FRAMLINGHAM, John, of Debenham, Suff.

Framlingham came from a well-established Suffolk family which had acquired lands in and around the village of Debenham, as well as property in nearby Framlingham itself, by the late fourteenth century. In 1397 his father, also named John, purchased the manor of Crow’s Hall near Debenham which, on his death in 1425, passed to our MP. W.A. Copinger, Suff. Manors, vii. 128-9. Indeed, the first reference to the latter occurs in his father’s will, proved on 1 July 1425, in which John and his heirs were required to maintain a chantry and an obit in Debenham church where the testator was to be buried. PCC 4 Luffenham (PROB11/3, f. 27). Despite the fact that he was his father’s principal heir, Framlingham appears to have tried to enlarge his estates at the expense of his sister, Elizabeth, who married one Thomas Martin of Bradfield. As a result, after the couple’s deaths he was sued on two occasions in 1433 by Martin’s brother, Alan, who claimed that Thomas had left him the sum of 80 marks owed to him by his father-in-law’s executors, and that our MP, after entering his sister’s land in Framlingham, refused to release 100 marks for the marriage of his niece. C1/12/25, 38/200.

By the mid 1440s Framlingham had married Margery, the daughter of a local landowner, William Waller. Once again, however, his ambition led to controversy when, in 1445, he and his wife tried to gain possession of the manor of Howes in Alderton from John Crees, a feoffee appointed by Waller before his death. Their petition to the chancellor was prompted by the recent deaths of two of Margery’s brothers, John and Nicholas. The matter appeared to have been resolved quickly and amicably after Crees acknowledged Margery as Waller’s sole surviving heir and professed himself prepared to release the manor to her and her husband. A final concord confirming the transfer was subsequently entered in early February 1446. Yet all was not well, for soon afterwards Crees claimed that his reply to the Framlinghams’ petition had been made under duress, and requested that the fine be cancelled. His allegations were detailed in a separate deposition submitted to Chancery in which he stated that shortly before his death Waller had stated his will to be that his widow Isabel should hold the manor for life, with remainder in tail to his two younger sons, and that in the event of their deaths without issue Crees was to sell it. But after the deaths of Margery’s brothers Crees had received a visit from Framlingham who asked him instead to release the manor to him and Margery ‘and seyde wt owty that he wold make the astat he schuld spend an hudreyd pound on hiis heed to hiis utter undoyng’. Rather than give in to Framlingham’s threats, Crees, on 4 Nov. 1445, had gone ahead with the sale of the reversion of the manor to Thomas Brewes*, John Squire and John Wareyn, ‘to the be hof and use of my lord marquys of Suffolk’ [William de la Pole]. Framlingham had not been deterred and on 12 Nov. had managed to obtain a writ of subpoena to secure Crees’s appearance before the chancellor. Not content with this he visited Crees once again on 27 Jan. following, this time accompanied by John Calbrace, a serjeant-at-arms, who arrested Crees and took him to London where he spent four days in prison before acknowledging Margery’s claim to the manor and agreeing to release it. Crees’s testimony was backed up by Brewes and the others who alleged that Framlingham had ‘manassed the saide John Crees yn diverse wise but yf he wolde make estate accordyng unto the same desire’. They too asserted that Crees’s earlier admissions had been made under duress. The chancellor believed Crees’s version of events, and discharged Calbrace from office, imprisoning him for his deception. C1/16/166-70; CCR, 1441-7, p. 364; Suff. Feet of Fines, 302.

It is not known whether Framlingham was ever required to answer these allegations, but it soon became clear that he had no intention of abandoning his attempt to gain possession of Howes and was prepared to go to extreme lengths to achieve his objective. According to indictments presented seven years later, in August 1448 he led an armed raid on the house at Bawdsey belonging to his mother-in-law, Isabel Waller, and stole a chest containing muniments, charters and other evidences, as well as goods to the value of £100. These belonged to Robert Martin, presumably a relative of his sister’s husband, and hence this incident may have involved his father’s estates as well as those he was trying to obtain from his wife’s family. KB27/770, rex rot. 26; KB9/118/1/9.

These charges against Framlingham joined a growing list of indictments against him which were heard in the court of King’s bench in the early 1450s. Far from stemming from disputes with his in-laws, however, the majority of them concerned his involvement in discord of a much more political nature, arising from his association with the Mowbray dukes of Norfolk, whose family seat was at Framlingham castle. This was a relationship based on feudal tenure, for our MP was recorded in the 1430s holding property in Framlingham by service of a part of a knight’s fee, owed initially to the second duke and then to his widow the dowager duchess Katherine. CIPM, xxiv. 115; CCR, 1429-35, p. 209. Framlingham does not seem to have benefited from any significant grants of patronage from the vast estates owned by the Mowbrays; likewise, his administrative career in Suffolk was not particularly notable: apart from serving as a tax collector in 1440 he does not appear to have been appointed to any other posts of this kind, and was never returned to Parliament for the county or one of its boroughs. Nevertheless, he was evidently regarded as a man of some standing: of armigerous rank, he was among those who attended the election of the county’s MPs on three occasions before his own return for the distant borough of Gatton. C219/15/1, 6, 16/1. It is clear, too, not only from the conflict of interests with the de la Pole faction indicated in the dispute over his wife’s manor of Howes but also from the later indictments against him, that he played a significant part in the bitter rivalry in East Anglia between the dukes of Suffolk and Norfolk. The most serious indictment concerned events which had taken place in March 1450, shortly after the impeachment of William, duke of Suffolk. It was alleged that on 6 Mar. Framlingham had plotted with others, including Sir William Oldhall* and Sir William Asshton of Earl Soham, to put Richard, duke of York, on the throne in Henry VI’s place. To achieve that end he had allegedly distributed bills, writings and ballads in Bury St. Edmunds, claiming that the King, by the counsel of Suffolk, the bishops of Salisbury and Chichester, James Fiennes*, Lord Saye, and other lords had ‘sold the kingdoms of England and France’. He had then excited rebellion in Sussex and Kent and demanded the murder of the duke of Suffolk, specifically by sending letters from Bury on 12 Apr. for Jack Cade to be made captain, and for the rebels to assemble on Blackheath, and on 26 May (after the duke’s murder) to the men of Kent to rise against the King. He himself had organized congregations on 10 June at Bergholt and elsewhere in Suffolk. Separate indictments stated that in the two years from May 1450 Framlingham had regularly toured round the county with an armed gang, so that the King’s ministers could not keep the peace. In September the same year, shortly before York rode to East Anglia in the company of the duke of Norfolk, widespread disturbances had taken place in Suffolk in which several members of Framlingham’s family appear to have been involved. P.A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 82, 85n; KB9/118/1/30; 271/117; KB27/770, rex rots. 3, 26. It may be that Framlingham had a part to play at the shire elections held on 6 Oct., resulting in the return to the Parliament summoned to meet a month later of Sir Edmund Mulsho*, one of York’s retainers, and Sir Roger Chamberlain* who (if he had not already done so) was soon to enter York’s service.

For the time being no action was taken against the followers of York and Mowbray for their alleged treasons. Indeed, indictments against them did not begin to be made until after York’s humiliation at Dartford in 1452 provided an ideal opportunity for charges to be brought against Mowbray men who had, it was alleged, committed various acts of treason over the previous two years. It is likely that many of the charges were initiated by associates of Alice, dowager duchess of Suffolk, in a continuation of the bitter feud between the de la Pole faction and the Mowbrays in East Anglia. On 17 Feb. 1453 Framlingham was indicted before the justices at Ipswich on the charges of treason committed in 1450, and the lesser charge of terrorizing Suffolk with his armed gang throughout the period since then. Several of the de la Pole affinity served on the jury. KB9/271/117; KB27/770, rex rots. 3, 26. It looks very likely that he sought election to the Parliament recently summoned to meet at Reading in order to gain the privilege of at least temporary immunity from prosecution. In this he proved successful, evidently by calling on the patronage of the Mowbrays . At an election held at Gatton in Surrey a week later, on 24 Feb., he was returned for that borough, which had been granted by the duke of Norfolk to his retainer John Timperley I*. On 6 Apr., shortly after the Parliament was prorogued, he prudently secured a royal pardon of all treasons committed before the previous 15 Mar., and of any consequent outlawries, and found security in Chancery on 18 May, which was duly notified to the justices. Then, in October, on presentation of his pardon in King’s bench, he was dismissed on the charge of treason. Yet meanwhile, during the parliamentary recess in July, further inquisitions had been held in Suffolk which led to more indictments against him being presented before the court. Framlingham duly gave himself up to the Marshalsea prison, but protested his innocence of the charges against him. A date was set for his appearance before a jury in November, for which mainprise was offered by several East Anglian men, including the Lincoln’s Inn lawyer William Jenney*. Framlingham co-operated with these proceedings by appearing before the court on the day specified, but further progress was prevented by the failure of the sheriff of Suffolk to return the writ ordering the summoning of a jury on this and on a number of subsequent occasions over the next two years. Finally, in the autumn of 1455, the case was sent to the justices of assize in the county who successfully empanelled a jury which acquitted Framlingham of all charges. C219/16/2; CPR, 1452-61, p. 75; KB27/770, rex rots. 3, 26. The continuation of the proceedings against him prompted him to seek a second pardon, which he was eventually granted that November, shortly before the beginning of York’s second protectorate, in which he was described as ‘late of Debenham esquire, alias late of Bawdsey, Suffolk’. C67/41, m. 18. The timing of his acquittals coincided with the rise in the political fortunes of York and his allies. Earlier that year he and his son, John the younger, had attended the county election at which Jenney and another Mowbray retainer, Robert Wingfield*, had been returned. C219/16/3.

In the meantime, Framlingham had continued to be no stranger to controversy in East Anglia, for in 1454 John Wingfield†, then sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, had been commanded to arrest him and ensure his appearance before the King concerning a trespass done to Thomas, Lord Scales. Fortunately for Framlingham, Wingfield, who was also connected with the Mowbrays, failed to comply, despite being distrained to do so on a total of 20 occasions. During a subsequent term as sheriff, in 1471, Wingfield was frequently required to produce him, but failed to do so before his death in 1481 when his widow, Elizabeth, inherited his liability. Bull. IHR, xiii. 147-8. Following the accession of Edward IV, Framlingham had been able to demonstrate his Yorkist credentials once more when he, in the company of (Sir) John Howard*, took part in the military campaigns in the north of England early in 1463. Among the debts subsequently listed by Howard’s accountant was the sum of 20s. ‘lent the iii day of Jenever to John Framyngham gentylman at the sege off Anwyke’. Howard Household Bks. ed. Crawford, i. 181.

Nothing more is directly recorded about Framlingham following this event, and although the Crown continued until 1491 to try to secure his appearance before the King’s bench it is likely that he died much earlier, perhaps in the mid 1470s. By then his son John had married the widow of a London grocer and by the time of his own death in 1495 fathered a son, James, who inherited the family estates in Suffolk. In his will John the younger made provision for the continuation of the chantry in Debenham church ‘in discharge of myne conscience accordyng to the willis of my graundsire and fader’. CCR, 1476-85, p. 19; PCC 11 Horne (PROB11/11, ff. 94v-95).