Trans. Bristol & Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 134 (2016), 203–220 Ralph Waleys (d. 1394): a Gloucestershire ‘New Man’ and Knight of the Shire By BRIDGET WELLS-FURBY Ralph Waleys is a particularly well-documented example of the phenomenon of a man who raised his social standing by a significant margin through civilian service to a lay magnate.1 His background was that of the lowest ranks of the gentry, but he joined the service of the lords of Berkeley and rose to the point where he represented Gloucestershire in parliament as well as holding all the other senior positions in the county’s administration as sheriff, justice of the peace and escheator. On the whole the ‘knights of the shire’, who were not all actually knights, were drawn from the upper levels of the county community with a background of local landed ancestry, but this was far from being always the case. Waleys was a newcomer to this society, and he is an unusually good exemplar of his type because of the amount of detail on aspects of his private life available in local sources at Berkeley Castle, Bristol Record Office and Somerset Archives. The stratification of late medieval English society is seen in various ways, such as the developments in the upper reaches of society with the creation of dukes above the earls and the gradual distinction of those who received a personal summons to parliament (the ‘parliamentary peerage’) from wealthy knights who did not. It is seen also in the distinctions of pay for military service and other tasks between bannerets, knights and esquires, and very particularly in the sumptuary laws of 1363 or the poll tax of 1377. Nevertheless, the strata were not impermeable. Men of ability could make their fortunes through three or four well-known routes. These were the church, trade, the law, warfare and ‘service’ to a lay or ecclesiastical lord, and those who had made some progress in any of these careers, except that of the church, could also enhance their fortunes by marriage. In effect, though, the law and warfare were also forms of service as both routes of advancement required at least a period of service to others before any degree of independence might be reached.2 Probably the most outstanding local example of promotion through a combination of the law and civilian lay service is the career of William de Cheltenham (d. 1374), also a Berkeley servant.3 He was appointed far more frequently than Waleys to commissions in Gloucestershire and numerous other counties and, although never sheriff, he served also on Gloucestershire commissions of the peace and as knight of the shire ten times. Waleys provides a contrast, because there is no evidence that he had any legal training and he almost certainly did not practise as a lawyer. He may have been one of the ‘local men of law’ who have been characterized as including men ‘whose involvement in judicial and administrative affairs 1. I am grateful to David Smith for reading an early draft of this paper and for his useful suggestions. 2. For a comprehensive discussion of social mobility in general and the various routes, with a particular emphasis on the law, and the relevant historiography, see R.C. Kinsey, ‘Legal Service, Careerism and Social Advancement in Late Medieval England: the Thorpes of Northamptonshire, c.1200–1391’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (Univ. of York, 2009), 2–16. 3. N. Saul, Knights and Esquires: the Gloucestershire gentry in the fourteenth century (Oxford, 1981), 157–8. 204 BRIDGET WELLS-FURBY enabled them to acquire some legal knowhow’, as well as ‘those whose profession was the law’,4 but a search of a selection of Common Pleas rolls from the late 1350s and early 1360s has found no evidence of him acting as an attorney.5 His service appears to have been purely administrative and, if it is indeed the case that he had no legal experience at all, then he may have been exceptional, as most notable civilian administrators did have this advantage. A closely-studied case for comparison is that of the Leicestershire lawyer Simon Pakeman (d. 1376). His career may be summarized because it provides interesting points of comparison and contrast with that of Waleys.6 Both rose from comparatively humble backgrounds to represent their county in parliament.7 Pakeman came from Kirby Muxloe (Leics.), but the Herles were the chief family in the village. The Pakeman property, although including arable and meadow demesne and free and villein tenants, did not include a manorial court. The family belonged to the level of ‘well-to-do freeholders’ and associated with neighbours of that level, ‘a close-knit group of families who were on the verge of gentry status’. Simon appears to have had legal training, possibly through the assistance of the Chief Justice William Herle, who bought his wardship, and it may have been this which brought him his appointment in 1340 by Henry, earl of Lancaster, as steward of the honor of Leicester. He held this position until Henry’s death in 1346, but he was reappointed by John of Gaunt in 1362 and was also a member of Gaunt’s council from 1369. From soon after his first appointment he began to serve on local commissions and he held this role during the period when he was not steward, but during both periods as steward he was also appointed to commissions in other counties connected with the estate. He established a comparatively brief connection with Thomas Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, but this had a local factor as well as a wider, legal, one, and in general his legal business and other contacts remained local. By the end of his life his estate in Kirby was larger and more of a ‘gentry-type’, but ‘the breadth of his social relationships remained much the same as before he first took service with the Lancastrians’. His ‘long seignorial service had not necessarily conferred an immediate increase in family status’, although both his daughters married into local gentry families which were of higher status than his. This paper will look first at the family background of Ralph Waleys, then his service to the Berkeley lords, his land acquisitions, his social contacts and finally his service in local government. It will then be possible to identify the similarities to and differences from Pakeman’s career and establish a broader picture of the opportunities of lay service. Family background Ralph was the son and heir of William le Waleys of Hempton, who occurs as a witness to local charters between the 1290s and 1326 and was dead by early 1341, leaving a widow Isabel.8 William 4. M. Ormrod and A. Musson, The Evolution of English Justice (London, 1999), 62–3; P.R. Coss, The Origins of the English Gentry (Cambridge, 2003), 187, 191–2, 193–4. 5. A lack of legal experience is strongly suggested by the fact that he did not serve as the Berkeley estate steward, for which see below. 6. G.G. Astill, ‘Social advancement through seignorial service? The case of Simon Pakeman’, Trans. Leics. Archaeol. and Hist. Soc. 54 (1978–9), 14–25. 7. Pakeman was knight of the shire for Leics. in 1346, 1348, 1365 and 1368. 8. The National Archives [TNA], CP 40/325, m. 296. William witnessed Earthcott and Iron Acton charters for St Mark’s hospital, Bristol, in the 1290s, 1316, and before 1335; one of 1313 for William Page, which was made at Bristol although it concerned property in and around Berkeley; three King’s Weston charters for Maurice III, Lord Berkeley, in 1317–18; a 1317 grant to Elias de Filton of lands in Tockington and Olveston; and in 1326 a lease by John de Brokenborough, made at Hempton: C.D. RALPH WALEYS: A GLOUCESTERSHIRE ‘NEW MAN’ 205 was a minor landholder who belonged to the same ill-defined rank as the Pakemans, where the lowest ranks of the gentry shaded into the prosperous freeholders. Hempton was in Patchway, in the area where Hempton Court Farm and Upper Hempton Farm have been replaced by the Aztec West development,9 and, whilst a tithing of Almondsbury parish, it was closely linked with the manor of Winterbourne, of which it was held.10 William may also have held land nearby at Wyck, in Henbury, and slightly further north at Holm, in Olveston,11 and possibly also in Clifton.12 By the latter part of Ralph’s life, the Hempton property was being identified as a manor, although it is far from certain that this was the case in William’s time. The only clue to the extent of this property is provided by his widow Isabel’s claim in 1341 for dower in 16 life tenancies created by him.13 The individual leases varied widely in size, but the property involved amounted to four virgates and 43 a. of arable land, and 34 a. of meadow, as well as messuages, gardens and crofts. As the size of the virgates is not stated, and they varied widely, it is not certain how many acres of arable were involved, but the virgates are unlikely to have been less than 20 a., so the amount of arable was probably 123 a. or more. More impressive is the quantity of meadow, which by this period was generally in short supply and correspondingly valuable.14 Unfortunately, the rents paid for these tenancies are not given, but at comparatively modest rents of 1s. per acre for the arable and 3s. per acre for the meadow, the property specified was probably worth at least £10 a year.15 If the virgates were larger, or the rental value higher, it may have been worth rather more.