sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bitton, Harry Stoke

Trans. & 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 : 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 and 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 of lands in and ; 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 , 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 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. The important question is what proportion of William’s whole estate was represented by these tenancies? As they were life tenancies, they might suggest either of the two extremes of prosperity. On the one hand, they may have been created under financial pressure, for nominal rents but with a large initial lump sum, as was the case with Robert Averay, a free tenant of the lordship of Berkeley, whose entire landholding was eventually alienated.16 On the other, they may represent the most advanced form of the tenurial economy, taking advantage of the high value of land at a

Ross (ed.), The Cartulary of St Mark’s Hospital, Bristol (Bristol Rec. Soc. 21, 1959), nos 365–6, 386–9, 410; Berkeley Castle Muniments [BCM], GC1897, GC2192, GC2194, GC2252, GC1897; Somerset Archives [SA], DD\WHb/2545; Gloucestershire Archives [GA], D 674/a/T1. 9. P. Ellis, ‘Earthwork surveys of three sites in Avon’, Trans. BGAS 102 (1984), 206–10. 10. A.H. Smith, The Place-Names of Gloucestershire (Cambridge, 1964), III, 107. In 1408 lands in Hempton were said to be within the ‘hundred’ of Winterbourne: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem [Cal. Inq. p.m.], XXIV, no. 438; GA, D 2957/345/1. The ‘hundred’ of Winterbourne is a rather nebulous concept, but one which recurs. 11. In 1378 Ralph was to make a settlement which included lands in these places, which he may have inherited from William: Bristol Record Office [BRO], AC/D/3/1. 12. In 1297 a William le Waleys ‘of Clifton’ was among four men from that manor who acted as manucaptor for its lord, Sir John de St Lo, when St Lo was elected as knight of the shire for Gloucestershire: F. Palgrave, The Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military Summonses (London, 1827), I, 58. 13. TNA, CP 40/325, m. 296. 14. The ratio of meadow to arable was often less than 10% on manorial demesnes, and the large virgates of 60 a. of arable on the Berkeley lordship had 3½ a. of meadow. 15. At around this time Thomas, Lord Berkeley, was leasing land in neighbouring Over at 16s. a year for a half-virgate and 12s. a year for 10 a. of land (with a large entry fine of £6 13s. 4d.); after the Black Death rents were slightly lower, at 14s. a year for a half-virgate and 10s. a year for 10 a. of land and meadow: BCM, GC2582, GC3269, GC3407, GC3431. 16. B. Wells-Furby, ‘Tenants of the lordship of Berkeley in the late Middle Ages’ in J. Bettey (ed.), Archives and Local History in Bristol and Gloucestershire: essays in honour of David Smith (BGAS, 2007), 43–8. 206 BRIDGET WELLS-FURBY time of great population pressure to make short-term leases at competitive rents.17 In this case, it is probable that these tenancies did not comprise all William’s property, and that he had retained some land in his own hand as demesne cultivated for his direct benefit.18 The fact that William does not appear among the taxpayers of Hempton in 1327 suggests that he he had no demesne land there,19 but this is hardly helpful as he may have been a successful evader, or he may have had demesne elsewhere. In the circumstances, it is not possible to be certain, but William’s estate may have provided an income which was at least £10 a year, and is unlikely to have been more than £20–5 a year. If this was the case, then William was certainly able to enjoy the attributes of gentle life, although in no danger of being distrained for knighthood, which was usually set at an income of £40 a year. It is likely that his status was bolstered by his lineage, because he belonged to a cadet branch of the Waleys family which had held the manor of Winterbourne, and others, but which failed in the male line on the death of Ralph le Waleys (d. 1250), leaving his two sisters as his heirs.20 The cadet branch was well established at Hempton because William had succeeded Richard le Waleys, who was holding land there ‘and elsewhere’ in September 1256.21 Richard was the son of Reginald, who may have been the knight of that name living around the 1230s.22 The Hempton family is therefore a good example of the 13th-century trend by which knighthood came to be limited to the upper ranks only of a class which was recognisably ‘gentry’ in the sense that they shared the same chivalric outlook and lifestyle.23 As knighthood itself became restricted to the wealthiest members of this class, the common unifying factor of the chivalrous class came to be ‘an appreciation of lineage’ and particularly its key feature, the right to bear a coat of arms, because this right, unlike knighthood itself, was hereditary.24 No evidence has been found that William le Waleys was armigerous, but he may have been because his son Ralph displayed a coat of arms, a pale indented, on his seal.25 The tinctures, naturally, are unknown. Equally, it is unknown whether Ralph inherited these from William, or whether he adopted them himself, and there is really no clue either way. It might be expected that if Ralph had risen to armigerous status through his service to the Berkeley lords, his arms would be derived from theirs, gules, crusilly and a chevron argent, but this is not a reliable guide. Nevertheless, it is clear Ralph Waleys inherited a position which was a solid jumping-off point for social advancement.

17. See the advanced practices of Thomas, Lord Berkeley (d. 1321): B. Wells-Furby, The Berkeley Estate 1281–1417: its economy and development (BGAS, 2012), 125–8. 18. He may also have had other tenants holding land at rents greatly below the current competitive rates. 19. P. Franklin, The Taxpayers of Medieval Gloucestershire: an analysis of the 1327 lay subsidy roll with a new edition of its text (Stroud, 1993), no. 450. 20. For the Winterbourne family, and its connection with Richard le Waleys of Hempton, see Ross, Cart. of St Mark’s, nos. 332–4, 278n., 279n. This was not the same family as that represented by William le Waleys (d. 1329) of Woolstrop and Netheridge, in Quedgeley (Glos.), Llanwaryn and Dynan (Monmouths.), whose son and heir Andrew died in 1360 and was succeeded by his son Giles: Cal. Inq. p.m. VII, no. 207; Victoria County History [VCH] Glos. X, 218–19. 21. Ross, Cart. of St. Mark’s, no. 333. 22. Ibid. nos. 279, 281–4, 293, 369–70. 23. For these developments, see P.R. Coss, The Knight in Medieval England 1000–1400 (Stroud, 1995), 62– 71; C. Given-Wilson, The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: the fourteenth-century political community (London, 1987), 15–19. 24. M. Keen, Chivalry (New Haven and London, 1984), 128; N. Saul, For Honour and Fame: chivalry in England, 1066–1500 (London, 2011), 159–63; P.R. Coss, ‘Knighthood, heraldry and social exclusion in Edwardian England’, in P. Coss and M. Keen (eds), Heraldry, Pageantry and Social Display (Woodbridge, 2002), 56. 25. BCM, SC551; BRO, AC/D/3/1. The documents are dated 1377 and 1378. RALPH WALEYS: A GLOUCESTERSHIRE ‘NEW MAN’ 207

Ralph was a minor until at least 1348, and his inheritance in Hempton was in the custody of the overlords John de Brokenborough and Thomas de Bradestone.26 They held portions of the original manor of Winterbourne, of which Hempton was held. This manor had become greatly fragmented and, while Brokenborough had inherited one eighth,27 Bradestone had acquired some at least of the other portions.28 Ralph was almost certainly of full age by January 1351 when he occurs as a charter witness.29 He was born, therefore, probably between 1327 and 1330, towards the end of his father’s life, and he had a younger brother Reginald. William’s widow Isabel, who may have been a later wife, was probably the mother of Ralph and Reginald.

Berkeley service His earliest appearance in the records is also the earliest evidence of his contact with the Berkeley family, as the charter he witnessed in 1351 was for Thomas, Lord Berkeley, and it concerned the manor of Over, which was adjacent to his own property in Hempton. He was to witness another in November 1353.30 The Berkeley lords had been acquiring land in southern Gloucestershire, between their principal holdings in the lordship of Berkeley and the subsidiary group at Portbury and Bedminster (Somerset). Acquisitions in this area in 1317–19 by Maurice, Lord Berkeley, had brought him into contact with William Waleys, who had witnessed some of these charters, and Maurice’s son Thomas, Lord Berkeley, had acquired the manors of Over and King’s Weston in 1330.31 There are several other Over charters surviving from this period: these were the only two witnessed by Waleys, but both were also witnessed by Edmund de Brokenborough, who was probably John’s son, Edmund’s name appearing first and Ralph’s second. There is nothing particularly exceptional about this activity, and Ralph was probably appearing simply as a local landholder, although he may have been introduced into the local society by his kinsman, neighbour and landlord Edmund. This contact may have been reinforced by his former guardian Bradestone, who was a prime example of a man who rose through military service to the king. His father Robert de Bradestone was a Berkeley tenant and servant, probably of much the same standing as William le Waleys. Thomas’s connection with the Berkeleys had introduced him to the royal household, and by the early 1340s he was a household banneret and valued military commander of the king.32 He was to rise still further to the parliamentary peerage, but he retained his close links with the Berkeley family, and he was therefore a useful acquaintance for the young Ralph. It

26. TNA, CP 40/325, m. 296; G. Wrottesley, Crecy and Calais (London, 1898), 155. In 1348 the Waleys lands held by Bradestone were said to be ‘in Winterbourne’. 27. Cal. Inq. p.m. IV, nos 67, 194; Feudal Aids, II, 269. John’s father Richard had married Rose, one of the four daughters and coheirs of Geoffrey de Wraxall and Juliana le Waleys, one of the two sisters and coheirs of Ralph le Waleys. 28. By 1316 one half was held by Robert de Hadley and the other half was divided between Geoffrey de Mohun, John de Brokenborough, Henry de Haddon and Philip de Cerne: TNA, CP 25/1/75/31, no. 36; Cal. Inq. p.m. IV, nos 67, 194; Feudal Aids, II, 269. In 1346 Bradestone was said to hold the fee formerly held by William de Wantage (d. 1324), who had acquired several of the purparties of the Waleys property in Eastbury, in Lambourn (Berks.): Feudal Aids, II, 248, 282; Cal. Inq. p.m. VI, 527; VCH Berks. IV, 259. Bradestone’s acquisition of the Haddon eighth of Winterbourne was formalized by a fine of Apr. 1352 with William Fitzwaryn, who had married the daughter and heir of Henry de Haddon, but this may reflect an earlier purchase: TNA, CP 25/1/77/68, no. 317;Complete Peerage, VI, 512–13. 29. BCM, GC3357. 30. Ibid. GC3407. 31. Wells-Furby, Berkeley Estate, 251, 261–2. 32. N. Saul, ‘Thomas Bradeston’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, VII, 179–80. For Robert de Bradestone, see Wells-Furby, ‘Tenants’, 51–3. 208 BRIDGET WELLS-FURBY seems likely that Ralph had been campaigning, possibly with Bradestone, in the late 1340s or early 1350s. In 1356 Ralph was able to testify on behalf of a Bristol man, who was pardoned on account of his good service at Calais, along with Sir Robert de Aston, Sir John Poyntz and others.33 The manor of Over was to pass after the death of Thomas, Lord Berkeley, in 1361 to his younger son John, but by this time Ralph had made himself conspicuous as a potentially useful man to Thomas’s heir Maurice, Lord Berkeley. It is not known how this was achieved, but he became a versatile and much-trusted servant of Maurice, and particularly of his son and heir Thomas IV de Berkeley. Ralph first appears in Berkeley service as Maurice’s steward of the household, a position of some importance, certainly, but not of the highest distinction. He served as steward from at least 1364 until Maurice’s death in 1368,34 and was one of his executors, along with his widow, William de Cheltenham, John Sergeant and John Hill.35 There followed the minority of Thomas IV until 1374, and the custody of the estate passed to Thomas’s father-in-law Warin de Lisle, but Waleys remained in service, as in 1372–3 he was the estate receiver.36 He was still receiver in the manorial year 1373–4, during which Thomas proved his age in January 1374, but was replaced by Ralph Cok during the following one (1374–5).37 In 1375–7 he was involved in arranging a mortgage on the manor of Bedminster for Thomas IV, obtaining a loan of 400 marks from the Bristol merchant William Cheddar, alongside Sir Richard de Acton, Walter Laurence and William Smalcombe.38 Over the next decade Waleys is found carrying out various tasks within the estate administration. Although there is no explicit reference to Berkeley having a council, it is likely both that he had one, and that Ralph was a member of it. He may briefly have been the estate steward. This position was held between 1377 and 1386 by John Sergeant, who was usually accompanied on his rounds of the manors to hold courts by William Smalcombe. Waleys was also in the company between 1379 and 1383, but in 1376–7 Waleys, Smalcombe and William Haycroft were holding the courts, so Waleys may then have been steward.39 He was making new rentals for Ham, Alkington, Slimbridge and Bedminster with Robert Heigham in 1378–9, and in the same year is found at Slimbridge with the receiver Ralph Cok and William Smalcombe to weigh the wool in company with the merchant John Webb, who was to buy it.40 He was auditor in 1381–2 with Robert Heigham.41 At a less elevated level, he was also involved in the minutiae of estate management. At Ham manor, in 1377–8, he authorized a small cash reward to the famuli at the end of the winter sowing; in the following year he testified to the sale of cows, and in 1379–80 he supervised the sale of cows and authorized a gift of wheat to John Crawley.42 In the 1380s he seems to have been less involved in estate administration, but remained a valued intimate of Thomas, Lord Berkeley. In 1382 Thomas chose him for the highly responsible role of acting as feoffee for the settlement of the Lisle inheritance, then recently inherited by Thomas’s wife Margaret, on themselves and their issue.43 In the following year he mainperned for his lord

33. Calendar of Patent Rolls [Cal. Pat.] 1354–8, 380. 34. BCM, GAR75, GAR97, GAR135, GAR202–3, GAR235–6. 35. Ibid. GAR75, GC3631. 36. Ibid. GAR76. 37. Ibid. GAR138. 38. Ibid. GC3681, GC3685, SC551. 39. Ibid. GAR77–8, GAR238. 40. Ibid. GAR143, GAR240. 41. Ibid. GAR146. 42. Ibid. GAR142–4. 43. TNA, CP 25/1/289/53, nos 71, 87, 90. RALPH WALEYS: A GLOUCESTERSHIRE ‘NEW MAN’ 209 when Thomas obtained the custody of the manor of Leigh by Deerhurst.44 In August 1387 he mainperned, with others, for the release of Thomas’s servants, who had been imprisoned at St Briavel’s castle,45 and in the following October he received a pardon, along with Thomas, Sir John de Berkeley and other prominent Berkeley servants, including Ralph Cok, for hunting without licence in the Forest of Dean.46 He continued to witness Thomas’s charters and act as his feoffee in land acquisitions, or as his representative to receive seisin, until his last appearance on 16 August 1394.47 He died in October or November 1394, after at least 30 years of loyal service to Thomas and his father.48 Naturally his service was rewarded. In the years 1373–5, and very possibly for far longer, he was constable of Berkeley castle, a position which had been held in the past by estate servants, and which probably had its own fixed perquisites.49 The constables of Beverstone castle, for instance, each received annually 17s. 4d. (4d. a week), a furred robe worth 20s., 6½ quarters of wheat (a bushel a week) and hay for their horses.50 At Berkeley, as was common, the constable had his own chamber in the castle, and this was repaired in 1375–6.51 Far more importantly, by early 1375 Thomas had granted him, for life, the manor of Sages within the lordship manor of Slimbridge, which was worth £12–13 a year.52

Land acquisitions Ralph also acquired much additional land, both within the lordship and in the south of the county, which represented in some measure the prosperity associated with his role. It can only be assumed that the wealth which underlay these acquisitions was derived from his service to the Berkeley lords, there being no other obvious source, except possibly enterprising landlordship in the wool business. While in Berkeley service he saved a great deal in the way of ordinary living expenses because his livery and daily food and drink were supplied by the Berkeley household while he was there. There may have been a cash fee, or at least occasional gifts in cash and kind, in addition to Sages. He may also have received gifts, douceurs, or bribes in connection with his position close to the lord and his estate management. In 1370 he acquired two properties within the lordship which together were worth £12–13 a year. From John de Lorridge he obtained an extensive property in and around Berkeley which was described as a messuage, a carucate of land, 15 a. of meadow, 8 a. of wood and 7s. 8d. rent in Wick, Lorridge, Walgaston, Berkeley, Ham, Alkington and Halmore.53 This may have been worth

44. Calendar of Fine Rolls [Cal. Fine] 1377–83, 352. 45. Calendar of Close Rolls [Cal. Close] 1385–9, 343. 46. Cal. Pat. 1385–9, 358. 47. BCM, GC3834, GC3863, GC3887, GC3841, GC3843, GC3844, GC3866, GC3878, GC3295, GC3833. 48. On 2 Oct. 1394 he and Sir Lewis Clifford and Sir Nicholas Sarnesfield, the surviving feoffees of Elmington, received a quitclaim of the manor, but at the end of Nov. it was Clifford alone who surrendered the manor to Margaret Styward: BRO, AC/D/6/36–37a, 39. 49. BCM, GAR138–9. In the 1330s it was held by the receiver John de Cleeve and in 1367–8 by William Westhall: ibid. GC3281, GC3327; GA, D 421/M 4. 50. BCM, GC2706, GC2707. 51. Ibid. GAR77. 52. Ibid. GC3677; Cal. Pat. 1374–7, 164; B. Wells-Furby (ed.), The Great Cartulary of Berkeley Castle, c.1425 (BGAS, 2014), 373–6. 53. TNA, CP 25/1/78/75, no. 497; BCM, GC3617, GC4074. 210 BRIDGET WELLS-FURBY at least £6 a year.54 The second was all the lands of Thomas Mitchell in Slimbridge and Coaley which were granted to Walter Bath and John le Coke, chaplain of the Slimbridge chapel; they were acting as Ralph’s feoffees because in January 1376 they granted the lands to Ralph, William Smalcombe, Ralph Cok and the heirs of Waleys.55 The grant of Sages increased Ralph’s interests in Slimbridge and he made further small acquisitions there.56 His Slimbridge lands were worth at least £6 10s. a year.57 These investments in land within the lordship illustrate Ralph’s commitment to his Berkeley service being made, as they were, during Thomas IV’s minority. These were comparatively minor compared with larger acquisitions made in the vicinity of his own paternal inheritance. After his death, an annual rent of 6 marks (£4) in and Wyke was appurtenant to Hempton; Wyke may have been Wyck, which he may have inherited from his father, but the property in Stoke Gifford may have been acquired by him, although there is no evidence.58 By fines of April 1379 and July 1386 he acquired two small holdings in Tockington which may have become appurtenant to Hempton.59 Although small, they are notable for including 32 a. of meadow, compared with 27 a. of arable land. This particularly heavy emphasis on the meadow suggests that he was focussing on the pastoral economy which was far more profitable than the arable at this time. It is clear that by 1377–8 he had a significant sheep flock, as in this year he was able to sell 100 ewes, of which 77 had lambs, to his lord Thomas de Berkeley for £13 17s.60 He may have been engaged on wool production on a considerable scale, as he was a close friend of the wool merchant John Webb of Tockington.61 This may account for the fact that in 1386 John ap Adam of Llanlowell (Monmouths.), Roger atte More of Bridcombe (Somerset) and John Lassels of Chepstow (Monmouths.) were bound to him in £40 by a statute bond made at Bristol.62 Ralph is here identified as a ‘merchant of Gloucestershire’ and, officially, the bond was for merchandise bought from him at the Bristol Staple, but these bonds were the strongest form of security and were therefore employed outside the mercantile world for which they were designed. The most important of his new acquisitions were the manors of Hinton and Sturden. He obtained these in 1378–9 from Richard de Clevedon, who had himself obtained them as the inheritance of his wife Agnes de la Ryvere. Hinton was just north of , east of Bristol, and Sturden was in the parish of Winterbourne, some 4 miles from Hempton. On 10 March 1378 Clevedon granted to Ralph an annual rent of £20 from the manors,63 and three months later they were included in an enfeoffment made by Ralph.64 A year later, on 20 March 1379, Clevedon granted to Ralph and Peter Yeovilton and the heirs of Ralph all his lands etc. within the hundreds

54. By comparison with leases being made at this time at the lordship manor of Ham, the meadow might have been leased at 2s. per acre and the land at 8d. per acre, which, if the carucate represented 120 a., amounts to £5 10s. a year. 55. BCM, GC3626, GC3689, GC3673. 56. Ibid. GC3719, GC3903, GC3947. 57. Wells-Furby, Great Cartulary, 374–5. 58. TNA, CP 25/1/79/85, no. 50; Cal. Inq. p.m. XXIV, no. 438. 59. The first was a toft, 11 a. of land, 12 a. of meadow and 2 a. of wood, with the reversion of a further 4 a. of meadow, and the second was a toft, 16 a. of land, 16 a. of meadow and 2 a. of wood: TNA, CP 25/1/78/78, no. 12; CP 25/1/78/8, no. 77. 60. BCM, GAR239. 61. See below. 62. TNA, C 241/185/84. 63. BRO, AC/D/3/2. 64. Ibid. AC/D/3/1. The date of this is problematic, as it was Tuesday the feast of SS Peter and Paul (29 June), the first year of Richard II, and Richard’s reign began on 22 June 1377. In 1377 29 June was a Monday, although it was a Tuesday in the following year 1378. RALPH WALEYS: A GLOUCESTERSHIRE ‘NEW MAN’ 211 of Winterbourne and .65 Although Hinton lay within the hundred of Grumbald’s Ash, not Pucklechurch, this almost certainly referred to the two manors because by two fines made in June 1379 Clevedon and Agnes granted the manor of Hinton to Ralph, and the manor of Sturden to Ralph and Yeovilton and the heirs of Ralph.66 These two manors were probably worth at least £20 a year, given the grant of a rent by Clevedon in 1378, and were still worth at least £20 or £22 a year in the 1460s.67 They occur in several contemporary inquisitions post mortem between 1361 and 1374. The extents and valuations given are clearly inadequate, but indicate that at each there was demesne arable and meadow, rents from land held in tenure and a court, although the later ones mention that the arable land was untilled.68 An important appurtenance of Sturden was a watermill called Glasspool Mill which was adjacent to the messuage, but is always mentioned separately because it was part of the King’s Barton.69 The recent history of the two manors explains why they became available to Ralph to buy and why they had apparently become neglected. In 1361 they had passed from Joan de la Ryvere to her son Richard who died shortly afterwards, leaving a son Thomas aged nine and a widow who held both manors and died in 1367 when Thomas was 15. Thomas himself died in 1374 and there was some confusion over his heir in the returns to his inquisition post mortem. He had a sister Agnes who was 17, but had entered Shaftesbury abbey some years previously, and it was unknown whether she was a professed nun which would have disqualified her from inheriting. Most of the juries returned that his heir was his cousin Joan, wife of Richard Pryor of Wycombe, but the Bristol jurors stated that Agnes was the heir if she was not professed. The bishop of Salisbury was asked to clarify the position: on 11 January 1375 he responded that she was professed, and the Pryors had order for livery on 2 February 1375.70 Nevertheless, Agnes was married to Clevedon and they made good their claim as he was holding her Somerset lands by October 1375, but he did not hold them for long. Within a few years all her lands were alienated by him, amid a number of debts which may have been incurred by him for the legal expenses of defending the title.71 Richard Pryor continued his attempts to recover the lands by lawsuits and in the early 1390s submitted two petitions trying to reclaim the lands, including those then held by Waleys, and describing Agnes as Clevedon’s ‘concubyne’.72 In June 1378 Ralph made an important enfeoffment, granting to John Sergeant, John de Weston of , William Smalcombe, his brother Reginald, Robert Hall and John Webb all his lands in Wick near Berkeley, Slimbridge, Hempton, Holm, Wyck, Hinton and Sturden.73 It therefore included his new acquisitions within the lordship of Berkeley, and Hinton and Sturden,

65. BRO, AC/D/3/3. 66. TNA, CP 25/1/78/78, nos 8–9. Pucklechurch was one of the Seven Hundreds of Grumbald’s Ash. The parish of Winterbourne was later part of Swinehead hundred, another of the Seven Hundreds. 67. BRO, AC/D/3/17, 22 a–c. 68. TNA, C 135/238/17; Abstracts of Inquisitions post mortem for Gloucestershire [Inq. p.m. Glos.] VI, 18, 27, 45, 81; Cal. Inq. p.m. XIV, nos 53, 83; XV, no. 137 69. It probably stood on the Bradley Brook, near to its junction with the Frome, where the present Sturden Court stands. Sturden, formerly Stourden, was named after the brook which was formerly called the Stour: Smith, Place-Names of Glos. III, 124. 70. Cal. Inq. p.m. XIV, no. 53; TNA, C 135/238/17; Cal. Fine 1368–77, 280. 71. TNA, C 131/23/2; C 131/27/11; CP 25/1/289/52, no. 47; Cal. Pat. 1385–9, 298; A. Conyers (ed.), Wiltshire Extents for Debts Edward I–Elizabeth I (Wilts. Rec. Soc. 28, 1973), no. 24. 72. TNA, SC 8/332/15798; SC 8/205/10233. William Wycombe, son and heir of Richard and Joan Prior, was still attempting, unsuccessfully, to claim the lands of his lost inheritance in 1407 (the manors of Westrop in Wilts. and ‘Grobiswyke’ in Somerset) and 1428 (Hinton and Sturden): ibid. E 135/6/76; BRO, D/3/10/a–b, 11/a, 12; Cal. Close 1405–9, 289, 350; 1422–9, 400. 73. BRO, AC/D/3/1. 212 BRIDGET WELLS-FURBY as well lands in Hempton, Holm and Wyck which he had certainly or possibly inherited. These may have comprised his whole estate at the time, but it may have been carried out in order to help secure his title to Hinton and Sturden which was so fragile. Finally, Ralph was involved in two fines of October 1386. By one, John Weston of Ingst and his wife Margaret granted to Ralph, John Babington and John Chese and the heirs of Ralph a messuage, two carucates of land, 80 a. of pasture, 8 a. of wood and rents of 6s. 6d. in Stock in Calne (Wilts.).74 By the other, John and Margaret Weston granted eight messuages, five carucates of land, 40 a. of meadow, 20 a. of pasture and 12 a. of wood in Olveston, Winterbourne, Ingst, Henbury, Earthcott and (all Glos.) to Ralph, Thomas, Lord Berkeley, Babington and Chese and the heirs of Ralph.75 Neither of these large properties occurs again in connection with Ralph or his heirs, and he may have been acting as a feoffee for Weston. While the value of Ralph’s paternal inheritance is unknown, it is likely that Hinton, Sturden and his new lands in the lordship, together worth at least £32–3 a year, had more than doubled the value of his estate, quite apart from the smaller acquisitions, and his life interest in Sages, worth another £12–13 a year. Land purchase was a risky business as there was nearly always an heir to make a claim, even where the circumstances were not as unusual as with Hinton and Sturden. Purchases were usually reinforced by quitclaims from potential claimants and protected by being made jointly with others, very often a wife but occasionally with colleagues as Waleys did. Nevertheless, there was a liquid market with land becoming available to rising men like Waleys for a number of reasons, among which were debt and disputed titles, as with Hinton and Sturden. Waleys does not seem to have acquired any land by marriage, a common strategy among rising men. His practice of using colleagues in his land acquisitions suggests that he did not marry at all until late in life, although it is equally likely that he was married, but chose not to involve his wife in his land purchases, possibly because they had no surviving issue. He left a widow Joan, and it seems likely that he was in his sixties when he married her and that she was much younger than him because she occurs only shortly before his death and survived him for at least 22 years. She cannot be identified, so it is unlikely that she was an heiress or a widow holding dower lands. An early marriage to the daughter or sister of one of his peers in southern Gloucestershire before he began to make his mark in the Berkeley service would not be surprising, but if Joan was a later wife then it might be expected that he would have taken the opportunity to acquire lands when his position would probably have made this option available to him. The scenario of an elderly man marrying a younger and property-less wife suggests that this late marriage may have been the result of susceptibility, but it may have been a last attempt to produce a child to inherit the estate he had so carefully built up. No child resulted, however, and Ralph’s heir was his brother Reginald. He died between May 1406 and May 1410, leaving a daughter and heir Margery (d. 1435) who married first John More and secondly Nicholas Stanshawe of Kingrove in .76 Ralph’s widow Joan, who was one of his executors, married again to Alexander de Clevedon by 12 April 1396 and was still alive in 1416.77 The arrangements for her jointure were made shortly before Ralph’s death. In April 1392 he granted his Slimbridge lands to feoffees and they were regranted by a fine of the 18th year of

74. TNA, CP 25/1/256/55, no. 31. 75. Ibid. CP 25/1/78/80, no. 68. 76. Stanshawe’s biography may be found in The History of Parliament 1386–1422, although there are some inaccuracies. He had Kingrove in 1407 by grant of his mother Isabel (d. 1412): Cal. Inq. p.m. XIX, no. 961. Sturden was held in chief, by socage, and therefore it is curious that no inquisition post mortem followed Ralph’s death, and that of Reginald, but this was presumably because the manor had been enfeoffed. 77. TNA, C 241/185/84; SA, DD\WHb/2083. RALPH WALEYS: A GLOUCESTERSHIRE ‘NEW MAN’ 213

Richard II (1394–5), which has not survived, to Ralph and Joan with remainder to Thomas, Lord Berkeley.78 Ralph had granted Sturden to Smalcombe, Hall and Webb, and on 4 October 1395, after his death, they granted it to Joan to hold for life, with reversion to Reginald and his issue, failing which to Margery, wife of Sir Thomas Fitznichol, and her issue, failing which to the right heirs of Ralph.79 Joan also had a life interest in Hempton and the rent of 6 marks because she was holding them in 1411.80 The Lorridge lands, or at least part of them, also seem to have been the subject of an enfeoffment in late April and early May 1394, but they passed to Reginald, and then to his daughter who in December 1412 granted them to Thomas, Lord Berkeley.81 At her death in 1435 Margery held the manors of Hempton, Hinton and Sturden.82

Social relationships Ralph’s circle of close, trusted intimates is indicated by the colleagues he chose as joint-purchasers and feoffees.83 Perhaps surprisingly, his brother Reginald acted as a feoffee only once, in 1378, although he was also one of Ralph’s executors.84 More prominent are his colleagues in the Berkeley service. Ralph Cok acted for him once, but William Smalcombe and John Sergeant each acted three times and Waleys was also a feoffee for Smalcombe.85 Outside the Berkeley affinity, he appears to have had a close relationship with John Weston of Ingst, a feoffee in 1378 as well as whatever lay behind the fines of 1386, and particularly with Robert Hall and John Webb. These two were feoffees twice and three times respectively and were both executors.86 They were neighbours in southern Gloucestershire. Hall is probably the Robert Hall who in 1367 acquired land in Shirehampton, and Tockington.87 Webb is identified as John Webb ‘of Tockington’ and was probably the John Webb to whom in 1378–9 the wool clip from Slimbridge was sold when Waleys was one of those supervising the weighing of the wool. This is particularly interesting in view of Ralph’s own focus on wool production. These men were not members of ‘county’ families, but Ralph was incorporated into this society by acting as feoffee for some of them. He acted twice for the famously wealthy Bristol merchant Robert Cheddar (d. 1384) in 1371 and 1383,88 but also for John Corbet of before 1370,89

78. BCM, SR18, no. 47, GC3868. The grant was actually to Ralph and Joan and their male issue, but this was probably no more than a formality and is not uncommonly found in circumstances where no issue was expected. In June 1398 Joan and Clevedon granted all the lands in Slimbridge which they held for Joan’s life to Berkeley, although Clevedon then seems to have leased them back from Berkeley: Wells- Furby Great Cartulary, 374–5. 79. BRO, AC/D/3/5/a–b. This Margery was not Ralph’s niece because she was dead by 1396–7 when Fitznichol was married to another. Sturden is here again identified as being in the ‘hundred of Winterbourne’. It was held by Alexander Clevedon in 1402, but the Mores were apparently in possession of Sturden and Hinton in 1410: Feudal Aids, II, 302; BRO, AC/D/3/8, 9. 80. TNA, CP 25/1/79/85, no. 50. 81. BCM, GC3883, GC3885, GC4013, GC4073, GC407, GC4094. 82. Cal. Inq. p.m. XXIV, no. 438. 83. There were others who occur only once as a feoffee, but they were chiefly clergymen, always popular for this role as they did not have children to make mischievous claims. 84. TNA, C 241/185/84. 85. Ibid. CP 25/1/78/74, no. 472. 86. Ibid. C 241/185/84. 87. Ibid. CP 25/1/78/74, no. 460. 88. Ibid. CP 25/1/44/63, no. 44; Cal. Close 1369–74, 288. 89. Cal. Inq. p.m. XIII, no. 20. 214 BRIDGET WELLS-FURBY for Edmund Blount in 1376, for Edmund’s widow Margaret Styward in 1381,90 for Sir Thomas Fitznichol in 1383,91 and for Sir Peter le Veel before 1391.92 These were all members of the solid county gentry. The most eminent were Veel and Fitznichol who were part of the Berkeley affinity, and when acting for them Waleys was one among a number of feoffees who were nearly all Berkeley connections. Veel, although retained by the Black Prince, was the stepson of Thomas III’s second wife, married Thomas de Bradestone’s daughter and witnessed Berkeley charters, while Fitznichol, although he served the earls of Stafford and Arundel, was a frequent witness to Berkeley charters.93 In acting for Corbet and Blount, however, Ralph was acting as a trustworthy neighbour as Corbet’s lands at Siston, Alveston and Earthcott, and Blount’s, at , Filton and , lay in the midst of Waleys’ own landed interests.

Service in local administration Ralph’s service to the Berkeleys therefore brought him landed wealth and social connections with the landed elite of the county, although both his land acquisitions and his personal relationships were influenced by his paternal inheritance in the south of the county, independently of his Berkeley service. All three factors, his service, his increasing landed estate and his social connections, probably played a role in his increasing importance within the local administration. He first appears in a humble capacity in 1371 as the collector of the parochial subsidy.94 This was soon after his first known landed acquisitions in the lordship of Berkeley and during Thomas IV’s minority, but while he was receiver of the estate. In September 1373 he was one of 12 jurors representing Gloucestershire, along with 12 for Bristol and 12 for Somerset, to establish the boundaries of the new county of Bristol, and one of the two who sealed on behalf of Gloucestershire.95 In October 1373 he was appointed to a commission of enquiry about Bruton priory’s manor of Horsley (Glos.).96 He quickly reached the higher positions. In 1376–7 and 1377–8 he served two annual terms as escheator of Gloucestershire and Herefordshire, and then moved up to serve twice as sheriff of Gloucestershire in 1379–80 and 1383–84, and also appeared on the commission of the peace in 1382, as well as representing the county in the parliaments of March and October 1383.97 He was appointed to other local commissions of enquiry, arrest, and de walliis et fossatis in 1381, 1384, 1386 and 1390.98

90. B. Wells-Furby, ‘Margaret Styward and the curious case of the 1398 Elmington declarations’, Trans. BGAS 132 (2014), 131–45. 91. Inq. p.m. Glos. VI, 139. 92. W.P. Marett (ed.), A Calendar of the Register of Henry Wakefield, Bishop of Worcester 1375–95 (Worcs. Hist. Soc. n.s. 7, 1972), 652. 93. BCM, SC573, SC581, GC3844, GC3944, GC3976, GC3987, GC4005, GC4074, GC4085; Saul, Knights and Esquires, 65, 86; Cal. Fine 1383–91, 167; Cal. Pat. 1392–6, 548; Cal. Close 1396–9, 72, 84; Marett, Reg. Wakefield, 558, 559. 94. Cal. Fine 1368–77, 111, 126. 95. N.D. Harding (ed.), Bristol Charters 1155–1373 (Bristol Rec. Soc. 1, 1930), 148–9, 164–5. 96. Cal. Pat. 1370–4, 395. 97. Cal. Close 1381–5, 291, 415; Cal. Fine 1368–77, 367; 1377–83, 1, 171; 1383–91, 7; Cal. Pat. 1381–5, 138, 246. 98. Cal. Pat. 1377–81, 576; 1381–5, 496; 1385–9, 166; 1388–92, 132–3. Nigel Saul’s assessment of his role was coloured by his misapprehension that Ralph was the representative of the Woolstrop family and held the manors of Woolstrop, Llanwaryn and Dynan: Saul, Knights and Esquires, 117, 138–9. RALPH WALEYS: A GLOUCESTERSHIRE ‘NEW MAN’ 215

An analysis of the ‘knights’ returned for Gloucestershire during the decade 1381–90 reveals in what company Waleys found himself.99 There were 13 parliaments during the decade and therefore 26 elections, but only 12 men other than Waleys were elected. All of these except two, William Hervey and Sir Peter le Veel, sat for more than one parliament. Thomas de Berkeley of Coberley and Sir Gilbert Deneys of Siston, like Waleys, sat twice, but Laurence Sebrook sat three times, Sir Edmund de Bradestone and Sir John Cheyne sat four times, Robert Whittington of Pauntley and Sir John de Thorpe six times (five times for Gloucestershire and once for Wiltshire), Sir John de Berkeley of Beverstone sat seven times (three times for Gloucestershire, twice for Somerset, and once each for Wiltshire and Hampshire), while William Heyberer sat five times for the county and nine times for the borough of Gloucester, and Sir Thomas Fitznichol 15 times for the county. It was therefore the rule that knights sat for more than one parliament, but five of the 13, including Waleys, sat only once or twice, and the other eight more frequently. They were an interestingly mixed group. Of the other 12, Berkeley of Coberley, Fitznichol, Veel and Whittington came from well-established local families, and Berkeley of Beverstone and Bradestone should be included among them.100 Heyberer was a prosperous Gloucester burgess who represented the borough eight times before his first appearance for the shire. The other five were newcomers to the county who had obtained their lands there by royal grant (Cheyne and Hervey) or by marrying widows who were either heiresses or well-endowed with jointure (Deneys, Sebrook and Thorpe).101 These five were mostly of obscure birth, although Thorpe may have been a younger son of the prominent Norfolk family. Cheyne’s great talents were recognized by the grant of the lands of alien priories within the county, while Hervy’s lesser abilities had gained him and his wife temporary possession of two manors in Gloucestershire. They were not the only ones with royal connections. Veel and Bradestone were knights of the Black Prince and latterly Richard II, Thorpe was a royal knight when he was appointed constable of Bristol castle in 1373, Sebrook also had connections with the household of the Black Prince and Deneys had risen in the service of John of Gaunt. How far these connections had influenced their election is unclear. Waleys had connections with four of them, as he had acted as feoffee for Veel and Fitznichol and for the Corbet and Blount estates into which Deneys and Sebrook had stepped. Most of these men also served in the senior posts of local administration. Berkeley of Beverstone, Sebrook, Thorpe, Veel and Whittington, like Waleys, served both as sheriff and as JP, while Berkeley of Coberley, Deneys and Fitznichol served as sheriff but not as JP, and Cheyne and Heyberer were JPs but not sheriff. Bradestone was appointed to a few miscellaneous commissions within the county, while Hervy served briefly as a JP in Oxfordshire. Their landed estates varied widely in value. The wealthiest were Berkeley of Beverstone and Veel who were regional magnates with extensive lands in numerous counties; after the death of his mother in 1386 Berkeley’s estate was probably worth around £400 a year. Thorpe had the benefit of nearly the whole of the Berkeley of Uley estate in Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire,

99. All except Veel, Thorpe and Bradestone have biographies in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1386–1421. For Veel, Thorpe and Bradestone, see Appendix (below). For Cheyne, see also J.S. Roskell, ‘Sir John Cheyne of Beckford, knight of the shire for Gloucestershire in 1390, 1393, 139, and in 1399, when elected speaker’, Trans. BGAS 75 (1956), 43–72. 100. Berkeley of Beverstone was a younger son of Thomas, Lord Berkeley, of Berkeley and had been provided by his father with a substantial estate, much of which lay in the county. Bradestone was the nephew of Thomas, Lord Bradestone, the local lad who had risen to wealth and influence in the service of Edward III. 101. Deneys had married Margaret Corbet, sister and heir of John Corbet of Siston and widow of William Wyriot; Sebrook had married Margaret, daughter and heir of Thomas Styward and widow of Edmund Blount of Bitton; Thorpe had married Katherine, widow of Sir Thomas Berkeley of Uley. 216 BRIDGET WELLS-FURBY worth around £170 a year, and also custody of the rest, manors worth around £80, at a rent of £45 a year. Berkeley of Coberley, Fitznichol and Whittington, and Deneys and Sebrook (holding the Corbet and Blount estates respectively), were a large step below them. Sebrook’s income from the Blount lands was probably around £50 a year,102 and those of Deneys, Fitznichol and Berkeley of Coberley ranged between £40 and £90 a year. Cheyne’s alien priories’ lands within the county were worth at least £67 a year, and Bradestone had two manors, but both also had substantial annuities from the king.103 The burgess Heyberer does not seem to have invested in land, but was evidently wealthy, while Hervey was probably the least well-established. In this company, Waleys’ acquisitions by the late 1370s brought him to the level of Sebrook. Fitznichol returned himself and Waleys to both parliaments held during his annual term of office as sheriff. This is not particularly significant in respect of himself, as he had been returned before in October 1382 when Thorpe was sheriff and was to serve again another 12 times, but it is significant for Waleys, as these were the only two parliaments for which he sat. It perhaps implies a particular relationship between the two men. This suggestion is reinforced by the following facts: that Fitznichol witnessed one of Ralph’s charters in 1370; also, that Ralph was one of his feoffees in 1383; and, particularly, Ralph gave Fitznichol’s wife Margery a reversionary interest in Sturden. Margery Fitznichol was a coheir, along with Edmund Blount, of Elias de Filton; probably Margery and Edmund’s mother were daughters of Filton and it is possible that they were kin to Ralph, although the precise relationship cannot be elucidated.104 Kinship with this more well-established member of the community may, then, have been as much of a factor as his Berkeley lord in his election to represent the county. Nevertheless, this cannot be held to account for his service as sheriff, twice, and on the commission of the peace; these, in conjunction with his election as knight of the shire, show that Ralph had reached the upper echelons of the county.

Conclusion The rise of Ralph Waleys, from among the undifferentiated mass of the minor ‘parish gentry’ to the highest ‘county’ ranks, is therefore very clear. It was almost certainly due to his service with the lords of Berkeley, although astute estate management may also have served to increase his income. While contemporaries were very conscious of rank, there were few or no barriers to movement. Among Ralph’s acquaintances the outstanding example of this is Thomas de Bradestone, whose abilities raised him from a humble background to become a peer of parliament; but there were others, notably Deneys and Sebrook, whose early military careers had brought them to a position where they were able to marry wealthy widows, and Cheyne, whose abilities were recognized and rewarded by the king. The knights of the shire who represented Gloucestershire in the 1380s were a mixed group of widely varying backgrounds, but, with the possible exception of Hervey and the burgess Heyberer, they all had a significant landed interest in the county, however it was acquired. Many also had the added advantage of connections with the king and royal princes which expanded their horizons and experience. In this company, Waleys was something of an exception, but only because he had risen to his position in the upper echelons of the county through civilian service to a local magnate, not because he was a ‘new man’. Nevertheless, there is an apparent contrast between Waleys and

102. Wells-Furby, ‘Margaret Styward’, 142. 103. Cheyne’s marriage to a Tybetot widow had brought him lands valued at around £150 a year outside the county, but he lost these on her death in 1380; his second marriage to an heiress brought him lands in Huntingdonshire and Lincolnshire in or before 1405. 104. For Elias, see Wells-Furby, ‘Margaret Styward’, 131–45. It is possible that Elias had married a sister of William le Waleys, or William a sister of Elias. RALPH WALEYS: A GLOUCESTERSHIRE ‘NEW MAN’ 217

Pakeman on the one hand and such ‘military’ men as Bradestone, Cheyne, Sebrook and Deneys on the other. It may be that a military career held out greater prospects than a civilian one, although there were certainly greater physical risks and probably a higher element of luck was required to make the significant gains. A civilian career of steady hard work in the service of a local magnate may have been less glamorous, and slower, but more sure. His career has some interesting contrasts with that of Simon Pakeman. Pakeman probably came from a slightly lower social rung than Waleys, but he had the benefit of his legal background and his service with lords who were of higher status and far more extensive estate than Berkeley. These advantages account for his wider horizons, serving in London at the central law courts and on Gaunt’s council, and on commissions outside his home county, and probably also for his other relationships with other peers for whom he acted. Waleys may have come from a more prosperous background, but in his service, lands and social contacts he is not known to have strayed outside Gloucestershire, although he may well have accompanied Berkeley on his travels.105 A more unexpected contrast is that, despite Pakeman’s advantages, he does not seem to have prospered as much as Waleys, although it is hard to be sure. Certainly Pakeman’s landed interests had not extended outside Kirby Muxloe in the same way that Waleys had acquired new manors and other lands as well as making additions to his patrimony. This may account for the fact that Pakeman’s personal social circle of trusted intimates does not seem to have changed much, but the same was largely true of Waleys who had improved his landed position so dramatically. Nevertheless, Pakeman’s social rise is clear from the marriage of his daughters, and Waleys may also have been able to consolidate his new position in the same way if he had had children. The impression given is that men like Waleys and Pakeman straddled the boundary between the rank of their fathers and the rank which might be obtained by their children, retaining the security of their inherited social circles, as well as looking to establish their new position in the future.

* * *

APPENDIX: Three Gloucestershire MPs

The purpose of this short appendix is to outline the careers of three Gloucestershire knights who served as knights of the shire for Gloucestershire in the 1380s. As all three served before 1386, they are not yet the subject of biographies in a History of Parliament volume.

John de Thorpe (d. 1386) John may have been a member of the family of Thorpe of Norfolk.106 He married Katherine, widow of Thomas de Berkeley of Uley, probably within a couple of years of Thomas’ death in September 1361.107 Thomas had died young at only 27, leaving a son Maurice aged only three, and Katherine was not only a young but also a very wealthy widow, as she held in jointure and dower nearly his entire estate, lands in Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire worth around

105. The possible exception is the unexplained fine of Wiltshire lands with Weston of Ingst. 106. This is suggested by the fact that in 1375 Walter de Redgrave of Norfolk mainperned for him: Cal. Fine 1368–77, 298; Complete Peerage, XII(1), 717–25. 107. In Nov. 1363 Thorpe was granted the marriage of Berkeley’s young son and heir Maurice for 80 marks and Edward, Thorpe’s son by Katherine, was probably born c.1365: Cal. Fine 1356–68, 269; Cal. Inq. p.m. XVI, 461. 218 BRIDGET WELLS-FURBY

£170 a year.108 Further lands were inherited by the young Maurice in 1364, the wardship of which was granted to Thorpe, and he held them until Maurice proved his age in 1380.109 Thorpe was probably a king’s knight by July 1373 when he was appointed constable of Bristol castle, and both positions were confirmed soon after Richard II’s succession.110 Although he held an estate worth over £200 a year, none of it was held in fee to be passed on to his son.111 This situation was rectified in 1382 when he acquired the manor of Boscombe (Wilts.) from Sir Peter Courtenay, a knight of the royal chamber.112 This was probably connected with Courtenay’s acquisition of Thorpe’s ‘estate’ in the office of constable of Bristol castle which was ratified by the king in January 1386 with confirmation that after Thorpe’s death the office would pass to Courtenay for his life.113 Thorpe was knight of the shire for Wiltshire in 1369, but for Gloucestershire five times between 1376 and 1382.114 Although he obtained an exemption from office-holding in 1379, he also served on the commissions of the peace from 1380 and as sheriff in 1381–2, as well as a few other commissions.115 He died in December 1386, two years before Katherine, and left Boscombe to be inherited by his son Edward and his successors.116

Edmund de Bradestone (d. 1388) Edward was the son of John de Bradestone who was probably a younger brother of the famous Gloucestershire banneret Thomas de Bradestone (d. 1360).117 John was a king’s yeoman by 1337 and was granted an annuity of 20 marks, raised to 26 marks in 1340, for his services to the young Black Prince.118 At New Year 1347 he had a gold ring with diamonds as a gift from the prince, and in 1351 was granted an annuity of £10 from Wallingford (Berks.) for life.119 Edmund followed him into the prince’s service, and in 1361 was also granted a £10 annuity from Wallingford, followed in 1364 by a grant of £40 a year.120 By 1368 he was probably constable of Dinefwr castle (Carmarthens.) when he and his wife Blanche were granted annuities of £100 a year from South Wales and 40 marks a year from the lordship of Dinefwr for their lives.121 Blanche cannot be identified, but she was called kinswoman by the prince’s son Richard II, and the marriage,

108. Cal. Inq. p.m. XI, 10; XVI, 640–1; XVII, 638; Cal. Pat. 1354–8, 257; Cal. Close 1360–4, 226, 235, 237; Cal. Fine 1356–68, 198; 1383–91, 223; J. Smyth, Lives of the Berkeleys (BGAS, 1883), I, 257. Thomas was the son and heir of Maurice de Berkeley (d. 1347) of Stoke Gifford and nephew of Thomas III, Lord Berkeley (d. 1361). 109. Three Gloucestershire manors passed to Maurice on the death of John Mautravers; they were granted to Thorpe at £45 a year, but were worth around £80 a year in the 1420s: Cal. Fine 1356–68, 284; 1368–77, 298; GA, D 2700/MJ1/1, 4, 6. 110. Cal. Pat. 1370–4, 283, 327; 1377–81, 102. 111. In May 1373 Edward, Lord Despenser, had licence to grant the manor of West Winterslow (Wilts.) to Thorpe for life: Cal. Pat. 1370–4, 283. 112. VCH Wilts. XV, 55–61. Thorpe also acquired land in neighbouring Allington and Newton Tony: ibid. 6–12; Cal. Close 1385–89, 391. 113. Cal. Pat. 1385–9, 79. 114. Cal. Close 1369–74, 100; 1374–7, 429; 1377–81, 106, 356; 1381–5, 107, 134. 115. Cal. Pat. 1377–81, 390, 513, 576; 1381–5, 71, 73, 194, 251, 346, 347; Cal. Fine 1377–83, 230, 270. 116. Cal. Fine 1383–91, 186; Cal. Inq. p.m. XVI, 461. 117. Complete Peerage, II, 273. 118. Cal. Pat. 1334–8, 529; 1340–3, 6; 1345–8, 134. 119. Black Prince’s Register, IV, 27, 69. 120. Ibid. III, 471; IV, 393, 425–6; Cal. Pat. 1361–4, 276. 121. Cal. Pat. 1377–81, 317. Edmund was certainly constable of Dinefwr by May 1385: Cal. Close 1381–5, 549. RALPH WALEYS: A GLOUCESTERSHIRE ‘NEW MAN’ 219 however it came to Edmund, was obviously an important factor in his career.122 After Richard had succeeded as king, the annuities were altered so that Blanche was to receive the £100 from South Wales for her life, while they both had 40 marks a year from Dinefwr and an additional £80 a year from the issues of Oxfordshire.123 An additional sign of favour is that in 1385 Blanche was granted for life a tun of wine a year from the Bristol prise.124 By 1374 Edmund had inherited the manor of Amey Court in Alkerton (Glos.) as the heir of John and Christine de Bradestone, and in the same year he inherited Winterbourne (Glos.) as the heir male of Thomas de Bradestone’s grandson Thomas.125 He was knight of the shire for Gloucestershire in 1377, 1378, 1379 and 1384, and was also appointed to commissions in the county between 1379 and 1384.126 Edmund died shortly before 7 November 1388.127 Blanche survived him until 1400 and was succeeded by her son, another Thomas de Bradestone, who had been a king’s esquire in 1397 when granted an annuity of 20 marks.128

Peter le Veel (d. 1391) Peter was the second son but heir of Sir Peter who died in 1343, his elder brother Sir Henry having died with their father by drowning in a storm when returning from campaigning in France; Peter was then 16.129 His father had held the manors of , , Huntingford, Oldbury and Hamveel (Glos.), Lisworney (Glamorgan), Norton ‘Veel’ (Somerset), Ablington and Alton (Wilts.) and Plympton (Devon). Huntingford and Oldbury had been granted to Henry, and after his death were held by his widow Joan, and Hamveel, Plympton, Ablington and Alton had been settled on Peter’s second wife Katherine de Clevedon and passed to her children, a son John and daughter Joan.130 None of the lands which passed to the younger Peter were held in chief, and during his minority custody of them was held by the various lords of whom they were held. His stepmother Katherine married again to Thomas, Lord Berkeley (d. 1361), and he was a half- brother of Sir John de Berkeley of Beverstone. He witnessed Berkeley charters,131 but was chiefly

122. Cal. Pat. 1391–6, 36; 1396–9, 533, 552. Other signs of Blanche’s particular position vis-à-vis the king are her successful requests for pardons in 1394 and 1395, and the grant of another tun of wine a year from Bristol in 1399: ibid. 1391–6, 470, 491, 595; 1396–9, 533, 552. On her marriage to the king’s knight Andrew Hake in 1392, they were granted another annuity of £40, and an additional £60 a year in 1397: ibid. 1391–6, 36, 488; 1396–9, 104. Blanche also received other grants, singly and jointly with Hake: ibid. 1388–92, 303; 1392–6, 127, 660; 1396–9, 489. Even after Hake joined the Epiphany Rising against Henry IV in early 1400 and was beheaded, Blanche continued to receive favours from the king. She was granted Hake’s forfeited goods in Jan. 1400 and in Feb. an annuity of 200 marks: ibid. 1399–1401, 190, 205, 255. 123. Ibid. 1377–81, 317. 124. Ibid. 1381–5, 535. 125. Cal. Close 1374–7, 29; VCH Glos. X, 127–31. He had inherited Alkerton following a settlement made by Robert of Gloucester in 1332. Winterbourne had been settled by the elder Thomas de Bradestone on himself, his wife and their male issue, with remainder to John de Bradestone and his male issue, and Edmund was son and heir of John. 126. Cal. Close 1374–7, 536; 1377–81, 221, 253; 1381–5, 453; Cal. Pat. 1377–81, 422; 1381–5, 138, 246, 347; Cal. Fine 1377–83, 163. 127. Cal. Fine 1383–91, 292. 128. Cal. Pat. 1396–9, 219. Blanche died on 9 August 1400: Cal. Close 1409–13, 37. 129. Cal. Inq. p.m. VIII, no. 466; R. Holinshed, The Chronicles of Englande from William the Conquerour (1585), 365. 130. B. Wells-Furby (ed.), A Catalogue of the Medieval Muniments at Berkeley Castle (BGAS, 2004), I, 554–5. 131. BCM, GC3222, GC3223; Marett, Reg. Wakefield, 558, 559. 220 BRIDGET WELLS-FURBY engaged in the service of the Black Prince, with whom he campaigned regularly, and from whom he had an annuity of 100 marks.132 He was appointed constable of Gloucester castle for life, but in 1376 sold it to the chamber knight John Beauchamp.133 After a military career of 20 years or more, he entered local government serving as sheriff of Gloucestershire in 1375–6, on the commissions of the peace between 1375 and 1389 and as knight of the shire in 1382, as well as being appointed to some other miscellaneous commissions in Gloucestershire and neighbouring counties.134 By 1358 he was married to Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas, Lord Bradestone, and his heir was their son Thomas.135

132. Cal. Pat. 1377–81, 192; Black Prince’s Register, IV, 74, 384, 403; Saul, Knights and Esquires, 53, 57–8. 133. Cal. Pat. 1374–7, 368. 134. Cal. Fine 1368–77, 296; Cal. Close 1381–5, 107, 134; Cal. Pat. 1374–7, 136, 138, 157, 219, 319, 499; 1377–81, 8, 40, 192, 389, 422, 474; 1381–5, 23, 71, 74, 85, 138, 140, 246, 248, 347; 1385–9, 167, 174, 393; 1389–92, 464. 135. BCM, GC3467; Cal. Inq. p.m. XII, no. 325; Cal. Close 1381–85, 442.