CRACKENTHORPE, Thomas

Thomas Crackenthorpe had little to look forward to in terms of inheritance. William, his father, had been assessed at only £15 p.a. in the subsidy returns of 1435-6, and it was his elder brother, John, who was heir to the lands from which this income derived.1 E179/195/32. Contrary to the ped. in Cumb. and Westmld. Antiq. and Arch. Soc. n.s. xxxiii. 52-53, there were not two Thomases, the one William’s bro., the other, his yr. son. The error is based on the false assumption that the Thomas who married the Tilliol coheiress was survived by her. None the less, the Crackenthorpes took a more prominent part in the affairs of Westmorland and Cumberland than was proportionate to their wealth, partly because of a family tradition of training in the law. Our MP’s uncle, Robert of Lincoln’s Inn, murdered in 1438, had been a prominent local lawyer, and three other members of the family were also trained at that inn during the Lancastrian period. Unfortunately the records of admissions rarely provide Christian names, but our MP was almost certainly one of the three. He was occasionally described as ‘of London, gentleman’ (and once, more specifically, as ‘of St. Martin in the Fields’) and he frequently appeared personally in the central courts as plaintiff, both indications of a legal training; and it is a reasonable speculation that he was the ‘Crakanthorp’ admitted to Lincoln’s Inn in 1439, the year of his father’s death.2 C237/40/24; L. Inn Adm. i. 8. For his personal appearances in ct.: e.g. CP40/754, rot. 254; 781, rot. 200d; KB27/769, rot. 82. He is also identified as a lawyer by the issue to him in 1456 of a royal writ of dedimus potestatem for the registration of deeds: CCR, 1454-61, p. 143. Soon after he was active as a litigant: in Hilary term 1440 he was joint-plaintiff with his mother and brother, William, as executors of his father.3 CP40/716, rot. 373.

Crackenthorpe’s legal training helps to explain his marriage to a wealthy widow, a common resort for a lawyer making his way in the world. In 1446 he took the hand of the coheiress to the lands of the Tilliols, one of the greatest gentry families of the north-west, and widow of another of the leading local families, the Moresbys.4 Her 1st husband had died early in 1443, but she remained single as late as 1446. In 1449 she and our MP sued (Sir) Henry Fenwick* for acct. as her receiver while sole from 26 Jan. 1443 to Easter 1446, at which date she presumably married our MP: C139/112/61; CP40/754, rot. 254; 757, rot. 193d. Her inheritance, centred on the castle of Scaleby near the Scottish border, and dower with jointure, principally consisting of Distington at the other end of Cumberland, brought our MP a landed estate far greater than that enjoyed by any previous Crackenthorpe.5 In Hil. term 1448 they recovered her dower against her late husband’s feoffees, including Sir Nicholas Radcliffe*, in what was probably a collusive action: CP40/745, rot. 130d; 748, rot. 23. The benefits it brought were not unmixed: Scaleby and its appurtenant estates had suffered greatly in the Anglo-Scottish war; there was a troublesome rival claimant to the Tilliol inheritance; and, since his wife was nearly beyond child-bearing years and, in any event, had a son and heir by her first marriage, this augmentation of his family’s status was likely to be only a very temporary one.6 In the inq. post mortem of her bro. in 1436, Margaret is said to be 26 years old ‘and more’: CIPM, xxiv. 457. But, since her parents had been married by 1389 and she herself had had a child by 1427, this was a conservative estimate of her age: C139/112/61.

Even so, it made Crackenthorpe a man of far greater account that he would otherwise have been and he soon came to take a role in local affairs commensurate with his new-found wealth. His status was also enhanced by an association with the Percys which appears to have become increasingly close as his career progressed. Indeed, although there is no evidence to place him in their service before his marriage, their patronage may have been a factor in the making of that match for they were the overlords of his wife’s manors of Distington and Ireby. However this may be, his connexion with them was certainly established by 1 May 1447, when he witnessed a grant of goods to Sir Thomas Percy (from 1449, Lord Egremont).7 C139/173/30; WARD2/35/136/3.

Crackenthorpe’s service to the Percys probably occasioned his nomination, on 9 Nov. 1448, as sheriff of Cumberland. This came at a troubled time: the Scots had recently burned the suburbs of Carlisle and then inflicted a humiliating defeat on an English army commanded by Henry Percy, Lord Poynings, only two weeks before our MP took office. This gave Crackenthorpe the pretext to petition to serve on favourable terms. On the following 29 Dec. he secured letters of privy seal notifying the Exchequer that he was to account only for what he could collect of the county farm and other charges.8 H. Summerson, Med. Carlisle, 435-6; E159/226, brevia Mich. rot. 33.

To this advantage Crackenthorpe added one far more personal: the power of the shrievalty could be put to the defence of his wife’s estates against the rival claimant. According to a much later account, it had been her father’s intention that the bulk of his estates, including the castle of Scaleby, should pass to the other coheir at common law, William Colville, the eldest son of his eldest daughter, on condition that he bore the ancient name of Tilliol. There must be a doubt about the truth of this story, but it has the merit of explaining why Colville adopted that name and why our MP quarreled with him.9 Ancestor, iv. 99. Even before coming of age, William is described as ‘Colville alias Tilliol’, and it was as William Tilliol that he was named as escheator of Cumb. and Westmld. at the same time as our MP was appointed sheriff: CPR, 1436-41, p. 346; CFR, xviii. 103. In Hilary term 1448 Crackenthorpe and his wife sued their rival (significantly describing him in the plea as ‘Colville’ rather than Tilliol) for his refusal to partition the inheritance, and the dispute intensified while Crackenthorpe was sheriff and Tilliol, escheator. On 3 Feb. 1449 two Cumberland j.p.s., Sir John Pennington* and Robert Carlisle II*, summoned a jury for 17 days later; the indictment laid then suggests that Crackenthorpe, as sheriff, was the instigator of their action. Sitting at Wigton, the jury claimed that William Tilliol and his younger brother, Robert, had disseised Crackenthorpe and his wife of Scaleby castle, curiously and suspiciously giving no date for the offence. On the following 3 May the Crown acted on the indictment, instructing the j.p.s to arrest the disseisors and to inquire into the matter.10 CP40/748, rot. 228d; KB9/288/1-5. For what now remains of the castle: A. Emery, Greater Med. Houses, i. 246-8.

The continuing need to defend his wife’s inheritance does much to explain the course of Crackenthorpe’s career. It may have made him happy to succeed his rival as escheator when his term as sheriff concluded (indeed, for nine days he, nominally at least, held both offices). More importantly, it prompted him to draw closer to the Percys. Indeed, he probably had at least their tacit support in the dispute, for Pennington, one of the j.p.s who had Tilliol indicted, numbered among their principal retainers in the county.11 J.M.W. Bean, Estates Percy Fam. 96-97. His election to Parliament at Carlisle on 17 Oct. 1450 is to be seen in the context of his own place in that retinue. The hustings saw a compromise between the interests of the Percys and those of the Nevilles, with Thomas de la More* representing the latter and our MP, the former.12 The attestors reflect a similar balance of interests. They were headed by Pennington and (Sir) Henry Fenwick, another knight retained by the Percys, but they also included the Neville men, John Skelton II* and Roland Vaux*: C219/16/1. The minor grant of royal patronage which came to Crackenthorpe within two months of the conclusion of this assembly was probably his reward from the Percys. On 16 July 1451 he shared the keeping of lands in Caldbeck (Cumberland) in royal hands by the death of one Robert Haltclough. Since the Percys also claimed this wardship on the strength of a return made by our MP as escheator, the grant was probably made pending a decision on the true tenure of the property. On 12 July 1452 Crackenthorpe is again found acting for the family, offering mainprise for a royal grant to Henry, earl of Northumberland, and Lord Egremont.13 CFR, xviii. 210-11, 236: KB27/781, rex rot. 32. Soon after he was called upon to offer support of a more strenuous kind: he was one of the many Percy followers who were with Egremont when he confronted the Nevilles at Heworth Moor near York on 24 Aug. 1453. He was duly indicted when the duke of York came to York at the head of a commission of oyer and terminer in the following June, but for an unknown reason he was not put to the inconvenience of either making fine or, like his master, Egremont, suing a pardon.14 R.L. Storey, End of House of Lancaster, 130-1; KB9/149/37.

Crackenthorpe’s second election to Parliament is very puzzling. On 3 July 1455 he was returned in company with (Sir) Thomas Parr*, a wealthy knight connected with the Nevilles, to represent Westmorland, a county in which he held little or no property. Again it seems his election was a compromise between the interests of the two great northern families; yet the Percys were poorly placed to influence the election held in the wake of the triumph of York and the Nevilles at the first battle of St. Albans and the death of the earl of Northumberland there. They had certainly been unable to influence those held for Cumberland and Carlisle two days before, and Crackenthorpe’s successful candidature remains anomalous. The appearance of his enemies, William Tilliol and Robert Colville, among the Cumberland electors raises the possibility that he had unsuccessfully attempted to secure election there. His election two days later for the neighbouring shire underlines his determination to attend the assembly, and one may infer a personal motive. Significantly, the election was conducted by his stepson, Christopher Moresby, as deputy sheriff. Since Moresby, as his mother’s heir, had an even greater interest than our MP in defending the Tilliol estates, he may have used the office’s electoral influence in the interests of that defence by securing his stepfather’s return to Parliament. In that aim he was aided by at least two of the attestors, our MP’s kinsmen, John Crackenthorpe* and Richard Crackenthorpe.15 C219/16/3. This indenture is badly damaged so it is not possible to see whether Moresby was party to it as sheriff. He had, however, been dep. to the hereditary sheriff of the county, Thomas, Lord Clifford, killed on the King’s side at St. Albans, and he was not replaced in office until Nov. 1455.

Despite the eclipse of his political patrons, Crackenthorpe seems to have put his time at Westminster to good use. There is nothing to show whether he was successful in forwarding his quarrel with Tilliol there, but on 30 July 1455, the day before the first prorogation of the assembly, he won another minor mark of royal patronage, namely a grant of the marriages of Haltclough’s two daughters for the modest payment of 40s.16 CPR, 1452-61, p. 245. Thereafter the Percys recovered their influence as that of the Nevilles declined after the end of the duke of York’s second protectorate early in 1456. Under this new dispensation Crackenthorpe had less to fear from Tilliol, and he appears to have taken the offensive in the dispute. In Easter term 1457 he had a plea pending in Middlesex against him, his brother, Robert Colville, and the Northumberland esquire, Edmund Hastings, for £200 each in respect of bonds entered into at Westminster on 15 Feb. 1456 (probably in respect of arbitration).17 CP40/785, rot. 219; 790, rot. 352, 352d. Less than a year later, on 12 Feb. 1458, a royal writ of certiorari called the indictment of 1448 into the court of King’s bench, perhaps in an attempt by our MP to reinvigorate lapsed process against the alleged disseisors.18 KB9/288/1. The Colville brothers were fined, but the fines voided on the insufficiency of the indictment (no doubt because it omitted the date of the offence): KB9/87/22d; KB27/798, fines rot. 1d. A few days earlier, on 4 Feb., he had secured protection against any action at suit of the Crown for his own offences in the course of the quarrel by securing a general pardon; in this he styled himself ‘of Cockermouth’, the heart of a great Percy honour, evidence that he enjoyed protection of a more direct sort.19 C67/42, m. 31.

If, however, such measures brought Crackenthorpe the secure enjoyment of his wife’s inheritance, it was only a short-term victory. His aspirations were thwarted not by any recovery on the part of his rival, but by his wife’s death on 5 Aug. 1459. Since he had no issue by her, his legal interest in the Tilliol lands died with her. Their defence now fell to his stepson, Moresby, although Crackenthorpe was able to delay his entry into them. Writs of diem clausit extremum were issued on 29 Aug., but not until 12 July 1460 was an inquisition post mortem held, returning Moresby as heir. He was duly awarded livery soon afterwards, perhaps significantly when the Yorkists were once more in charge of government.20 CFR, xix. 276; C139/173/30. The obvious conclusion is that Crackenthorpe had used his influence as a prominent Percy retainer to prevent the taking of the inquisition, and that there was a direct relationship between the eventual taking of the inquisition and the defeat of the Lancastrians at the battle of Northampton only two days before. This was nearly the last act of our MP’s career. Now apparently landless, he had little else to lose. His loyalty to Percy dictated his presence at the battle of Towton on 29 Mar. 1461, where he met his death in company with his lord, the earl of Northumberland. In the sole surviving source to name him among the dead of that great battle he is described as a knight, an honour he perhaps received at the earl’s hands on the field.21 Three 15th Cent. Chrons. (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxviii), 160.