NORTON, Thomas (d.1449), of Bristol.

When elected to his sole Parliament Norton was styled a ‘merchant’ but in many respects his career was more typical of a member of the landed gentry. The Nortons were not lacking in land, for his father and namesake had benefited greatly from the generosity of Elias Spelly†, one of the wealthiest Bristol merchants of the late fourteenth century. The exact connexion between Spelly and the elder Thomas Norton is unknown, although it is possible that the latter was a relative or junior business associate of his benefactor. When he made his will in 1391, the childless Spelly left a substantial number of properties in Bristol, including the New Inn in the High Street, to his protégé, and all his property in the city of Worcester to the latter’s son, the subject of this biography. In return for these bequests, the older Thomas had to provide Spelly’s widow, Agnes, with an annuity of £20 and the younger Thomas was expected to found a chantry in memory of their benefactor at St. Oswald’s chapel, Worcester. Very soon afterwards, the Nortons acquired other parts of Spelly’s estates. In the following year Agnes Spelly conveyed a third part of the manor of Kingston Seymour in Somerset, along with a mill and the advowson of the parish church there, to the elder Thomas, who also took possession of a third part of the manor of Stathe in the same county. Another property that had belonged to Agnes’s late husband, also at Stathe, was treated as a manor in its own right by the mid fifteenth century. The elder Thomas made another significant acquisition in 1401 when he bought two adjacent messuages at Bristol lying between St. Peter’s church and the river Avon. He took up residence on that site, converting his acquisitions into one of the finest houses in the town. Ibid.; Bristol Wills (Bristol and Glos. Arch. Soc. 1886), 26-28; Lambeth Palace Lib., Reg. Stafford, ff. 184v-185. When he was assessed for taxation purposes in 1412, his holdings at Bristol were valued at £40 p.a. and those in Somerset at the same amount. Feudal Aids, vi. 448, 510.

Although the younger Thomas’s bequest from Elias Spelly does not feature in the surviving records for the subsidy of 1412, his holdings at Worcester were valued at £5 p.a. for the purposes of that of 1431, in the records of which he is styled as ‘of Bristol, esquire’. Ibid. v. 325. Despite this description, he should not to be confused with another namesake of him and his father, who also attained armigerous status. This other Thomas Norton, given the sobriquet ‘junior’, was assessed for the subsidy of 1412 as possessed of the manor of Wraxall and other lands in Somerset worth £40 a year, and of property at Devizes in Wiltshire worth a further four marks. He had come into possession of Wraxall through his advantageous marriage six or more years earlier to Agnes, sister of Sir Thomas Beauchamp* of Whitelackington and widow of Thomas Gorges (d.1404). Gorges had awarded her a valuable jointure estate comprising Wraxall and lands at Flax Bourton and Nailsea. Ibid. 511, 536; CIPM, xviii. 892-5; PCC 47 Marche (PROB11/2B, f. 144). The Commons 1386-1421, iii. 854, wrongly assumed that the Thomas who married Agnes Gorges was the future MP. Her new husband (as Thomas Norton ‘esquire’) presented to the church at Wraxall in 1406 and 1410 and others (presumably his feoffees) in 1416. These feoffees included Thomas Norton, son of Thomas Norton of Bristol, a strong indication that Agnes’s husband and the subject of this biography were kinsmen. Reg. Bowet (Som. Rec. Soc. xiii), 64; Reg. Bubwith, i (Som. Rec. Soc. xxix), 6, 266. Conceivably, Thomas of Wraxall was an older brother of the latter, perhaps born of an earlier undocumented marriage of Thomas the elder. A Thomas, son of Thomas Norton, had been commissioned with his father to investigate an act of piracy in 1403: CPR, 1401-5, p. 360. As befitted his status as a landowner, the Wraxall Thomas participated in Henry V’s expeditions to France in 1415 and 1417, on the former occasion crossing the Channel with William, Lord Botreaux, whose estates lay predominantly in south-west England and included holdings in Bristol. It is very likely that Botreaux was at Agincourt, so it is possible that Thomas himself fought there. In early 1416, a couple of months after the victorious English army had arrived home, Thomas of Wraxall received a royal pardon, as ‘of Somerset, esquire’. When he returned to France in the summer of 1417 it was as a retainer of Sir William Bourgchier†, DKR, xliv. 566, 591; E101/45/18; 51/2; N.H. Nicolas, Agincourt, 128n, 168; C67/37, mm. 13, 14. but he died not long afterwards (perhaps without ever returning home) for when Agnes made her will on 28 Aug. 1419 she was again a widow, and left bequests for prayers for Norton’s soul. PCC 47 Marche. She died on 8 Oct.: CIPM, xxi. 231. Wraxall then descended to her son Theobald Gorges* alias Russell.

Not long afterwards, the late Thomas of Wraxall’s namesake, the future MP, became involved in family affairs at Bristol, namely his father’s extremely protracted dispute with Thomas Stamford. Stamford was both a fellow burgess of Bristol and a clerk of the Chancery under the first two Lancastrian Kings. As far as the elder Thomas Norton was concerned, the quarrel revolved around two issues. First, he alleged that Stamford had deliberately destroyed a deed relating to some of the properties formerly belonging to Elias Spelly; secondly, he accused his opponent of having brought a false action for debt in Surrey against him. An indictment that the mayor and sheriff of Bristol took against the subject of this biography, his brother Walter and one of their father’s servants in September 1420 reveals the bitter nature of the quarrel. According to the presenting jurors, the three men and a gang of armed followers had attacked and attempted to murder Stamford at Bristol on the night of the previous 30 July. Through the indictment, the Norton brothers and the servant were obliged to appear at Westminster in the person of their attorney on the following 12 Nov. They pleaded not guilty and the matter was referred to a jury; but a trial had yet to occur a year later. The alleged assault also featured in a petition that Stamford and his father presented to the Parliament of 1420, and in another that he alone submitted to that of December 1421. Later in the same decade, the elder Thomas Norton brought a successful suit in King’s bench over the Surrey action and won damages of 400 marks. As a result, Stamford suffered a lengthy period of imprisonment but the quarrel was not resolved and continued after the elder Thomas died. The Commons 1386-1421, iii. 853-4 (which fails to notice Stamford’s employment in the Chancery); KB27/638, rex rot. 23d; 641, rex rot. 23; 673, rots. 45, 45d; SC8/27/1307-8; 141/7030, 7033; 198/9897.

Although the date of the elder Thomas’s death is unrecorded, it probably occurred in early 1435 since his surviving sons, Thomas and Walter, had succeeded to his mansion at Bristol by June that year. The brothers divided the property into separate residences, the subject of this biography taking possession of the eastern half and Walter the western. The Commons 1386-1421, iii. 854; Trans. Bristol and Arch. Soc. xxii. 272; xxix. 29; xlviii. 198. It is usually stated that Thomas occupied the eastern side of the house, although Trans. Bristol and Arch. Soc. lxi. 96-97 would have him in possession of the western. Thomas also inherited his father’s holdings at Kingston Seymour and Stathe and, presumably, the bulk of the elder Thomas’s interests at Bristol. The surviving evidence does not suggest that he was active in the town’s property market after his father’s death. Although he was a party to conveyances at Bristol in 1440 and 1442 it was probably only as a feoffee. Recs. All Saints Bristol, iii (Bristol Rec. Soc. lvi), 400, 401, 413.

The Norton brothers were their father’s executors, in which capacity they brought a petition against their old enemy Thomas Stamford in the Commons of the Parliament of 1437, of which the subject of this biography was himself a Member. Returned at an election attested by his brother, it is likely that he had stood for the Commons primarily to advance the petition. SC8/27/1308. Thomas was also involved in other quarrels in this period, KB27/705, rot. 45d; 706, rot. 79d; 707, rot. 71; 710, rot. 23; E5/510. but these were easily overshadowed by the dispute with Stamford. In presenting their complaint, the Nortons were supported by Thomas Halewey, Nicholas Devenish, John Papenham and John Shipwarde (probably the father of the MP of the same name), all of whom also put their names to the petition. Referring to the late elder Thomas Norton’s winning of damages of 400 marks against Stamford, the petitioners added that the judicial authorities had ordered the latter to compound for his offences with the Crown as well, and committed him to the Marshalsea prison until he had satisfied both the elder Thomas and the King. Rather than comply, however, Stamford had pursued a suit alleging that the jury that had tried the case between him and his opponent had delivered a false verdict. Although this action had failed and the court had directed that he should remain in prison until he paid a further large fine to the Crown, he had continued to trouble the petitioners with other vexatious suits, aided by the support of his warden in the Marshalsea and other ‘false persons’. Hearing of his misbehaviour, the authorities had removed him from the Marshalsea and placed him in the Fleet prison, but now he was suing for a transfer back to the Marshalsea, to enable him to influence King’s bench juries against the petitioners and to corrupt his fellow prisoners. The petition had a two-fold purpose. First, the petitioners prayed that Stamford should remain in the Fleet until he had paid all the fines that he owed the Crown and fully satisfied the elder Thomas Norton’s sons and executors of the 400 marks. Secondly, they asked that they, their opponent and the two chief justices should appear before the chancellor for an examination of all suits that Stamford still had pending against the petitioners, in order to bring any of those actions that were feigned to an end. The Crown accepted these requests, while reserving for Stamford the right of appeal, whether by writ of error or attaint. In July 1437, within four months of the dissolution of the same Parliament, Stamford obtained a royal pardon, C67/38, m. 8. but he was still in the Fleet in mid 1439, CP40/714, rot. 135. and it was as a prisoner that he submitted a petition of his own to the King and Lords in the Parliament of 1445. In the petition, he referred to himself as ‘writer of the great seal’ under Henry IV and Henry V. Complaining that he had been 17 years a prisoner as a result of the suit that the elder Thomas Norton had brought against him, he alleged errors in that action and sought to have the judgement overturned. In response to Stamford’s petition, the court of King’s bench and the sheriff of Bristol were directed in late 1445 to send records of the case into Parliament for inspection by the King and Lords. The sheriff was also ordered to ensure that the Norton brothers, Thomas and Walter, appeared before the King at Westminster on 24 Jan. 1446, the opening day of the final parliamentary session, for examination in the same matter. Although the authorities treated Stamford’s petition seriously, it is unclear whether it achieved its purpose since none of the surviving evidence records the outcome of his appeal. SC8/198/9897; C49/50/3;

In November 1446, the Crown issued Thomas Norton with a pardon describing him as his father’s son and heir and executor, but it is impossible to tell whether it had any connexion with the quarrel with Stamford. C67/39, m. 13. By early 1449, he was embroiled in another dispute, this time with Sir Edward Hull* of Somerset and the Northamptonshire esquire Thomas Wake*. Hull and Wake had respectively married Margery and Agnes, the daughters and coheirs of Sir Thomas Lovell† of Clevedon in Somerset, and it was in association with their wives that they sued Norton in the court of common pleas, claiming that he was detaining a muniment chest and its contents from them. In bringing their suit, the plaintiffs were challenging his title to Stathe, which Elias Spelly had acquired in 1366 by virtue of a mortgage for 450 marks that he had given to the women’s ancestor Sir Edmund Clevedon†. CP40/752, rot. 271.

The suit was still pending when Norton died on 28 Nov. 1449. He left no surviving issue, meaning that his heir was his brother Walter. C139/137/13; CP40/758, rot. 243. In his will, made eight days before he died and proved on the following 16 Feb., he asked to be buried next to his parents’ tomb in his home parish church of St. Peter’s, Bristol. The will shows that he had no intention of admitting that the Hulls and Wakes had any claim to Stathe, since he directed the feoffees of that property to use its income to fulfil his bequests and other depositions. First, they were to pay for a couple of priests to sing for the souls of him and his parents in St. Peter’s for a period of five years after his death. Secondly, they were to bestow £50 on each of his unmarried nieces, Walter Norton’s daughters Agnes and Elizabeth. Thirdly, they were to settle lands within the manor to the value of £20 p.a. on one Joan Balle for life. Fourthly, Robert Spichesley was to have an annuity of ten marks, again for life, from the same property, while Joan wife of Richard Cokke and one of the testator’s servants were to receive gifts of £10 and 40s. respectively. Finally, the feoffees were to honour a debt of £4 that Norton owed Thomas Fylour of London. Once the feoffees had distributed all of these sums, they were to settle Stathe on his nephew and namesake, the younger of Walter’s two sons, when the boy had attained his majority. Should this younger Thomas Norton die without issue, his elder brother – confusingly also named Thomas Norton – and his children were to succeed, with like remainders to Walter’s daughters, to Walter himself, to the children of the testator’s sister Alice Wode (late the wife of John Wode) and then to his right heirs. Norton also directed his executors to dispose of the residue of his moveable property for the good of his soul. He appointed five executors in all, his fellow burgesses, William Pavy* and Robert Joce, and the clerks, Master John Gomond, John Sylond and John Lucas, each of whom was to have £10 for his trouble. Reg. Stafford, ff. 184v-185; Bristol Wills, 140.

Following the MP’s death, the Hulls and Wakes began a new lawsuit against his brother and heir, Walter Norton, who had entered and occupied Stathe for himself, in flagrant violation of his brother’s will. The pleadings were heard at Westminster in Trinity term 1450. First, the plaintiffs demanded the return of the muniment chest mentioned in their earlier suit against Walter’s dead brother and of which, they now alleged, Walter had taken possession in 1426 in his capacity as Sir Edmund Clevedon’s executor. Secondly, they claimed that Walter should relinquish Stathe to them as Clevedon’s heirs, because the mortgage on that property had long since been discharged. Finally, they claimed enormous damages of £1,000. In the suit they claimed that Stathe was worth £40 p.a., although an inquisition concerning the late MP’s lands in Somerset valued it at just half that much. Walter responded to the suit by securing an adjournment to the following Michaelmas term and the matter was settled out of court soon afterwards. It was agreed that he might retain the property, which the Hulls and Wakes formally granted to him in October 1450. In reality, it is very unlikely the mortgage had ever been redeemed. The plaintiffs were probably well aware of this, suggesting that they had blackmailed Walter, using the suit to extract money from him in return for leaving him in peaceful possession. CP40/758, rot. 243; C139/137/13; CCR, 1447-54, pp. 244-5; Som. Feet of Fines, ii (Som. Rec. Soc. xxii), 114.

Despite Walter’s agreement with such significant opponents, his occupation of Stathe caused further disputes. In the early 1450s, two of his late brother’s feoffees, William Pavy and Robert Joce, quite rightly challenged his right to that property by suing him for forcible entry there. He had also ridden roughshod over the interests of Joan Balle, and she sued him, Pavy and Joce in the Chancery in the same period. She asserted that Walter had broken a promise he had made to his brother while the latter was on his deathbed, by denying her possession of lands at Stathe that the late MP had awarded her for life in his will. Her complaint against Pavy and Joce was that they had refused to re-enter Stathe after Walter had occupied it in order to assign the lands to her. In response, Pavy referred to the conveyance that the Hulls and Wakes had made to Walter in October 1450 and stated he had dared not re-enter for fear of the consequences. As for Joce, he acknowledged that he had not made estate to Joan but blamed the impasse on Walter, for obstructing the performance of his brother’s will. CP40/765, rots. 475, 475d; C1/19/323-6.

There was yet more discord over the Norton estates in the following decade, a consequence of Walter Norton’s decision in the late 1450s to set aside the bulk of his real property in Bristol and Worcestershire for his younger son. Still a minor in 1467, the latter was perhaps the offspring of a second marriage. What caused Walter partially to disinherit the boy’s elder brother must remain a matter for speculation, although it is possible that the elder Thomas, who was to become a figure of considerable notoriety at Bristol, had in some way gravely offended his father. To aggravate the situation, Walter appears to have had second thoughts about his controversial arrangement at one point in the mid 1460s, prompting the protesting younger Thomas to have it formally upheld by the municipal authorities. Trans. Bristol Arch. Soc. xxii. 273; xlviii. 199; Gt. Red Bk. of Bristol, iii (Bristol Rec. Soc. xvi), 139-42, 145-9. It is not clear when Walter Norton died since his will, made on 6 Sept. 1466, bears no date of probate. He was buried in St. Peter’s, alongside his parents and elder brother. Gt. Red Bk. of Bristol, iii. 112-13. It appears that his sons were never reconciled with each other after his death, and in 1479 the common council of Bristol accused the elder Thomas of having deprived the younger of his estates, engineered his imprisonment in the Savoy and driven him to seek refuge abroad. Furthermore, they alleged, he had caused his brother’s death by forcing him into exile, because the unfortunate younger Thomas had drowned when the ship on which he had embarked had sunk en route to Spain. On the other hand, the town’s authorities had every reason to try to blacken the elder Thomas’s name, since these claims were made during his celebrated dispute with Mayor William Spencer† whom he had charged with treason, perhaps out of resentment for the support that Spencer, while previously mayor in 1465-6, had given to his younger brother. In due course, the matter came before the King, who dismissed the case against Spencer after personally examining Norton at Sheen. During the quarrel, Norton asserted membership of Edward IV’s household but his opponents doubted his claim, which the surviving records do not support. He had however served the King in local government, most notably as sheriff in Gloucestershire and Somerset and Dorset. Whatever his flaws, he was also a man of some accomplishment since he was the author of the Ordinal, an influential alchemical manual in verse that enjoyed considerable popularity through the sixteenth century and beyond. He died in 1513. Trans. Bristol Arch. Soc. xlviii. 200-1; Gt. Red Bk. of Bristol, iv. (Bristol Rec. Soc. xviii), 57-93; Oxf. DNB, ‘Norton, Thomas’; C.D. Ross, Edw. IV, 102, 303.