ASTLEY, Thomas

Astley represented a junior branch of a minor baronial family, long established at Astley in Warwickshire. In 1350 his great-grandfather, another Thomas, had been the last of the family to be summoned to Parliament; and on the death in about 1417 of the last lord’s son, Sir William, the bulk of the family’s lands had passed to Sir William’s daughter, Joan, her husband, Reynold, Lord Grey of Ruthin, and their son, Edward, later Lord Ferrers of Groby.3 CP, i. 283-4; C. Carpenter, Locality and Polity, 314. None the less, the male line of the family survived in the descendants of our MP’s grandfather, Sir Thomas Astley† (d.c.1400). Although Sir Thomas does not appear to have benefited from any family settlement, he acquired a landed endowment through marriage, in about 1368, to Elizabeth, daughter and heiress of Sir Richard Harcourt of Stanton Harcourt in Oxfordshire by Joan, daughter of the famous c.j.KB, Sir William Shareshull (d.1361).4 CIPM, xii. 360. In one sense this was not quite the excellent match it appears, for a significant part of the Harcourt inheritance, including the manor of Stanton Harcourt itself, was settled in tail-male. The bride’s inheritance was confined to manors at Nailstone in Leicestershire and Bingley in Yorkshire. She also brought the Astleys the troubled possession of the valuable manor of Ellenhall, but the male line of the Harcourts never accepted its loss and in 1430 our MP’s father surrendered his claim to them.5 S. Shaw, Staffs. ii (1), 282; Peds. Plea Rolls ed. Wrottesley, 132; KB27/674, rex rot. 28; Wm. Salt Arch. Soc. xi. 230-1. As late as 1442, however, our MP’s mother was suing Robert Harcourt for dower in Ellenhall: CP40/726, rot. 470d. If, however, Elizabeth disappointed in bringing the Astleys only the lesser part of her paternal inheritance, in another sense she far exceeded expectations. Long after her death she fell coheiress in her issue to the substantial estate built up by Chief Justice Shareshull.6 With respect to the descent of the Shareshull inheritance, considerable confusion has been caused by Putnam’s false identification of Elizabeth’s mother, Joan, as the chief justice’s sister rather than daughter. She compounds this error by inventing a marriage between Isabel (b.c.1397), da. and h. of a later Richard Harcourt by Margaret, niece of Sir William Shareshull (d.1400), and Thomas Astley, whom she does not place in that family’s pedigree: B.H. Putnam, Sir William Shareshull, 12, ped. facing 158. This Isabel died young and childless. The first beneficiary was to be our MP. At his birth, however, this windfall was yet only a prospect, and his certain expectations were modest, particularly after the loss of Ellenhall. On his father’s death in December 1432, when he was probably little more than of age, he inherited property valued in the Leicestershire subsidy returns of 1436 at no more than £22 p.a. The Yorkshire property remained in the hands of his mother until 1438 when she leased it to him at an annual rent of £20.7 CP40/693, rot. 135; 696, rot. 102d; Wm. Salt Arch. Soc. xvii. 150; E179/192/59; Shaw, ii (1), 282.

As compensation for lack of acres, Astley could comfort himself with the thought that he was both better-born and better-connected than most men of similar means. His mother, from a leading gentry family closely attached to the duchy of Lancaster, had served as Henry VI’s nurse until 1424 and had remained in royal favour thereafter.8 For royal grants to her: e.g. CPR, 1436-41, p. 204; 1461-7, p. 122. Thomas seems to have been on close terms with her family: in March 1441 he and her father, Sir Thomas Gresley, were named as feoffees in the property of his widowed sister, and in the following October he acted for her brother, Sir John Gresley*, in arrangements on the marriage of Sir John’s daughter, Thomasina, to Hugh Wrottesley of Wrottesley (Staffordshire).9 Harl. Ch. 80 A 15; Wm. Salt Arch. Soc. n.s. vi. (2), 207-9. It was probably Astley’s family connexions that enabled him and his younger brothers, John and Richard, to find places in the royal household. In Easter term 1437, when defendant in a plea of debt, he was described as ‘once of Nailstone, alias junior, alias of the royal household’; and thereafter he appears in all the lists of esquires in receipt of household robes which survive from the period of Henry VI’s majority, that is, from 1441 to 1452.10 CP40/705, rot. 165; E101/409/9, 410/9. His household service suggests he is to be identified with the namesake who served in France between 1440 and 1442, but there are other candidates: E159/217, brevia Mich. rot. 2d; Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris, fr. mss, 25776/1581. His royal service explains why, so early in his career, he was elected to Parliament. At the Leicestershire hustings held on 29 Nov. 1436 he was returned in company with Richard Hotoft*. It is slightly surprising to find that he was not re-elected to the next Parliament, which met in November 1439, for on that occasion his sister Margaret, widow of the Welsh knight, Sir Thomas Malefaunt, presented a petition to the Commons, complaining that she had been forcibly married and raped by Sir Thomas’s servant, Lewse Leyson alias Lewse Gethei, late of Glamorgan.11 C219/15/1; PROME, xi. 271-3.

The early promise of Astley’s career was not to be fully realized. Its course was disturbed by a series of disputes as he chose to pursue property claims that would have been better left dormant. He chose, for example, to revive the Harcourt claim, under the terms of a final concord levied as long before as 1257, to the manor of Newton Harcourt in Leicestershire. This had led to litigation late in Richard II’s reign, and Astley renewed it in the autumn of 1439, by suing Leonard Hastings*. The matter was soon compromised. On the following 2 Dec. our MP demised the manor to Leonard, and in Hilary term 1440 the Hastings title was confirmed by final concord.12 CP40/715, rots. 125, 329; CCR, 1435-41, p. 345; CP25(1)/126/76/53. Here Astley may have gained – Hastings paying for this confirmation – but the revival of ancient claims was hardly calculated to endear him to his neighbours.

As this dispute was ending Astley became involved in another. Its origins are not entirely clear but it looks as though either he or his father had purchased the property of an impoverished Leicestershire gentleman, John Burgeys, and that the purchase was contested. However this may be, in October 1439 our MP brought a writ of entry against a rival claimant, William Betley, a filacer of the court of King’s bench, for 40 messuages, a water mill, 400 acres of land and 50 acres of meadow in Coventry. Here he was acting in concert with John Burgeys’s son, William, who was perhaps hoping to save some of the family property from his father’s alienations: in Michaelmas term 1440 Betley sued Astley for maintaining Burgeys in an action of formedon concerning the same Coventry property. None the less, despite Betley’s influence as a filacer, Astley and Burgeys had every hope of victory, particularly as they enjoyed the active support of Astley’s kinsman, Edward, Lord Ferrers of Groby, who was Burgeys’s master. On 13 Apr. 1442 Astley, in company with Henry Boteler II*, a lawyer from Coventry, and a yeoman in Grey’s service, forcibly entered on the Betleys.13 CP40/716, rot. 130; KB27/718, rot. 109d; 719, rot. 72d; 724, rot. 79d. Unfortunately for our MP, however, Betley was not his only rival. In October Burgeys disseised no less a man than John, Viscount Beaumont, and others of property at Somerby, Little Dalby and Burrough-on-the-Hill in Leicestershire, once belonging to Burgeys’s father, and he was both indicted and sued for forcible entry.14 KB27/738, rot. 119; 740, rot. 84; KB9/251/14. Beaumont was here a feoffee of John Dansey, another claimant, and Burgeys was acting at the behest of Astley. Whatever the legal rights and wrongs, it was an uneven struggle. Dansey, once a servant of Joan Beauchamp, Lady Abergavenny, was connected not only with Beaumont but also with Lady Joan’s grandson, Sir James Butler, later earl of Wiltshire, and Astley wisely accepted defeat: in May 1447 he quitclaimed to Beaumont, Dansey and others all his right in the lands in Somerby and Little Dalby, receiving the very modest compensation of a quitclaim from them of annual rents of 16 ounces of pepper and 5s., once of John Burgeys.15 CCR, 1447-54, p. 17; KB27/746, rot. 10d. In 1449 he made a further quitclaim of former Burgeys property at nearby Melton Mowbray and Thorpe Arnold: CCR, 1447-54, p. 172.

This setback was accompanied by another, involving the former Burgeys manor of Leesthorpe. Here Astley’s opponent was the Rutland lawyer, Thomas Flore*, whose father had allegedly purchased it from John Burgeys in 1422. Astley won the first round. Litigation began in the mid 1440s, when he sued Flore for fabricating false deeds and his other rival, John Dansey, for maintaining Flore in that action. At the Leicestershire assizes of February 1453, a judgement, with damages of 100 marks and £40 in costs, was given in his favour in an assize of novel disseisin. Victory was, however, short lived. Flore sued a writ of error, and in 1455 the judgement was overturned and the property restored to him with damages of £35.16 CCR, 1422-9, pp. 47-48; VCH Leics. v. 278; CP40/743, rots. 91, 394d; KB27/743, rot. 24; 773, rot. 23; 778, rot. 21; 785, rot. 77. Our MP’s attempts to secure some of the Burgeys lands had ended in entire failure.

When it finally came, however, this defeat mattered to Astley much less than it would have done earlier. His circumstances had been greatly improved by the impending failure of the issue of Sir William Shareshull (d.1367), eldest son of the chief justice. When that issue failed the coheirs to the Shareshull inheritance would be the descendants of the chief justice’s three daughters, one of whom was Astley’s great-grandmother, Joan Harcourt. This much is clear. What is less certain is why Astley was able to acquire the manors of Patshull in Staffordshire, which he adopted as his residence, and Boningale in Shropshire to the exclusion of the other coheirs. By a deed of about 1438-9, now lost, these manors were settled on the last surviving descendant of the chief justice’s son, Joan, widow of William Lee†, for term of her life, with successive remainders in fee tail to our MP and his four brothers.17 Shaw, ii (1), 282; Putnam, 12. Joan survived until 1451, but even before her death Astley was holding these manors. In 1445 he sued a franklin of Wenlock for illegally taking fish at Boningale; and in the same year he was described as ‘of Patshull’ when sued by the courtier, John Sutton, Lord Dudley, on a plea of decies tantum.18 CP40/738, rot. 76d; KB27/737, rot. 24; 738, rot. 34. There is no evidence to show either why Joan was ready to ignore the interests of the other coheirs or why she surrendered her life interest, although she does seem to have been on close terms with our MP for she named him as one of her executors.19 CP40/787, rot. 252.

Astley quickly came to play a more prominent part in Staffordshire affairs than he had done in Leicestershire. In 1446 he was elected as verderer in the forest of Kinver; in November 1448 he twice witnessed deeds for the keeper of the forest, John Hampton II*, one of the leaders of local society; and two years later he was one of the many prominent gentry of the county sued for maintenance by Sir Richard Vernon*. More importantly, on 22 Oct. 1450 he attested the county parliamentary election, when his kinsman, John Gresley*, was one of those elected, and a year later he was pricked as sheriff.20 C242/11/5; CCR, 1447-54, pp. 170, 179; KB27/757, rot. 31; C219/16/1. Here again, though, after what might be described as a second start to his career, he did not go on to prosper. The reason is unclear, but it may have had something to do with rival claims to his Shareshull inheritance. In the inquisition post mortem taken on Joan Lee’s death the heirs to the Shareshulls were returned as Richard Beaufo, an Oxfordshire esquire, and Joan, wife of Sir John Dynham, a wealthy west-country knight, both of whom were descendants of the chief justice’s daughter, Agnes. In 1454 they asserted their claim by suing Astley for detaining charters, and a more detailed search of the plea rolls would no doubt reveal similar actions.21 C139/145/10; CP40/774, rots. 157d, 212. These pressures explain Astley’s willingness to negotiate with his rivals. On 11 Feb. 1455 he entered into a tripartite indenture with Beaufo and William Raleigh of Farnborough in Warwickshire (a descendant of the chief justice’s daughter, Katherine), witnessing a complex agreement. The parties undertook to co-operate in the recovery of those parts of the Shareshull estates wrongfully in the hands of others, but this recovery would, in the first instance at least, benefit Beaufo and Raleigh rather than our MP. Recovered land to one and a half times the value of the two manors in Astley’s hands was to be divided between Raleigh and Beaufo in the proportion of two to one. Astley was only to have a share if he could show that the other parties were legally barred from claiming the two manors, or if land of greater value were to be recovered (such further property was to be divided three ways). If land sufficient to compensate Raleigh and Beaufo was not recovered within four years and they could prove that the two manors were entailed to Shareshull and his issue (and that the entail was unbarred), then Astley was to compensate them himself. This agreement offered little to Astley. There was only the remotest possibility of him adding to the two Shareshull manors that he held; and, if it could be shown that the two manors were entailed to the issue of the chief justice, he would have to compensate the other two claimants. All he gained was a promise that Raleigh and Beaufo would not sue him for the manors for four years and their agreement to contribute to the costs of defending the inheritance against Dynham.22 Add. 28564, ff. 65-66.

There is no direct evidence to reveal Astley’s sympathies during the civil war of 1459-61. His service in Henry VI’s household may have inclined him to Lancaster. In this context, it is perhaps indicative that he should have used the confusion of these years to create difficulties for the Yorkist Sir Robert Harcourt*, his rival not only for the manor of Ellenhall but also for part of the Shareshull lands. He was one of those later sued by Harcourt for close-breaking at Stanton Harcourt, and it may be that his motive was both personal and political.23 CP40/810, rot. 253. On the other hand, Thomas had an important family connexion with the new regime. His brother, Sir John, a famous soldier, was a committed Yorkist, who benefited substantially from Edward IV’s patronage.24 For Sir John’s long and remarkable career: Edw. IV’s French Expedition of 1475 ed. Barnard, 42-47. This may explain why our MP was added to the bench in Staffordshire and appeared on three gaol delivery commissions on the 1460s. Yet the new reign can hardly have been said to have brought him a new prominence. His removal from the commission of the peace during the Readeption was probably a function of age and inactivity rather than active Yorkist sympathies.

Almost nothing is known of Astley’s last years. In the early 1470s he petitioned the chancellor against one Richard Bokenhill, who had allegedly failed to convey to him a messuage he had purchased in Worfield near Boningale.25 CPR, 1467-77, p. 630; C1/48/492. A few years later he took a second wife. The identity of his first is unknown, but, by 1478, he had married Margaret, the widow of a Staffordshire esquire. Their marriage was only a brief one, for he last appears in the records on 8 Oct. 1483, when, together with his son and heir, William, he witnessed a charter of Margaret’s son, John Cawarden.26 CP40/867, rot. 317; Shaw, i. 181; Add. Ch. 73213. On his death soon afterwards he was buried near his new home at Patshull in the church of Wolverhampton, of which he had been a benefactor. The family remained at Patshull until about 1765, when the property was sold by Sir John Astley†, and failed in the male line on Sir John’s death in 1771.27 Shaw, ii (2), 283; The Commons 1754-90, ii. 29-30.