D-582, Oct prob, 1459, Fr John Brackley-JPI. >Sir John Tattershal is at one with
Heydon, etc and Lord Scales had made a loveday with Prior and Heydon in all matters except
the matter of Snorying, etc And the said Prior spoke masterly to the jurors, etc and told them and
they had dred God and hurt of their souls they would have some instruction of the one party as
well as of the other; but they were so bold that they were not afraid, for they found no
objections/hesitation (bonys) to say in their verdict, as TT & JH would....=
9) II D-219, Oct 21 prob, 1460, Thomas Playter-JPI. List of the names of 21 jurors, probably
with regard Oct 21 inquisition into Fastolf lands at Acle, described also in the prior letter.

6) Bribes/Gifts
1) Item clerico de le petybagge Cancellari pro amicicia sua habenda pro le patent firme dicte
manerii habend 6s 8d (Brad1449)
2) [Item] ...Willelmo Wayt clerico Yelverton pro amicicia in materia Tychewell 3s 4d
3) Item solut= per Nicolaum Newman (per) mandatum domini ut vicecomites sint in futuro
favorabile in causis domini ut in compoto dicti Nicholai de anno xxxv/to rege H vi/ti 30s (Other
FP 42 Entries1456-57)
4) Item soluta per Thomam Howes in curia banci regis coram Johanne Fortescue justiciario
cum ,46 13s 4d ad complendam summam ,73 6s 8d adiudicatam Johanni Andrews super
conspiracione ac pro certis expensis et custubus dummodo idem Thomas fuit in persona retentus
in le kingsbynche per (omitted) septimanas prout in compoto dicti Thome terminato ad
michaelem anno 36th regis predicti (1457) in titulo custus placitorum ac feodo de compedibus
vocato le sewet tam pro ipso quam pro Johanne Porter dummodo juratores impanellati in
attincta comparerent coram justiciariis Regis Westm ,62 17s 9d (Other FP 42 1457)
5) Item datum in regardo cuidam capitali Justiciario Domini Regis per Willemum Worcester
servuientem Johannis Fastolf militis per testimonium Johannis Paston liberato et Johannis
Bockyng unam robam panni auri de crymsyn velwet ut dictus Judex esset plus favorablie? in
judicio suo prefato Thome Howys quando imprisonatus fuit in le kyngsbynche ,6 13s 4d (no
date) (see Fortescue, De Laudibis Legum Angliae 128 on incorruptibility of Eng judges)
6) Item dat= per dictam Thomam Howes vicecomitibus et escaetoribus ac eorum clericis ut sint
maius amicabiles et favorabiles in materiis domini ut in predictis suis compotis annitantur (sic
annotantur) 70s 4d (no date)
7)Item in the fee of Thomas Grene for half a year paid 16s 8d. And livery to said Thomas
Grene for causes of the lord in law at Westm to be expedited as it appears in the bill ,4 13s 4d.
And for 6 yards of cloth for a robe of Thomas Comber and John Mersshman of the franchise of
Southwark 13s 4d. And of John Hewet and John Crane, esquires another 6 yards for their
friendship in causes of the lord 20s; for Walter Raulyns attorney of the lord 3 robes; for William
Seton(?ab mk) attorney 2 robes; for Walter Geffrey 2 robes price of a robe of 8s 56s ,13 12s
6d (no date)

       8) Hastings, CCP 222-24 & n49 - Fastolf reward sheriff for favorable grand jury on the attaint
       & egs labor juries
       9) II D-511, Nov. 18, 1454, TH-JPI ltr, JF file attaint, reward to sheriff for returning attaint
                panel so he will be content
       10) FP 70: Gifts to William Yelvertion at JF funeral, including >all his costs at the interrment
       JF with his clothing & his 8 men & with his lady his wife & her 2 gentlewomen with clothing of
       his priest & 2 bayllyrs of his ,13 6s 8d,= >cross w/chain (,10) & of holy cross (,100) therein
       that JF dud were dayly aboute his nek ,110,= >a finger of St. John the Baptist ,40,=>a book
       clept Josephus (,5) & a bible of Worcester (,13 6s 8d) ,18 6s 8d,= >From Hugh Fenn ,6
       13s 4d, >at Brentwod ,4 13s 4d,= and >in the sale of Heylysdon ,4 13s 4d.=

B) Using the Justice System

       Payments to lawyers and officials commonly reflected the ordinary fees and expenses of
engaging in litigation and using the justice system. This routine compensation and reimbursement for
expenses provide some interesting insights into the compensation of lawyers and court officials and the
accepted practices by lawyers in charging clients for expenses.

       1) Lawyers
       a) Routine Fees
                Ives, CL PreReform Eng, has provided an excellent discussion of lawyers= fees. Only
       add a few more details to what his thorough research, which included, inter alia, FP 42,
       revealed. Also add a few comments on lawyers= fees. Lawyers paid with annual fees, term fees,
       fees for particular matters, and fees for particular appearances or counsel. Periodic bills by term.
       Fees serjeants, attorneys, counsel and legal experts. Common fees 6s 8d & 3s 4d. Add more

       b) Routine Expenses

               In course of representation, lawyers made expenditures for which they were reimbursed.
       Many paid by JF servants whose reimbursement is reflected in the account, sometimes as
       reflected in their bills. Many not specified, just expenses. E.gs of identified expenses: travel
       expenses including horses and boat rental, amercements paid for JF, searching rolls, food.

       c. Noteworthy Payments. Payments other than routine or normal fees or reimbursement of
       expenses that seem to merit further comment.
       i) Expedite Litigation
       1) Item mensi Novembris 28th anno Johanni Wannipage (Vampage?) ad expeditionem placiti
       manerii de Bradwell 6s 8d (Brad 1449)
       2) [Item] Februari datum Johanni Vampage ad expediendum responsionem placiti traversie
       dicti manerii 6s 8d (Brad 1451)
       3) Item(paid W) Nottingham king=s atty to expedite process of said plea 6s 8d ([Item, missing]
       Notyngham attornato regis ad expediendum processum dicti placiti 6s 8d)(Brad 1454)
       4) [Item] ......mensi junii anno xxxij anno dicti regis H VI soluta circa expedicionem placitorum

et concillii patentis John Paston & Thomas Howes pro warda T. Falstolf 40s (Brad 1454)
5) [Item] ......mensi junii anno xxxij anno dicti regis H VI soluta circa expedicionem placitorum
et concillii patentis John Paston & Thomas Howes pro warda T. Falstolf 40s (Brad 1454)
6) [Item 27th day of January to John Vampage for said matters to be expedited 6s 8d
7) Item solut= per Thomam Grene de concilio domini in dictis causis, defendendis, expediendis
in attincta principaliter prout per billam approbatam de duplo manus suo copiat termino
Trinitatis anno 33rd predicto unde pro attincta 28s 6d et pro conspiracione 20s 48s 6d (Other FP
42 Entries1454);

ii) Livery and Robes
1) Item solut= per Johannum Paston amerigerum cuidam homine in regardo ad laborandum pro
acquisitione persone of TF 20s
2) Item paid by Christopher Hansson for liveries for John Geney, William Plumme, Henry
Wyndsore for three years price of livery of 10s ,4 10s
3) Item in the fee of Thomas Grene for half a year paid 16s 8d. And livery to said Thomas
Grene for causes of the lord in law at Westm to be expedited as it appears in the bill ,4 13s 4d.
And for 6 yards of cloth for a robe of Thomas Comber and John Mersshman of the franchise of
Southwark 13s 4d. And of John Hewet and John Crane, esquires another 6 yards for their
friendship in causes of the lord 20s; for Walter Raulyns attorney of the lord 3 robes; for William
Seton(?ab mk) attorney 2 robes; for Walter Geffrey 2 robes price of a robe of 8s 56s ,13 12s
6d (Other FP 42 Entries no date)

2. Officials

a) Routine Fees and Expenses
Many payments to officials seem routine. Most of these expenses involve compensation for
appropriate services undertaken by the officials as part of their employment.. Examples include
 the writing, coping, sealing, and enrolling of documents, issuing writs and patents, and
searching records and documents. Sheriffs, bailiffs, and other officials received similar payments
regarding their functions. These payments illustrate how the justice system operated with the
compensation of officials being paid partially by the users of the systems substantially
supplementing their official salaries. Fees from private parties were the primary source of
compensation. Thus, these positions from the highest ranking down to clerical ones offered
opportunity for significant income.(Discussion Margaret Hastings, Ct CP & perhaps Marjorie
Blatcher, Ct KB also).

b. Noteworthy Payments Payments other than routine or normal fees or reimbursement of
expenses that seem to merit further comment.

1) Item for Edmund Blakeney king=s escheator for riding to Lond to certify barons of K=s exch
that the ex officio inquest recently found in his name or that of his deputy conspired & fabricated
by J. Andews w/o know of esche for manor of Brad seized into hands of the kings 40s
2) Item given to Damport serg at arms for message to Barons of Exch to have farm of the said

       Manor 3s 4d (Brad1449)
       3) Item datum clerico scaccarii circa expedicionem materie predicti 20d (Brad 1454)
       4) Item soluta per dictum Thomam Howes in causa attincte predicte procedende cum ,10
       solutis Regi ad manus Johannis Andrews de parte ,40 amerciatarum per Fortescue justiciarum
       super Johannem Clopton vicecomitum pro eo quod ipse non adduceret secum corpora dictorum
       Thome et Johannis Porter super retornacione unius exigentis retornabile in xv/a trinitatis anno
       regis predicti ubi dictum breve de exigentis breve habuit primo? inscriptis? ut sic compareret xv
       trinatis et postea factum? fuit retornabile in octabis trinitatis ac pro regardis datis vicecomiti et
       eius deputato necnon ...cum 66s 8d pro regardo de quod equo griseo dat= officiario et in
       compoto suo non fit mencio ,35 15s (Includes other TH & Porter expenses, Other FP 42
       Entries 1457)
       5) Item soluta per Thomam Howes in curia banci regis coram Johanne Fortescue justiciario
       cum ,46 13s 4d ad complendam summam ,73 6s 8d adiudicatam Johanni Andrews super
       conspiracione ac pro certis expensis et custubus dummodo idem Thomas fuit in persona retentus
       in le kingsbynche per (omitted) septimanas prout in compoto dicti Thome terminato ad
       michaelem anno 36th regis predicti (1457) in titulo custus placitorum ac feodo de compedibus
       vocato le sewet tam pro ipso quam pro Johanne Porter dummodo juratores impanellati in
       attincta comparerent coram justiciariis Regis Westm ,62 17s 9d (Other FP 42 Entries 1457)
       6) Item paid (blank) to the rector of Heydon executor of John Dovey (?) ______ on behalf of
       John Wyngfelde knight to defend the process of said John Wyngfelde ne? ,30 for part of the
       amercements of ,40 imposed on him for cause because he did not hold John Porter and Thomas
       Howes on a certain day in the King=s bench ,13 6s 8d;
       7) Item given in payment an embroidered cape with a ribbon/linen thread (ynkell) of the arms of
       JF to make agreement with said rector of Heydon so that he would not further prosecute said TH
       for said ,30 aforesaid ,10 (no date)

IV. Conclusion


Shared By: