GAYNESFORD, William

It has been conjectured that the William Gaynesford returned for Bletchingley was a different person from the man elected in 1449 as a knight of the shire for Surrey.5 W.D. Gainsford, Annals of the House of Gainsford, 14-15, 70, 130. Yet there is no firm evidence that there were two contemporaries of this name, and the steady progression of the career of the Lincoln’s Inn lawyer from the early 1430s until the mid 1460s strongly suggests that it was he who sat in the Commons on both occasions. One of the sons of John Gaynesford I, he undoubtedly owed his election for the borough of Bletchingley to his father, who was then steward of the Surrey estates of Humphrey, earl of Stafford, of which the manor and borough of Bletchingley formed a part. The father was returned to the same Parliament of 1431 as a shire knight, so the two entered the Lower House at the same time. Before too long William also joined his father as a fellow of Lincoln’s Inn, with John sponsoring his admission before Christmas 1433.6 L. Inn, London, Black Bk. f. 14v. Fellowship of the Inn provided William with the opportunity for advancement, and he remained closely associated with it for much of his life. In 1436 it was recorded in the ‘Black Book’ that he ‘hath promyttid to contynue every vacacion this iii yere nowe next comynge so that his fader assent therto ... and hereto his fader assentid the ix day of Novembre’. Five years later he served as an auditor, and in 1442 he was appointed to the office of pensioner. His rise to prominence in legal circles continued, so that in the autumn of 1443 he gave his first reading and was appointed as one of the four governors of the Inn, an office to which he was later elected for another four terms, including that of 1452-3. During that third term his brothers John II and Nicholas were admitted.7 L. Inn. Black Bks. i. 6, 10, 13-14, 17, 19, 22, 34; Readings and Moots, i (Selden Soc. lxxi), p. xii. William’s prominence at the Inn led to his involvement in legal transactions in London and Southwark, on behalf of such people as Robert Forster of Northumberland, who conveyed his property in Southwark and Bermondsey to him and others in the summer of 1448.8 CCR, 1447-54, pp.75-76; C241/254/123; Corp. London RO, hr 174/9-12.

As a younger son William could not expect to inherit a large part of the family estates in Surrey, and he initially invested in property elsewhere He it was who established a branch of the family at Cowden in west Kent, and together with another fellow of his Inn, William Moyle II*, he acquired land at Westerham in 14399 VCH Surr. iv. 276; CCR, 1435-41, p. 251. His father had acquired land at Westerham in 1424 (Harl. 392, f. 62), and was steward there for Christ Church priory. His marriage, which had taken place by the autumn of that year, brought him interests in Essex, for his wife Joan was the heiress through her mother of the manor of Ashwell and other properties at Toppesfield, Finchingfield and Great Berdfield The match may well have come about through his membership of Lincoln’s Inn for Joan’s father, John Symond, was also a fellow. A distinguished apprentice-at-law, Symond had been recorder of London from 1426 to 1435. Gaynesford and Joan confirmed him in possession of Ashwell for his lifetime, and it was not until he died in October 1444 that they entered her inheritance.10 Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 50n., 194; Essex Feet of Fines, iv. 27; CIPM, xxii. 389; xxvi. 298. This may well have proved more profitable than was suggested in Symond’s inquisition post mortem, for in 1486 the inquisition into the holdings of Gaynesford’s eldest son estimated that Ashwell manor and the other lands once held by Symond were together worth 20 marks pa. Firmer roots in the area were also established through further acquisitions of property, including the manors of Gobyns in Laindon, Gobyns in Toppesfield and Nicoll in Shalford, which may also have been inherited by Joan from her mother11 CIPM Hen. VII, iii. 622; J. Aubrey, Nat. Hist. and Antiqs. Surr. iii. 61-62. Gaynesford’s newly-acquired estates in Essex provided his family with a useful source of income and, eventually, with a principal residence away from their native Surrey12 T. Wright, Hist. Essex, ii. 644; P. Morant, Essex, ii. 359-61, 369, 375-6; RCHM Essex N.W. 324-5.

Even so, Gaynesford’s participation in affairs in Essex was limited. He was never appointed to a royal commission there, and only rarely acted as a trustee for landowners in that county. Indeed, his closest associations remained in Surrey during the 1440s. Property at Lingfield seems to have been settled on him at the time of his marriage, and this included the manor of Blockfield which descended in his line of the family. In November 1446 he was described as a ‘gentleman of Lingfield’ in a royal pardon obtained by both him and his wife, and his connexion with that part of south-east Surrey was reinforced by his employment by the local magnate Sir Reynold Cobham (d.1446), lord of Sterborough, who chose him as an executor. Like his father he assisted Cobham’s widow in transactions regarding her estates and in particular for the endowment of St. Peter’s College in Lingfield.13 C67/39, m. 20; CPR, 1446-52, p. 240; CP40/754, rot. 161d; C143/451/1; Gainsford, 19-21, 70; VCH Surr. iv. 306; O. Manning and W. Bray, Surr. ii. 349. Connexions such as these stood him in good stead when it came to election to Parliament for the county in the autumn of 1449. The timing of his election is significant: his father, who had drawn up his will the previous year, died in July 1450 shortly after the Parliament was dissolved following the outbreak of Cade’s rebellion. All three of the Gaynesford brothers were executors, and William benefited from bequests of silver vessels and his daughter Elizabeth from one of £10 for her marriage.14 PCC 12 Rous (PROB11/1, f. 95); C139/144/39.

Shortly after his father’s death Gaynesford attested the shire election in Surrey, for the first of three times. Two years later he and his elder brother John made their initial appearances on the county bench, with William being named on the quorum. He was also appointed to the first of numerous ad hoc royal commissions, not only in Surrey but also in Sussex, where he similarly served on the bench, albeit for a shorter period. His growing standing in the latter county during the 1440s had been helped by strong links with Bartholmew Bolney*, a fellow member of Lincoln’s Inn, for whom he acted as a feoffee.15 Bolney Bk. (Suss. Rec. Soc. lxiii), 27, 75; CPR, 1441-6, p. 400. Of greater significance, however, was the close relationship which was forged between the Gaynesfords and the family of Richard Wakehurst†, another prominent Sussex lawyer, by a dual marriage alliance whereby Gaynesford’s brother John wed Wakehurst’s daughter Anne, and their sister Agnes married Wakehurst’s elder son, also named Richard. Our MP and Thomas Hoo II*, like him a trustee of the Wakehurst lands, acted as supervisors of the will of the elder Richard Wakehurst, which was proved in August 1455.16 The Commons 1386-1421, iv. 732; PCC 3 Stokton (PROB11/4, f. 24). Wakehurst’s son Richard had predeceased him, leaving his two daughters (Gaynesford’s neices) as heirs to substantial estates, but the inheritance became the subject of lengthy suits in Chancery when, in the aftermath of Agnes’s second marriage to Sir John Culpepper the two girls were abducted and married by Sir John’s siblings. Naturally, both Gaynesford and his brother John were drawn into these disputes to protect the interests of their nieces,17 CIPM Hen. VII, i. 425; C1/26/304, 27/218-9, 29/1-3, 31/281-4. and quarrels over the Wakehurst manor of Bysshe Court preoccupied our MP until at least 1464.18 Add. Chs. 7637, 7639, 7640.

Gaynesford’s association with Thomas Hoo was particularly striking, for as well as acting alongside him on behalf of the Wakehursts, he became involved in the complicated arrangements made for the administration of the will of Hoo’s half-brother, Thomas Hoo I*, Lord Hoo and Hastings, who died in February 1455. In May, Thomas obtained confirmation of his possession of the lordship, barony, honour and rape of Hastings, in a transaction which included Gaynesford and his elder brother John as trustees. In November 1461 the surviving trustees, including Gaynesford, conveyed the estates to Edward IV’s friend William, the new Lord Hastings, in accordance with a royal grant. In the meantime, Hoo had chosen our MP as one of the feoffees of his manors of Roffey and Horsham.19 CPR, 1461-7, p. 138; CCR, 1461-8, pp. 92-93; Add. Ch. 23802; VCH Suss. ix. 1-4; Suss. Feet of Fines (Suss. Rec. Soc. xxiii), 269; E159/235, brevia Mich. rot. 16. The death of William’s elder brother John in July 1460 involved him once more in transactions concerning the family’s substantial property holdings, not only as a feoffee of the manor of Poyle in Surrey, but also as an executor of John’s will. He remained a trustee of Poyle until January 1466, by which time his nephew John† was old enough for the manor to be formally settled on him.20 C139/176/23; CPR, 1452-61, p. 599; 1461-7, p. 423. When his brother’s widow had married (Sir) Edmund Rede*, Gaynesford had naturally become involved in settlements made on the couple.21 CIPM Hen. VII, i. 467, ii. 237; VCH Oxon. vi. 161.

Gaynesford’s administrative career had seemingly been little affected by the political turmoil of the late 1450s and early 1460s which culminated in the deposition of Henry VI and the accession of Edward IV to the throne. As early in the new reign as 16 Mar. 1461 he was appointed to a commission of array in Surrey, and he was reappointed as a j.p. in that county for another three years. His abilities as a lawyer were still much sought after: in October 1461 he and a family friend John Ellingbridge*, described as ‘literates’, were among those granted the sequestration of the affairs of Tanridge priory which was experiencing severe financial problems. Two years later he was named as supervisor of the will of Joan, wife of Richard Bruyn* (a lawyer who like his father had served the duke of Buckingham), which was proved in December 1463.22 Suss. Arch. Collns. ix. 58; PCC 3 Godyn (PROB11/5, f. 17); CCR, 1461-8, p. 436.

Seeking to put their own affairs in order, in the spring of 1453 Gaynesford and his wife Joan had placed her inheritance in Essex in the hands of trustees, headed by his brother Nicholas. Doubtless, their intention was to safeguard it from royal wardship, as is clear from the purchase by the trustees of a pardon for acquiring Ashwell without licence, for this pardon was dated 14 June that year, a mere 11 days after Joan’s death.23 Essex Feet of Fines, iv. 34, 47; CPR, 1452-61, p. 86; Aubrey, iii. 61. William himself died in 1466, at some point between the settlement of Poyle on his nephew on 30 Jan. and the granting of letters patent on 20 Nov. in which, described as ‘now deceased’, he was named as a former feoffee of manors in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire on behalf of Ralph, earl of Westmorland, and his wife Margaret, Lady Cobham (the grand-daughter and heir of Sir Reynold, whom he had served in the 1440s). He had been party to transactions regarding Margaret’s inheritance for many years.24 CP25(1)/293/72/390; CPR, 1461-7, p. 538. Gaynesford’s will has not survived, although his brother Nicholas is known to have been one of his executors. His heir was his eldest son, Richard, who himself died in May 1484. An inquisition post mortem held in Essex recorded that his lands there were worth a total of £32 6s. 8d. As Richard had no surviving children it fell to our MP’s younger son, John, to continue the line.25 KB27/854, rot. 30; CIPM Hen. VII, iii. 622; CPR, 1494-1509, p. 257.