BROMER, John

Bromer’s family was from Uxbridge where his father, William, resided until his death in 1412. John himself was almost certainly a young child at this time, and consequently nothing is recorded of him until the 1440s. By then he had obtained the freedom of the city of London as a fishmonger, but it is unclear whether this was achieved by apprenticeship or by another route. His earliest appearance in the records occurs in 1445 when, apparently already well established in London, he acted as a surety in Chancery for Robert Manfeld* on the latter’s appointment as master of the Mint. His links with Manfeld were clearly close, for six years later he acted as his mainpernor once again.5 CCR, 1441-7, p. 408; 1447-54, p. 371. Given the prominent position to which he rose within London it is perhaps suprising that more is not recorded of his trading activities in the capital or elsewhere. Like many other fishmongers he traded in a variety of commodities in addition to fish. He was engaged in the cloth trade with the continent: in 1446 he and William Hulyn exported quantities of cloth through the port of London.6 E122/73/20, m. 7. Partnerships were a feature of many Londoners’ business dealings in this period: one such arrangement involved fellow fishmonger Richard Sturgeys with whom he distributed merchandise worth £30 to a London pewterer and fishmonger in the 1460s. As was common in such transactions the purchasers bought on credit, entering into obligations with the vendors for the payment of the balance, although on this occasion a petition was later submitted to Chancery by one of the buyers in which he claimed that he was being pursued by Bromer’s executors for money that had already been paid.7 C1/64/796. Another side of John’s trading activities is revealed by a complaint to the mayor and aldermen made in November 1457 by the wardens of London’s coopers. It transpired that Bromer and Stephen Wolf, a fellow fishmonger, had been using wooden containers of inferior quality, presumably to transport their fish from the wharves to their shops. The construction of the vessels was found to be at fault, as was the wood itself, contrary to a city ordinance promulgated some years before. The mayor promptly ordered the burning of all such containers ‘made of uncleen and sappy tymbre & lakking of their just mesure’.8 Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 392-3.

By the mid 1450s Bromer was clearly one of the most prominent members of his trade in London, and in February 1455 he was sworn as one of the wardens of the mystery for the coming year.9 Jnl. 5, f. 219v. The city’s fishmongers formed a close-knit community, and the ties between them are manifested by their reciprocal service as trustees of each other’s moveable goods and their involvement in their fellows’ settlements of landed property. In this Bromer was no exception. The fishmongers from whom he accepted gifts of goods and chattels included Thomas Langton, William Mayhew and Richard Semer;10 CCR, 1447-54, pp. 285, 471; Cal. P. and M. London, 1457-82, p. 169. in July 1453 John Fulstone, a fishmonger, conveyed a tenement and quay in the parish of St. Mary Somerset to him and the two sons of Thomas Bernewell* (both of whom had chosen to follow their father’s occupation), and in November 1462 three tallow-chandlers released their right in an inn called Le Dragon on the Hoop and the adjacent properties to a group of fishmongers headed by him.11 Corp. London RO, hr 186/8, 193/1. In most cases it is clear that Bromer was acting as a feoffee, and indeed it is difficult to distinguish these transactions from those involving his own property. An exception is a conveyance of March 1452 in which a tenement in Fleet Street was settled upon Bromer and his second wife, Agnes, by feoffees. This building had almost certainly belonged to Agnes’s family, for after her death in the mid 1460s a reversionary interest passed to a London draper, Nicholas Dewe, only to be granted to Bromer in a deed of August 1467.12 Ibid. 197/27.

Outside London, Bromer owned property in Middlesex, much of which had probably been inherited from his father. The extent of his holdings in Uxbridge is not recorded: a Chancery petition submitted after his death by his brother Richard referred merely to ‘divers lands’ there, among which was a tenement and a garden which during his lifetime Bromer had conveyed to a group of feoffees headed by Miles Studley, as well as land nearby at Ickenham. Bromer also owned property at Colham which he bought from one John Sprotte. This too was conveyed by him to Studley and other trustees.13 C1/53/152; 123/17. By the 1470s Bromer and his brother had also acquired properties at Sandwich in Kent, possibly as a result of business connexions with the port. They sold some of these to a Thomas Clerk for 116 marks, 50 marks of which was paid in advance, but they were forced to eject Clerk and his wife from the premises after they failed to pay the outstanding sum.14 C1/59/231.

Bromer’s civic career followed a conventional path, beginning with appointment to committees established by the court of aldermen and common council. In the successive summers of 1454 and 1455 he served on two of the many committees appointed to examine questions relating to tithes in the capital, while in October 1457 the activities of immigrants to London was discussed, a sensitive subject in the aftermath of serious disturbances directed against the Italian community. It may well have been as a result of this, as much as of his respectability as a merchant, that in August 1458 he was appointed to a royal commission charged with examining the goods of Genoese merchants in the capital.15 J.L. Bolton, ‘London and the Crown’, London Jnl. xii. 12-21; jnl. 5, ff. 204v, 246v, 253; 6, f. 182; CPR, 1452-61, p. 444. His career had, however, only recently suffered a set-back, when in February, after allowing his name to go forward for the vacant aldermanry of Bread Street Ward, the mayor and aldermen decreed that none of the candidates was of sufficient financial standing to be elected to the position.16 Jnl. 6, f. 192v. In Bromer’s case the reversal was only temporary. His standing in the city not only saw him continue to serve on important city committees, but, on 11 Oct. 1459, he was chosen as a member of a deputation which was sent to the King to assure him of the City’s allegiance in the wake of the Lancastrian defeat at Blore Heath and as preparations were being made for Parliament to assemble at Coventry. A month later, Bromer was himself returned as one of the city’s MPs to attend this Parliament. It is probable that these appointments resulted from his standing in the city, rather than any particular ‘Lancastrian’ ties. Like his parliamentary colleague Richard Fleming*, he was probably seen as a safe pair of hands at a time when a growing number of London’s merchants, particularly among the Calais staplers, had become identified with the opposition to Henry VI’s government.17 Ibid. ff. 145, 166.

The security of Bromer’s position is suggested by his continued prominence in London during the turbulent events which followed the invasion of the Yorkist lords the following summer and culminated in the proclamation and coronation of Edward IV. He continued to be appointed to city committees and in May 1462 was chosen as one of the commissioners charged with hearing a bill put up by a chapman from Berkshire against a London mercer.18 Cal. P. and M. London, 1457-82, pp. 28-30. The following year he was elected to Parliament for a second time, initially for the assembly summoned to meet at York on 5 Feb., and following its cancellation as one of the MPs at Westminster in April. Not long after the dissolution, in June 1465 he finally joined the ranks of the aldermen, although this time he was chosen for the ward of Dowgate. In the autumn of 1466 he took office as one of the two sheriffs of London and Middlesex and as a city auditor, positions that confirmed his standing in the city’s oligarchy. He was not above criticism, however, for during his shrievalty he faced accusations that he and his fellow sheriff had taken a bribe of £10 and a tun of wine when appointing the keeper of Ludgate prison. They were forced by the court of aldermen to return the money and the wine, and a strict injunction was issued against this sort of corruption.19 Jnl. 7, f. 135; Cal. Letter Bk. London, L, 21, 60-61, 66.

Bromer continued to be a reliable, if not especially prominent, member of the court of aldermen for the remainder of his career. Among the acts passed during his time was one which, in July 1469, laid down that no one was to be chosen as an alderman unless his goods, chattels and realizable debts amountd to £1,000. It is unclear if Bromer’s own wealth had by this stage reached such a level,20 Cal. Letter Bk. London, L, 62, 67-68, 70-73, 76, 79-82, 85-87, 91-92, 95-96, 99, 107-8. although he was undeniably a wealthy man. In May 1468 he had been among 63 Londoners headed by the mayor who entered into bonds for 100 marks as part of arrangements to secure the payment by the merchants of the Calais staple of £10,000 to Charles, duke of Burgundy, for his marriage to Edward IV’s sister, Margaret. Two months later Bromer made a loan of £100 to the Crown, for which repayment was swiftly assigned. The sum may, however, not have been fully repaid, for £23 was still owing to him at the time of his death.21 E404/74/1/45; Gt. Chron. London ed. Thomas and Thornley, 429; C.L. Scofield, Edw. IV, i. 453; E403/840, m. 10; 848, m. 14. It is probable that the improvement in Bromer’s circumstances owed something to his third marriage, to the widow of the London mercer William Haxsey.22 Commissary ct. wills, 9171/5, f. 305.

Bromer is last recorded at the shrieval elections on 21 Sept. 1473. He made his will on 14 Mar. the following year, requesting burial in the church of St. James Garlickhithe, where he established a chantry for the souls of his parents and those of his first two wives. The majority of his goods, as well as a tenement in Sandwich were left to his son, Roger, who was evidently not on good terms with his stepmother. Bromer’s will contained a number of clauses expressing his concern that Roger should not vex or trouble Joan for more than the bequests specified. To ensure his compliance Bromer had given Joan the authority to pursue an obligation in respect of £200 worth of money and goods which Roger had spent on his father’s behalf in dealings abroad. Other bequests were made to a servant, who was ordered to take an inventory of his late master’s goods, and to two apprentices who were to help Joan recover debts owed to him. He also left 20s. ‘to be distributed amonge my kynnesfolk called porters and their children atte Byflete’, although his relationship to this family is uncertain. His executors were to be Joan and the fishmonger Robert Derlyngton. The will was proved on 10 Dec. These testamentary provisions aside, Bromer had also made arrangements for an obit in the parish church of Hillingdon in Middlesex, which was to be funded out of the revenues of his lands in that county. It appears, however, from a petition submitted to Chancery after his death, that the bulk of these revenues were used to pay creditors to the tune of some £26. In 1475 Joan, also obliged to make arrangements to satisfy her late husband’s creditors, joined with Bromer’s feoffees in petitioning the chancellor in an attempt to secure possession of the messuage in Colham which Bromer had ordered to be sold to pay his debts and fulfill other provisions of his will. In her own will, proved in May 1476, Joan left bequests to members of her family as well as to one of Bromer’s apprentices, Richard Pyghell, who had evidently continued to serve out his term with her. She left various household goods, including a ‘ship cheste’ to her stepson Roger.23 PCC 18 Wattys, 22 Wattys; C1/53/152; 123/17.