KENDALE, Thomas

Kendale was a scion of a Cornish family with long traditions of service, both to the Crown and in Parliament. Much of the Kendales’ wealth was derived from the Cornish tin industry, although it was not always gained by savoury methods: in early 1390 Sir Richard Cergeaux† claimed that a group of men, including Kendale, had diverted the water supply from one of his mines, called ‘Tye’, to serve their own tinworks, wasting 5,000 pounds of tin worth 50 marks.4 The Commons 1386-1421, ii. 506. Certainly, Thomas also owned various tinworks in Cornwall, which after his death were to become the subject of bitter recriminations among his relatives, and in 1431 both he and his brother Stephen were indebted to Sir John Cornwall (Henry VI’s great-uncle by marriage, soon to be created Lord Fanhope) in over £170, perhaps also resulting from their trade in tin.5 C1/18/76; CPR, 1429-36, pp. 160, 165; The Commons 1386-1421, iii. 515.

The Kendales had long been among the leading gentry of Cornwall, so there was nothing unusual in Thomas’s attendance at the Cornish shire elections in 1426 alongside his brother Stephen. The latter, who took a more regular interest in parliamentary affairs, again attested the indenture recording the names of the knights of the shire and the burgesses elected in the following year, when Thomas was himself returned by the townsmen of Lostwithiel. Although Thomas is not known to have held borough office, he occasionally witnessed deeds for his neighbours, and it is probable that alongside his family’s standing such local credentials played a part in securing his return.6 Cornw. RO, Edgcombe mss, ME224/1. By this date he had married Maud, probably a daughter of William Trewenhelek, and the latter had settled some of his lands, mostly in the parishes of St. Columb Major and St. Columb Minor, on the couple. The exact value of these estates is uncertain, but may have been substantial, as in the fine recording the settlement the lands were counterbalanced by the large sum of 200 marks.7 Cornw. Feet of Fines, ii. 978. These lands were augmented by further property in Lostwithiel and Penlyn which Thomas had purchased with the profits of the tin trade.8 C1/1506/33.

In 1431 Kendale quarreled with the influential landowner Sir John Trelawny†, but no details of their disagreement have come to light.9 KB27/679, rot. 60d; 680, rot. 47; 681, rot. 17. Otherwise, his career was largely uneventful. He was appointed controller of customs in the Cornish ports in May 1438, but while in London the following year, probably on business, was ‘takyn wt dedly seknesse’ and died on 25 Nov. while still in office. He was survived by his wife, but left no children. Aware of the approach of death, he had settled some of his lands on feoffees with instructions that the profits should be used to pay for a priest to sing for his soul. But his brother, Stephen, had other ideas. Within five days of Thomas’s death he sought out his sister-in-law at Lostwithiel, and pretended that the steward of the duchy of Cornwall, Sir William Bonville*, had sent men to take her and her goods in order to marry her to man of his choosing who would destroy her and her livelihood forever. With mock gallantry Stephen offered to take the distraught widow under his protection and brought her to his own house. Once he had her safely there, he would not allow her to leave, even to go to church, claiming all the while that it was for her own good; and to drive his point home he arranged for his own followers to ride up and down outside the building every night, making as much noise as possible, and told the frightened woman that these were the men who had come to take her away. In the interim, he sent other men to Maud’s house where they broke through the floorboards into her chamber and carried off all of her late husband’s charters and muniments. Having thus secured all that was needed to defend his tenure of the estates in court, he also persuaded Maud in her plight to sign away her paternal manor of Trewallek, ostensibly to provide for Thomas’s soul as he had intended. This done, he finally set her free on 11 Dec., but as soon as she returned home and found her house plundered, she realized the identity of the culprits and publicly denounced them. Threatened with further imprisonment and violence, Maud withdrew to London, but showed herself highly resourceful. Within weeks she had presented two petitions in Chancery, and in July 1440 commissioners of oyer and terminer were appointed to investigate the matter. Probably as a result of this investigation, in mid August Stephen and Maud agreed to submit the dispute over Trewallek to the arbitration of the lawyers Nicholas Aysshton* and Nicholas Radford*. The arbiters agreed that the grant that Maud had sealed under duress should be annulled, but the rest of their award became the subject of fresh disagreement between the parties. Whereas Stephen maintained that in return for a payment of £18 in damages he and his heirs were to have the reversion of Trewallek after Maud’s death and that his sister-in-law was to return to him the house that he had assigned to her in Lostwithiel, Maud claimed her manor outright, and denied any knowledge of the town-house. Litigation was still ongoing in 1446, by which date Maud had been married to a second husband, Otto Vivian, for several years. Yet, even ten years after Thomas’s death the Kendales had not abandoned their attempt to gain control of his valuable tin mines and challenged the Vivians for their possession in Chancery.10 C1/18/76, 1506/33-34; CPR, 1436-41, pp. 450-1; CP40/730, rot. 302d; 732, rot. 108; 733, rot. 108; 734, rot. 498; 736, rot. 337; KB27/735, rot. 89.