VERNON, William

For the first part of his career William Vernon was not heir-apparent to the great inheritance that was to come to him on his father’s death in 1451. His eldest brother Richard lived into the late 1430s, and the next eldest, Fulk, into the late 1440s. None the less, such was the wealth and prominence of his family that it could secure heiresses for its younger sons. In 1416, at about the time of William’s birth, the Crown granted his father the wardship and marriage of Margaret, daughter and heiress of William Swinfen by the coheiress of the Spernores. Her maternal inheritance was insignificant, but through her father she was heiress to the estates of Sir Robert Pipe, lord of the manors of Netherseal (on the border of Derbyshire and Leicestershire), and Draycott under Needwood and Pipe Ridware (in Staffordshire).6 In the memorial brass to Vernon and his wife she is falsely and confusingly described as the da. and h. of Sir Robert ‘Pypis et Spernores’. The best guess is that she was either Pipe’s gt.-gdda. or great-niece: S. Shaw, Staffs. i. 83-84. She must have been a mere infant at the date of the grant, and was presumably brought up alongside our MP in the Vernon household. It may be that, at first, she was not intended for his wife (a single contemporary reference names his first wife as Anne); by 1435, however, the couple were married, and William thus had an independent income long before he entered the family’s great estates. In the subsidy returns of 1436 he was assessed on an annual income of £40, and this partly explains why, while still a younger son, he should have been so prominent a figure.7 Wright, 233; E179/91/73. On 23 June 1436, when scarcely of age, he joined the elderly Thomas Whittington in the office of surveyor of Needwood chase, a grant he no doubt owed to the influence of his father as steward of High Peak. Even more strikingly, on 28 Dec. 1441 he was elected to represent his native county in Parliament at hustings attended by his father and elder brother, Fulk.8 DL42/18, f. 57v; C219/15/2.

In his youth William seems to have been a combative character. In 1441 one Robert Couper appealed him, described as ‘of Snitterton, gentleman’, for mayhem in Leicestershire, perhaps in the context of an ill-documented dispute between Vernon and the Applebys of Appleby.9 KB27/722, rot. 58; 723, rots. 20, 58d; 725, rot. 41; CP40/724, rot. 344d. Two years later he found himself confined in the Marshalsea with his brother John, and required to find surety of the peace to one of the family’s lesser gentry neighbours, John Rollesley of Rowsley. Released on 5 Nov. 1443 to the surety of his father and brother Fulk, a few months later he was allegedly involved in another episode of disorder which had more serious implications. It was claimed, in a return made into King’s bench supposedly by Robert Wylne* as a duchy of Lancaster bailiff, that 30 Mar. 1444 William and his father had led an armed band in the rescue of prisoners from the bailiff’s custody. They replied by complaining that the return was a false one made by Walter Blount* as Wylne’s deputy.10 KB27/730, rex rot. 29d; 732, rex rot. 40d; DL37/11/140.

In itself this was a minor incident, but its importance lies in its illustration of the developing tension between the two greatest Derbyshire gentry families. Further, even before he had succeeded his father, William had become embroiled in a serious dispute with Blount’s first cousins, the sons of Sir John Gresley*. On 25 Oct. 1446 the Gresley heir, John*, and two of his younger brothers allegedly led a large group in an assault upon a tenant of our MP at Netherseal, which lay close to the main Gresley residence at Drakelow.11 KB9/254/1; KB27/746, fines rot. 1d. The tenant, John Gelden, was later implicated in the murder of John Hert, a servant of the Gresleys: KB27/758, rot. 33d. Measures were taken locally to reconcile the disputants. On 21 Sept. 1447 Sir William Ferrers of Chartley returned an award in settlement of the ‘greete debate and variaunce’ between them. The point at issue appears to have been the admission of beasts to a pasture, but the failure of the award suggests that pasture rights were only a symptom of wider disagreement. Gresley must have viewed with dismay the appointment in March 1449 of Vernon and his father in a commission to arrest him and his servants for offences against the abbey of Burton-upon-Trent, and the dispute rumbled on, later to have a bearing on the far more serious violence which overtook Derbyshire in the mid 1450s.12 HMC Rutland, iv. 29; CPR, 1446-52, pp. 285-6.

Vernon’s extensive involvement in the disorder endemic to his native county at this period was no bar to his election for a second term as one of the county’s MPs. On 23 Oct. 1449 he was returned in company with John Sacheverell* to an assembly which, through two prorogations, lasted until early in the following summer when brought to a dramatic close by the news of Cade’s rising in Kent. The last session had been held at Leicester, and it was from there that Vernon came south, probably in the retinue of Humphrey Stafford, duke of Buckingham, who had been commissioned to resist the rebels on 6 June. The withdrawal of the rebels from Blackheath sent a band of Household men in violent pursuit of them, and a later indictment shows that William, together with his father and younger brother, Edmund, were among this band. On 21 Aug. a Kentish jury indicted them for close-breaking at Tonbridge on the previous 20 June.13 C219/15/7; Med. Kentish Soc. (Kent Rec. Ser. xviii), 224-5.

Very soon afterwards Vernon faced yet another legal difficulty, although this, like the indictment, was quickly laid aside. In the following Michaelmas term Agnes, widow of John Gresley’s servant, John Hert, appealed him as accessory to the murder of her husband, who had met his death at the hands of Vernon’s men at Burton-upon-Trent. This was terminated by private treaty: an award, now lost but referred to in a later attempt to end the dispute between the families of Vernon and Gresley, ordered Vernon to pay the widow 20 marks in compensation for her loss in return for the abandonment of the appeal.14. KB27/758, rot. 33d; 761, rex. rot. 12d; Derbys. RO, Gresley mss, D77/3/437 (partially printed in Gresley Chs. ed. Jeayes, 437). The length of the Parliament of November 1449 did not deter William from seeking election when Parliament was again called in the following September. On 22 Oct. 1450 he was once more returned for Derbyshire, on this occasion with Walter Blount. There was, as remarked earlier, already a tension between the two men, but they did act in concert on one occasion during the Parliament: in February 1451 they both stood bail for their fellow MP, Sir Robert Harcourt*, when he appeared in the court of King’s bench to face charges relating to the murder of Richard Stafford in Coventry in 1448.15. C219/16/1; C. Carpenter, Locality and Polity, 455.

A few months later, in August 1451, the shape of Derbyshire politics changed when Sir Richard Vernon’s death brought William a great estate, unburdened by a widow’s dower interest and not significantly diminished by the provision made for his younger brothers.16 Elizabeth Grey, wid. of his er. bro. Richard, survived until 1460, but her jointure was confined to the manor of Marple in Cheshire: CHES3/45, m. 11d. Unfortunately for him, however, his inheritance also included a legacy of debts and disputes. In the first years of his tenure of the family estates he was aggressively pursued by the Exchequer to account for his father’s term as treasurer of Calais, and even had his manor of Harleston seized by the escheator, albeit for only nine days. He petitioned the Crown for protection, arguing that account could only be rendered if his father’s executors took responsibility with him, since only then could he have allowance for the surpluses from the accounts his father had yielded in his lifetime. On 14 Mar. 1454 he secured a privy seal writ to the treasurer and barons to this effect.17 E364/86, rot. 2d; E159/230, brevia Hil. rot. 21.

Another inherited difficulty was a rival claim to the family’s important manor of Tong in Shropshire, a claim which had descended to Anne Ferrers, wife of the young and vigorous Walter Devereux II*, a servant of Richard, duke of York. Ominously, in the Shropshire inquisition post mortem of William’s father, the jury returned that the Vernons had Tong ‘per intrusionem’ to the disseisin of the heirs in tail, Anne Devereux and her kinsman, Richard, son and heir of George Longville†.18 C139/145/8; CCR, 1454-61, p. 165; E159/235, brevia Mich. rot. 21d. To add to these problems, his father’s attempts to make good a groundless property claim against Sir William Trussell†, a fellow member of the retinue of the duke of Buckingham, had damaged the family’s relationship with the duke. In September 1450 the duke had acquired the principal of the disputed manors, at Kibblestone in Staffordshire, which Trussell had mortgaged and failed to redeem; and this effectively ended the Vernon claim, leaving William to be troubled by further actions by Trussell with no hope of profit.19 Add. Ch. 73365; KB27/762, rot. 46d; 766, rot. 35; Wm. Salt. Arch. Soc. n.s. iii. 207.

None the less, despite these difficulties and the simmering rivalries in Derbyshire, William made a satisfactory start to his independent career. On 23 June 1452 he secured a general pardon, in part no doubt as protection against royal actions arising out of his father’s troubled affairs. On the following 4 Nov. he offered surety in Chancery for the good behaviour of the Shropshire esquire, Fulk Eyton, who had been implicated in the duke of York’s rising in the previous February. This need not imply any sympathy for York’s cause on the part of our MP, for he had a family connexion with Eyton, albeit a remote one: Fulk was the godson of Sir Fulk Pembridge†, from whom the Vernons had inherited Tong.20 C67/40, m.30; CCR, 1454-61, p. 400; G. Griffiths, Hist. Tong, 36, 216. Indeed, what evidence there is implies that, at this date, William stood reasonably well with the government. It is likely that he, along with his adversary, John Gresley, were among those knighted in the Tower of London at the ennoblement of the King’s half-brothers on 5 Jan. 1453.21 He had taken up the rank by the following Easter, and this is the most likely occasion: CP40/769, rot. 273d.

Less happily, Vernon’s other activities were bringing him further problems to add to those left by his father. Unwisely he fell into a quarrel with the powerful Sir John Talbot, who in July 1453 succeeded to the earldom of Shrewsbury. The cause of their enmity is a matter for speculation. Three years earlier Talbot had returned an award in the dispute over the manor of Tong, but since this had awarded the manor to the Vernons (albeit on payment of £60 to their rival), it is unlikely to have resulted in resentment on Sir William’s part. A more likely cause was Talbot’s increasing influence in north Derbyshire, where the Vernons had long been dominant.22 C. Rawcliffe, ‘The Great Lord as Peacekeeper’, Law and Social Change in British Hist. ed. Guy and Beale, 54; Wright, 74. However this may be, at the Derbyshire assizes on 22 Feb. 1453 Sir William was condemned in damages of 100 marks for breaking Talbot’s closes at Bakewell on 12 June 1451, and immediately faced another suit as Talbot claimed further damages for offences against his men and servants there.23 CP40/765, rot. 83; 766, rot. 192; 769, rot. 273d. Vernon was not the sole aggressor. One of his servants was allegedly imprisoned by Talbot at Bakewell in Jan. 1451: CP40/766, rot. 271; KB27/769, rot. 37.

Thereafter, Vernon’s difficulties were compounded when this quarrel became subsumed in the much wider conflicts which overtook the county, ranging Walter Blount against most of the leading gentry. These have been interpreted as a local manifestation of the rivalry between Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, and the duke of Buckingham, with Blount representing Warwick, and his opponents Buckingham. More probably, the disorders represent the damaging interaction of purely local rivalries among the leading gentry, in which Vernon was prominently involved, with the crisis in national affairs.24 H. Castor, ‘Sack of Elvaston’, Midland Hist. xix. 21-39. Sir William himself had a particular motive for resenting Blount’s growing influence, for the latter had superseded his family in the important stewardship of the High Peak, where the Vernons were the leading gentry landowners. A reconstruction of events is almost entirely dependent on indictments taken before commissioners of oyer and terminer in July 1454. The major event had taken place on the previous of 28 May: Sir Nicholas Longford, accompanied by Vernon and other prominent gentry of Derbyshire and Cheshire, led an armed band of 1,000 men to Derby. There they rejected a proclamation to disband made by the sheriff, our MP’s rival, Sir John Gresley, a close friend of the Blounts, before moving on to Elvaston, where they ransacked Blount’s manor.25 KB9/12/1/13; Derbys. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Soc. Jnl. xxxiv. 39-49.

This offence and others were investigated on 1 July 1454 when the duke of York, then Protector, and John Talbot, now earl of Shrewsbury, took indictments at Derby. Vernon and three of his brothers were indicted for their part in the raid on Elvaston, and they were also the subject of two private bills. One of these was brought by Blount, naming all those he believed to be implicated in the sack; the other was from a local lawyer, John Tunstead of Tunstead, who had once been a retainer of Vernon’s father. The lawyer complained that on the previous 4 May Vernon had assaulted him at Ashbourne and took lead worth £40.26 KB9/12/2/258, 285. These bills and indictments led to troublesome process against Vernon, exacerbated by the writ of outlawry issued at the beginning of Trinity term for his failure to answer the King for the fine imposed upon him for the Talbot offence. On the following 19 Sept. a jury was summoned to try him for felony before the justices when they returned to the county in the spring (no record of this trial survives).27 KB27/773, rex rot. 11d; KB9/12/2/286.

These steps against Vernon and others more deeply implicated in the disorders seem to have put an end to the worst of the trouble. Peace, however, was not yet restored, and the divisions seem to have played a part in determining the elections of the following summer. On 26 June Vernon was elected for Staffordshire at hustings dominated, judging from the list of attestors, by Buckingham’s men. A week later, at the hustings at Derby, Walter Blount was returned with Robert Barley*, a servant of the earl of Shrewsbury. No direct evidence survives to indicate that these results were the product of contests, but there is some indirect evidence. According to a later indictment before the Staffordshire j.p.s., on the day before the Derbyshire election Blount’s brother, Thomas*, assaulted Vernon’s brother, Roger, and two other prominent figures who had been involved in the sack of Elvaston at Branston near Burton-upon-Trent, and it is a reasonable inference that his aim was to prevent their attendance at the election.28 C219/16/3; KB9/280/27.

Against this background, it is not surprising that the government, controlled by York in the aftermath of the first battle of St. Albans, should have seen the need for further remedial measures to end the feuding. On 12 July, three days after Parliament assembled, Sir John Gresley, and Roger Vernon were summoned to appear before the royal council to answer for recent riotous assemblies. Their appearance before the council led to the referral of the matter to the arbitration of Buckingham, who had influence with both families. The damage seemingly caused to the duke’s relationship with the Vernons by the Trussell affair had been mended by this date for, on the previous 1 Aug., Sir William had been granted an annuity of £10 by the duke; Gresley had been in receipt of such a fee for several years.29 PPC, vi. 250; C. Rawcliffe, Staffords, 240; SC6/1040/15, m. 3.

Buckingham returned his award on the following 12 Sept. He decreed that the parties ‘shalbe full frendes and of frendely delyng’, laying aside ‘Rancre of herte’, and that any future cause of quarrel between them should immediately be referred to his judgement or, in his absence, that of his son and heir. Unfortunately, the award makes no mention of the original cause of the dispute (probably because this had been addressed in the award of 1447 and that made late in 1450 or early in 1451 and was solely concerned with settling compensation for the servants of the disputants who had suffered injury). Anne Hert was to have full payment of the 20 marks awarded to her under the terms of the previous award for the murder of her husband by Vernon’s adherents; and scales of compensation were laid down with respect to injuries received by the servants of the disputing parties in the course of the conflict. For example, Thomas Webbe, a tenant of Sir William at Netherseal, was to have £8 6s. 8d. for the serious injuries he had suffered at the hands of Gresley’s servants. This seems to have effectively marked the end of the quarrel between Gresley and Vernon.30 Gresley mss, D77/3/437.

Vernon was able to put himself on the right side of the law by securing a general pardon on 20 Nov. 1455, and in the following February he added to it a writ of non molestetis addressed to the Exchequer, presumably to end further process against him on his father’s accounts as treasurer of Calais.31 C67/41, m. 8; E159/232, brevia Hil. rot. 20d. None the less, this apart, his career did not quickly make any notable recovery after peace had been restored in his native county. He was still troubled by the Devereux claim to the manor of Tong, and although he did not lose the manor he soon found other difficulties to replace it.32 Wm. Salt Arch. Soc. n.s. iv. 97; CP40/773, rot. 318; CCR, 1454-61, p. 165; E159/235, brevia Mich. rot. 21d. He had to resort to litigation to protect his property at Pipe Ridware from the depredations of Hugh Davenport, and on 26 July 1456 he was outlawed in London for debt at the suit of a tailor of the city and of the executors of William Wollashull*.33 Wm. Salt Arch. Soc. n.s. iv. 105, 109; CP40/784, rot. 321. The outlawries were revoked on a technicality in Mich. term 1457. Worst still, in November 1457 he was condemned on a bond in £400 of 29 June 1453: he had bound himself to Queen Margaret that his brother John, as an executor of their father, would account to the queen for Sir Richard’s tenure as her bailiff of High Peak. John then failed to do so.34 CP40/785, rot. 422.

Yet, these problems aside, Vernon was too wealthy a man to suffer any sustained exclusion from local affairs. On 10 Jan. 1458 he was present at a very important session of the peace at Derby, where indictments were taken against Humphrey Bourgchier* for entry into the property of the prominent Lancastrian, the earl of Shrewsbury, Vernon’s former foe. His apparent reconciliation with the earl probably reflects the emergence of a militant Lancastrian party in Derbyshire, of which both were part. A little over a year later, on 10 Feb. 1459, another prominent Lancastrian and his neighbour in north Derbyshire, Sir William Plumpton*, named him as an arbiter in his murderous quarrel with the Pierreponts. On the following 30 Oct. he was named to a powerful commission of oyer and terminer, headed by Shrewsbury and Buckingham, to investigate treasons and other crimes in Staffordshire and neighbouring counties, and soon afterwards he was appointed to the Lancastrian array in his native Derbyshire.35 KB9/288/22; S.J. Payling, Political Society in Lancastrian Eng. 200-1; CPR, 1452-61, pp. 557-8. During these years, as national politics became increasingly polarized, his relationship with the duke became much closer. His memorial brass describes him as ‘quondam Miles constabularius Anglie’, and it is probable that this refers to service under the duke as constable of England in the late 1450s. Early in 1460 he was joint plaintiff in a suit in the court of King’s bench with the duke’s son, and on the following 17 July he was among those who took a lease of the lordship of Caus from Duke Humphrey’s feoffees.36 Griffiths, 43; KB27/795, rot. 42; Cat. Med. Muns. Berkeley Castle ed. Wells-Furby (Bristol and Glos. Arch. Soc.), ii. 947. His closeness to the duke may have allowed him to win the manor of Kibblestone, for his inq. post mortem states that he died seised of it: C140/24/24. By the latter date, however, the political situation locally and nationally had been transformed by the duke’s death at the battle of Northampton a week before. This transformation was very much to Vernon’s disadvantage.

The first years of Yorkist rule were a very difficult time for Vernon. In Trinity term 1461 writs were issued for his outlawry and that of many of his adherents on the felony charges laid against him in 1454, and on the following 4 July a commission was issued for the arrest of his brother Roger. The first of these problems was removed when he secured a general pardon from the new King on the following 3 Dec. (he wisely took the precaution of having it enrolled on the patent roll), but his earlier Lancastrian affiliations and the influence of his local rival, (Sir) Walter Blount, still stood between him and the recovery of his position in local affairs.37 KB27/801, rex rot. 21; CPR, 1461-7, pp. 32, 81. Curiously, Vernon did not take the trouble to plead this pardon in KB, and writs of outlawry, never executed by the sheriff, continued to be issued against him: KB27/808, rex rot. 11; 810, rex rot. 32d.

Vernon’s weakness left him vulnerable. In Easter term 1462 Alice, widow of Henry Walron, appealed him as an accessory to the murder of her husband in Nottinghamshire. Walron had been a servant of the earl of Warwick, and it was perhaps this that led Vernon, together with another Lancastrian, (Sir) Edmund Mountfort* (who had even less reason to love the earl) into alleged complicity in his murder. Unfortunately no other details survive.38 KB27/804, rot. 51; 814, rex rot. 28d (for her failure to prosecute the appeal). Walron had been one of the earl’s bailiffs in Yorks., and in Aug. 1459 had been imprisoned for allegedly speaking ‘opprobrious words’ against the King’s person. Although he was confirmed as bailiff by the Lancastrians after Ludford Bridge, he presumably rallied to the earl at the time of the Northampton campaign: CPR, 1452-61, pp. 518, 527. More damaging for Vernon was the resumption of a long-running dispute with two of his lesser neighbours, John Strelley and Richard Bakewell, over property at Hazlebadge not far from Haddon. This brought indictments and suits against him and his eldest son, Henry, for forcible entry and close-breaking, and after they had failed to answer a writ of privy seal to make restitution to their opponents resulted in the issue of a commission of inquiry on 7 Dec. 1463. Since Blount was among the commissioners, the Vernons cannot have expected a sympathetic hearing.39 Derbys. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Jnl. xiv. 116-18; KB27/833, rex rot. 17; CP40/804, rot. 204; 805, rot. 350; 808, rot. 288; CPR, 1461-7, p. 304; SC8/176/8788. For a countersuit by Vernon: CP40/804, rot. 272; 806, rot. 194.

In these circumstances it would be unwise to interpret as marking a recovery in Vernon’s affairs his nomination as a subsidy commissioner in the previous July (indeed, many of the men entrusted with this uninviting task were drawn from those excluded from government), or to exaggerate the significance of his successful suing out of another general pardon.40 C67/45, m. 9. Indeed, what little evidence there is implies that the family’s position continued to deteriorate. In November 1465 John Fitzherbert, a protégé of Blount, replaced him and his son, Henry, as the young duke of Norfolk’s steward at Bretby, and he was pointedly excluded from his rightful place on the commission of the peace.41 Wright, 139.

These considerations render Vernon’s return to represent Derbyshire in the Parliament of 1467 all the more surprising. At an election held on 14 May he was elected with Blount’s son and heir, William†. The return itself is irregular in that Vernon himself headed the list of attestors, with his brothers, Thomas and Edmund, immediately following him (the latter written over an erasure), and further down the list appear his brother and son, Roger and Richard. Further, most unusually, some of the attestors are named twice: 73 names are listed, but four of these are duplicates.42 C219/17/1. There is no direct evidence to show what underlay these irregularities, although there can be no doubt that the election was informed by new divisions in Derbyshire society. On this occasion the Vernons found themselves on the same side as the Talbots, who now numbered among their kin by marriage for, in about 1465, Sir William’s son and heir, Henry, had married Anne, sister of the new earl of Shrewsbury.43 At an unknown date Vernon settled the manors of Appleby and Aylestone (Leics.) on the couple and their issue, and other property was leased to them: C140/24/24; Belvoir Castle deeds 4949. Shortly afterwards these divisions took a violent turn, culminating in the murder of Sir William’s brother Roger by retainers of Henry, Lord Grey of Codnor, on 3 Dec. 1467 and the visitation of a royal commission of oyer and terminer in the following spring.44 Wright, 139; M.A. Hicks, ‘Statute of Livery’, Historical Research, lxiv. 18-20.

By this time, however, Sir William was dead. Indeed, he did not survive the Parliament of which he was a Member. He was presumably at Westminster when he drew up his short will on 28 June, a few days before the prorogation. This document shows that the family’s great wealth, or at least his estimate of it, had not been diminished by its recent troubles. This is reflected in the bequests of 500 marks to each of his four daughters for their marriages, and generous provision for his younger sons: Richard was to have a life interest in the disputed manor of Hazlebadge; William, an annuity of 20 marks for his life; and Ralph, the manor of Roworth (in New Mills) in fee together with a life interest in all Sir William’s purchased land. He was also concerned to make adequate provision for his widow. To allow their son and heir to make so grand a marriage she had evidently surrendered property settled on her on her own marriage, and Vernon now provided that she should have either the lordship of Marple (in Cheshire) or that of Tong in compensation. There was only one other provision: a priest was to be found to pray for his soul for three years in the church of St. Bartholomew at Tong, where his tomb was to be made according to his ‘degree’. Those entrusted with implementing his wishes were his wife, the prominent Staffordshire lawyer, William Cumberford*, and a priest, John Peniston, chaplain at Haddon.45 PCC 23 Godyn (PROB11/5, f. 193). There was a delay of a year after Vernon’s death before the will was proved.

Sir William died two days after making his will. Writs were issued for the routine inquiry into his estates on the following day, but the relevant inquisitions were delayed until the following October. The findings were brief, and, since his son and heir was of age, of little interest to the Crown. Save for the manors settled on his heir on marriage and the valuable manor of Harlaston, in which his wife had a jointure interest, he died sole seised of the bulk of the family estates, having made no feoffment for the implementation of his will. This explains the injunction in his will: ‘I charge my wife as she will answere to god to hir pour and my son Herry upon my blissing that this my will be perfourmed in that therin is’.46 CFR, xx. 196; C140/24/24; PCC 23 Godyn. In one part, at least, they carried through Vernon’s instructions. Like his parents, he was duly buried at Tong, where his memorial brass survives.47 Griffiths, 42-46.