Thomas Cook rose to become one of the most important figures in fifteenth-century London, and came to occupy an equally prominent role on the wider political stage. His infamous ‘troubles’, portrayed in the chronicle written by his apprentice, Robert Fabyan, were taken up as a cause célèbre by Tudor writers, who used his case to demonstrate the iniquities of Yorkist rule. Yet despite his turbulent career, he succeeded in laying secure foundations for his family’s future prominence as landowners in Essex.
Cook rapidly established himself as a cloth merchant, a task made all the easier by his father’s position within the Drapers’ Company and his links with Malpas and others. From the late 1430s onwards he was active as an exporter of cloth to Gascony through the ports of London and Southampton, and the size of his shipments to the continent grew gradually over the next two decades, before the loss of the English possessions in France forced him, like other merchants, to make much more of contacts with Burgundy and the Low Countries. In September 1458 alone he took more than 200 cloths through the port of London in three shipments that were bound for Flanders. In return he imported large quantities of a variety of goods. In 1438 he brought some 260 ells of canvas into Southampton, while in the late 1440s he was shipping iron worth more than £50 into London. A commodity that was especially popular with merchants such as Cook was woad, and from the early 1440s onwards he and some of his fellow drapers established contacts with the Italian community in Southampton with a view to organizing regular imports of this product. In the 12 months from Michaelmas 1459 he imported some 636 bales of woad, two bales of grain for dyeing and 96 undyed cloths. Woad worth more than £190 was just one of several shipments he shipped into Southampton in 1461.
Both in London and further afield Cook established a formidable network of business associates. One of his partners in the 1440s and early 1450s was the draper Henry Bray. The two men were joined in a dispute with the prominent draper Simon Eyre, and they had dealings with provincial merchants, dyers, and other cloth-workers that were reflected in ‘gifts’ of goods and chattels made to them as security for loans or goods supplied on credit.
While Cook’s father appears to have lived in the Candlewick Street area of London, he himself took up residence in the parish of St. Mary Woolchurch, where he served as a churchwarden in 1442.
Outside the city, Cook acquired property in a number of counties both in the south-east and beyond. His Southwark property aside, in 1455 he purchased the Surrey manor of Chelsham Watvile, while in neighbouring Kent he came to own property in Maidstone.
Cook’s growing importance in the city of London, particularly among his fellow drapers, was apparent as early as 1440 when he represented Nicholas Yeo* in a case brought before the mayor’s court. Four years later he was chosen by the city government as one of the collectors of a loan of £1,000 which was raised for the Crown, while later that same year he was appointed as a supervisor of work that was underway to extend the city’s conduits, a project sponsored by William Estfield*.
By the mid 1440s Cook’s abilities had also come to the notice of the Crown. In October 1446 Chancellor Stafford appointed him an arbiter in a dispute between the French merchant Baldwin Sanheuy and William Bowes II* of York,
Now, however, Cook found himself drawn into political events on a wider stage, as in the summer of 1450 the commons of Kent rose under the leadership of Jack Cade and threatened the city of London. On 16 June the King sent emissaries to receive the written complaints of the rebels encamped at Blackheath. It is possible that Cook was one of them, for among the documents collected by his servant John Vale was a safe-conduct issued by Cade, and another unique document which contained the rebels’ demand that the Italian merchants of the city be organized to provide them with arms, harness and 1,000 marks in cash. After a show of force by the King’s soldiers the rebels withdrew temporarily, but soon threatened London again, whereupon the King departed for Kenilworth. With the city left to face the insurgents alone, pressure from the common council mounted for the removal from his aldermanry of Philip Malpas, one of the rebels’ principal targets among the citizens. In the meantime the civic authorities kept watch on the rebels, and it is possible that Cook’s safe-conduct in fact related to a visit to Cade’s camp made on their behalf, on or about 29 June, rather than to the earlier delegation from the Crown. Either way, efforts to keep the insurgents out of London failed, and on 3 July they entered the gates. In subsequent days prominent royal officials and foreign merchants were attacked, but more poignantly for Cook, his father-in-law’s house was looted, an event recorded in several chronicles, as well as by Vale.
Although Malpas’s reputation and career had been damaged by his connexions with the Crown, Cook evidently emerged from the crisis with some credit, and soon secured further advancement. In October he was appointed as Queen Margaret’s ‘deputatie’ in connexion with a large shipment of wool that left London in a fleet of six ships bound for Calais.
Following the end of Cade’s revolt Cook renewed his efforts to join the court of aldermen. In July 1451 Simon Eyre moved from Cornhill to Langbourne Ward, but once again Cook’s candidature to replace him was unsuccessful. He suffered a fourth defeat later that month. In September 1453, however, he was chosen as sheriff of London and Middlesex by the commonalty, a position which he clearly hoped would propel him towards membership of the aldermanic body. He was, nevertheless, to be disappointed a further four times, indicating some deep seated reservations as to his suitability among his influential neighbours, perhaps resulting from his occasional outbursts in the presence of the aldermen.
Cook spent the late 1450s consolidating his position within London’s oligarchy. He served on numerous committees during the last years of Lancastrian rule, and in September 1457 he was sent by the mayor and aldermen to the King to receive instructions as to the fitting out of a fleet of ships that was to respond to French raids on the port of Sandwich. The following month he was one of the two candidates for the mayoralty, and although not chosen on this occasion he was clearly marked down as a future holder of the office. He obtained a royal pardon in January 1458, apparently in anticipation of difficulties that might arise in connexion with his tenure of the posts of sheriff and customs collector.
What Cook could not anticipate was the open civil war that broke out in the autumn of 1459, and the consequent collapse of Henry VI’s kingship. In the immediate term, London remained faithful to the house of Lancaster, but in the summer of 1460 the city fathers decided to admit within the walls the Yorkist earls of Salisbury, Warwick and March, who had invaded England from Calais. The decision followed on from a meeting between a delegation of Londoners, including Cook, and the earls. It is possible that Cook’s role in the negotiations had been an important one, for a few weeks later, when a Parliament was summoned in the wake of the earls’ victory at the battle of Northampton, he was elected one of London’s MPs for the first time. By the end of 1460, Parliament appeared to have found a formula for a permanent dynastic settlement, under the terms of which Henry VI was to remain King for life, but be succeeded by the duke of York and his heirs. During the Christmas recess, however, all of this changed. By the time Parliament reassembled at the end of January 1461, the duke of York and the earl of Salisbury had met their deaths at the battle of Wakefield, and the ranks of Lords and Commons alike were depleted. Within a few days, Parliament hastily disbanded on news of the approach of Queen Margaret’s army from the north. Following her victory at the second battle of St. Albans, the queen’s force marched on London. Many leading Londoners who had played a part in negotiating the city’s accommodation with the Yorkists now went in fear of reprisals, among them Cook’s relatives Philip Malpas and John Forster, who sailed for Zeeland. On the way, their vessel, which also contained some of Cook’s portable property (whether for purposes of trade, or in a bid to move it to safety, is uncertain) was taken by the French, and the passengers were held to ransom.
Their flight proved unnecessary. The Lancastrian army stayed its hand, withdrawing to the north, and on 4 Mar. the new duke of York was acclaimed as King Edward IV outside St. Paul’s cathedral. Cook, like many of his fellow aldermen, adapted speedily to the change of regime, and soon found himself in favour with the new rulers. Just a few weeks later, in May, he shared with (Sir) Thomas Tyrell* a 20-year-lease of the royal lordship of Havering atte Bower, and in July he was appointed keeper of the royal park there. Furthermore, in the summer of the following year he was named one of the feoffees, headed by the chancellor, Bishop Neville of Exeter, who were to hold the forfeited estates of the earl of Devon and others in the event of the death without male issue of William Neville, earl of Kent, to whom they had been granted.
Now, however, Cook’s fortunes changed suddenly and dramatically, costing him dear in terms of his personal wealth, position and connexions. No hint of what was to come was in evidence in May 1468 when Cook was among 63 Londoners, headed by the mayor, who entered into a bond in £200, 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.
Following Cook’s arrest, his wife Elizabeth was confined to the mayor’s house in London, but she nevertheless made an attempt to raise the sum of £20,000 to bail her husband out of gaol. This proved unsuccessful, and while Cook awaited his trial his houses in Essex and London were ‘seaside by the lord Ryvers and his wife & servauntys clerely putt owth thereof’. The damage done was considerable: Cook’s London residence was later said to have been left in an ‘ill pykyll’, and in the ensuing months and years some of his valuable possessions passed through the hands of royal officials and courtiers, notably the treasurer Earl Rivers (the queen’s father), but also the treasurer of the royal household, Sir John Fogg†, with most, but not all, finding their way into the Exchequer. Among the goods were fine tapestries, including one which, according to Fabyan, had been coveted by Rivers’ wife, the duchess of Bedford, and was ‘wrought in moost Rycchest wyse wt goold of the hool story of the Syege of Jherusalem which I herd the fforeman of my maystrs saye that it cost in barture whan my said mastyr bowgth it viij C li.’.
Cook’s trial opened in the Guildhall in London on 4 July, with the duke of Clarence and the chief justice Sir John Markham heading the commission of oyer and terminer, which also included the mayor of London, Thomas Oulegreve, a ‘replete and lympish man’ who fell asleep during the proceedings. The indictments alleged that Hawkins, Hugh Mille* and Peter Alfray had been making approaches to various Londoners since October 1466 in order to obtain financial support for the Lancastrian garrison at Harlech. Cook himself was accused of contributing woollen cloths. The Lancastrian agents were dealt with first: all were found guilty and Hawkins was executed, although Mille and Alfray were able to go free after producing royal pardons. When it came to Cook and two of the other prominent individuals indicted, Hugh Pakenham and Thomas Portalyn*, things proceeded less smoothly for the commission. A grand jury refused to charge them with providing money and would only accept a charge of concealing the plot revealed to them by Hawkins and the others. It was left to a second jury of Londoners, empanelled on 6 July, to indict Cook and two others of giving aid to the Lancastrians and of concealing a plot to invade England. In the event, however, Markham instructed the trial jury to acquit Cook of sending aid to Queen Margaret and her forces, leaving only the charge of concealment. On this charge – misprision – he was found guilty, a verdict not recorded in the trial record itself but apparent from records of the fine imposed on him.
Following the verdict Cook was sent first to the compter in Bread Street and then to the King’s Bench prison in Southwark while a decision was awaited from the King about the level of fine he was to pay. His stay in the Marshalsea was far from pleasant, for the keeper of the prison ‘owgth hym lytyll ffavour’ and he was placed in the common gaol. Cook therefore asked Sir Ralph Josselyn and other friends to try and secure his removal to the keeper’s house, for which he agreed to pay 20s. a week.
As soon as 26 July 1468 Cook was granted a royal pardon and released from prison. A week later, on 2 Aug., he paid his fine in a single lump sum, indicative of the very substantial resources still available to him. In late November, finally, he could come into the court of King’s bench and present his pardon and proof that all monies had been paid.
Deprived of both his royal and civic offices, Cook played no part in public life during 1469 and 1470. This changed in the autumn of 1470, when Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, for some time disenchanted with his royal cousin’s policies, came to an understanding with Margaret of Anjou, invaded England with French assistance, drove Edward IV into exile and restored Henry VI to the throne. This presented the Londoners with a dilemma. Most of the aldermen had vested interests in the policies that had been pursued by Edward IV’s government, but with the King in exile there was in practical terms little point in trying to resist Warwick’s army. It was essential to find spokesmen who would be agreeable to the new rulers and could protect the city’s interests. Events moved swiftly: Thomas Oulegreve was forced to resign his aldermanry, leaving the way clear for the return of Cook to the bench. Evidence from the city’s journal indicates that he was reinstated at the explicit request of the Readeption regime, and shows that he was regarded as a vital part of the new government’s attempt to establish itself and win over London.
beyng an excellent & well spokyn man & a profoundly Resonyd, shewid In the opyn parlement of the grete wrongys and lossys that he hadd susteynyd for the ffydelyte that he bare unto kyng henry and Quene Mergaret, and Requyrid Restytucion of xxij Ml mark that he hadd lost by fforce of the fforesaid wrongys. And to bryng his purpoos abowth made many freendys to his grete charge and cost.
Gt. Chron. London, 213-16.
Cook was now in a position to take his revenge for his humiliation in 1468. Even Fabyan could not write favourably of his actions, alleging that
Where the mayor sundry tymys ffeyned hym sylf syke for ffere of mynystryng of his office, the said Sir Thomas casting noo peryllis, executid the uttyrmest of his powar to the hurt and Indempnyte of such as he knewe bare any ffavour to kyng Edward.
Ibid. 241.
Evidence from the city journals suggests that the mayor, John Stokton, was absent from his duties from about 21 Feb. to 10 Apr. 1471. During this period the court of aldermen was presided over first by Richard Lee*, whose sympathies were almost certainly with the Yorkists, and subsequently by Cook. It must have been with some dismay that the draper received the news of King Edward’s landing in the north, and his unimpeded march south, which may have turned to genuine horror when the duke of Clarence, who had initially made common cause with Warwick, switched sides, and took his substantial force into Edward’s camp. While Henry VI was still lodged in the bishop’s palace in the city, the only force that could have come to his defence was that of the earl of Warwick, which was holed up far away in Coventry. On Tuesday of Holy Week 1471 the Yorkist loyalists imprisoned in the Tower of London overcame their guards and took control of the fortress in Edward IV’s name. Two days later, the King himself entered the city in triumph.
Cook was eventually pardoned, along with his son Philip, on 20 July 1472.
The loss of his chief London residence, and the ongoing lawsuits with Josselyn and other feoffees did not greatly affect Cook’s wealth, for apart from the brief period when Gidea Hall was held by Duchess Margaret he appears to have kept all his lands in Essex intact and mortgage-free. As well as resuming building work at Gidea he was able to build a new house, a ‘lytlyll mansion’, near the Austin Friars in London, adjacent to his old residence, and although smaller, it was evidently large enough to provide separate suites of rooms for both him and his wife. Some evidence of his improving fortunes in the public arena can be found in his appointment in 1475 to a commission to hear an appeal from the staple court of Calais.
In his will drawn up on 15 Apr. 1478, Cook asked to be buried in the church of the Austin Friars, opposite the tomb of William Edward, a grocer and former mayor of the city. His funeral arrangements were to include the attendance of 16 poor men carrying torches and tapers, but he specified that there was to be no ‘curious hers or candilstikkes’. He established a chantry at Witham in Essex, which he endowed with lands nearby called ‘Freshes’, but his most impressive charitable legacy was his foundation of an almshouse in his rents in Black Alley in the parish of All Hallows London Wall. This was to house six poor, blind men for a period of 90 years after his death. Among those who benefited from personal bequests were Cook’s chaplain, Robert Whittingham, a servant and relative of Robert Whittingham II*, and John Vale to whom he left £50 of ‘the best detts that been to me nowe owing’. The bulk of his personal effects were left to his son Philip, who was to ensure that the mass books, psalters, vestments and chalices were passed on to whichever of his two younger siblings entered the priesthood. The residue of his goods was divided into the customary three parts, of which Elizabeth, his widow, was to receive one, while the rest was to be split between Philip on the one hand, and his two remaining brothers William and John on the other, once they had reached the age of 24. A fourth brother, Thomas, had predeceased their father.
When it came to the disposition of Cook’s considerable property holdings Philip was once more the chief beneficiary. He received the bulk of the Essex estates, including Cook’s seat at Gidea Hall and the manor of Esthouse, as well as many of the holdings in London and others in Somerset and Cheshire. Philip was also to inherit his father’s main residences in London, as well as the Malpas property after his mother’s death. By contrast, John and William received only relatively small endowments: John was left holdings in Brentwood and was to inherit the manor of Bellhouse after his mother’s death, while William was to have Cook’s tenements in Colchester and the reversion of the manor of Appleton. In addition, Cook’s daughter and her husband John Forster were left two tenements in Southwark. Further property in Kent was to be sold by the executors (who were headed by Philip), to perform his will. It is clear that in dividing his estate in this way Cook was ignoring the wishes of his wife, but he was careful to insert clauses in the will which precluded any alteration to its terms and stated that ‘she shall nott cause by no many wise thise my saide testament to be altred, chaunged or broken or any other wise to be made thanne I my silfe have ordeigned’. He died on 28 Apr. and an inquisition post mortem held in Essex soon afterwards detailed the extent of his estates there and confirmed that Philip was over the age of 24. The will was proved on 1 June.