AUSTELL, John

The origins of the Austell family are obscure, and there is nothing to suggest that before the fifteenth century they held estates of any substance. John, who appears to have had some training in the law, had by 1420 come to the attention of an influential patron in Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, who for the following three years paid him an annuity.9 A.F.J. Sinclair, ‘Beauchamp Earls of Warwick’ (London Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1988), 329. By 1424, however, he had formed a more lasting association with the Somerset see of Bath and Wells. In that year he witnessed deeds for Bishop Bubwith (ultimately including his will, made in October), and he established links with Bubwith’s successor, Bishop John Stafford.10 Reg. Bubwith, ii (Som. Rec. Soc. xxx), 449; Som. Med. Wills, 1501-30 (Som. Rec. Soc. xix), 329; Reg. Stafford, ii (Som. Rec. Soc. xxxii), 225; HMC Wells, ii. 671. He maintained his connexion with the see throughout his life. In 1449 Bishop Bekynton appointed him a collector in the diocese of a clerical subsidy granted by convocation, and even towards the end of the 1450s he was still regularly present in the prelate’s household.11 Reg. Bekynton (Som. Rec. Soc. xlix), 777, 810, 1144, 1145, 1222, 1225, 1231, 1234, 1251, 1294, 1295, 1300, 1318.

It was probably episcopal patronage that provided Austell with a marriage to Margaret, daughter of Elias Fitzpayn, who held extensive estates in Somerset and Devon from the see of Bath and Wells, that in the event was to prove exceptionally advantageous. Through this match, he acquired a claim to the manors of Churchill, Tucker’s Cary, Puxton, Alhampton and Camerton in Somerset, and Cheriton Fitzpaine, Mere, Cove, Combe, East and West Studleigh and Hetherland in Devon. At the time of his death, his Devon holdings alone were assessed at more than £25, but his full income was much greater, for in 1458 he was among the Somerset gentry distrained for their failure to take up knighthood on account of their income in excess of £40 p.a.12 C140/8/17. Yet, when the marriage was contracted it was by no means clear that Margaret would ever inherit her father’s lands, which in the first instance descended to her brother Thomas and later to his son John under a series of complicated settlements.13 Som. Feet of Fines (Som. Rec. Soc. xvii), 124; CP25(1)/44/64/66; Feudal Aids, i. 490; CFR, xvi. 102; Som. and Dorset N. and Q. vii. 104-5; Som. Archs., Crowcombe Ct. mss, DD/TB/34/5/1-8. Even when Margaret stood to inherit after her nephew John’s death in 1432, the survival of his widow Alice meant that six manors remained in her hands until at least 1443.14 CP25(1)/293/70/255, 276. In addition, under a settlement made in 1439 that of Camerton was kept by Margaret’s kinsman Sir William Palton* until his childless death in 1450.15 C139/140/28; CCR, 1447-54, p. 152; CP40/761, rot. 225. It is probable that later friction between Austell and William, Lord Botreaux, a kinsman of Palton’s mother Elizabeth, arose from the settlement of Sir William’s affairs.16 CP40/786, rot. 414.

Beyond doubt, Austell’s efforts to secure his wife’s inheritance were coloured by the prospect of its future division, for while he was able to pass on his name to a bastard son (who was provided for within the Church, rising to become a prebendary of Wells before 1467),17 H. Kleineke, ‘Canonical Books’, Ricardian, xxi. 61-66; Biog. Reg. Univ. Oxf. ed. Emden, i. 77-78. his only legitimate offspring from his marriage to Margaret Fitzpayn (and thus the heirs to her property) were two daughters, Agnes and Joan. By the end of the 1430s Austell had evidently given up hope of fathering a legitimate male heir, and proceeded to put in place arrangements to ensure the smooth passage of the Fitzpayn estates to his daughters. In 1439 lands in Tucker’s Cary, Banwell, Axbridge, Sytecote and Wells were conveyed to Agnes and her husband Thomas Burton, probably as part of their marriage settlement,18 Harl. Ch. 111 D 5. yet in late 1441 these same lands, as well as the manors of Churchill, Puxton and Cheriton Fitzpaine and Margaret’s reversionary interest in Puxton and Camerton were entrusted to a group of feoffees.19 CP25(1)/293/70/255. In the autumn of 1443 the manors of Alhampton and West Studleigh and the reversion of other properties which were still in the possession of Alice Fitzpayn, were conveyed to another group of feoffees,20 CP25(1)/293/70/276; C140/17/24. and a series of grants confirmed Austell and his wife in possession for term of their lives, with remainders ensuring a division of Margaret’s inheritance between Agnes, who after the death of her first husband married Nicholas St. Loe (d.1486), and Joan, who married John Kelly (d.1465). Whereas the bulk of the Somerset estates as well as Hetherland in Devon fell to the St. Loes, Kelly and his wife were eventually to acquire six Devon manors.21 C140/8/17, 17/24, 70/28; CIPM Hen. VII, i. 85, 87; Reg. Bekynton, 1560; Som. and Dorset N. and Q. vii. 104-5.

Perhaps as a result of his association with the episcopal household, Austell appears to have taken up at least occasional residence in Wells by the early 1430s. On 17 Apr. 1432 he was admitted to the freedom of the city, evidently with the specific intention of qualifying for election to that year’s Parliament, to which he was returned by the citizens later on the same day.22 Wells convocation act bk. 1378-1450, p. 279. In subsequent years he played a modest part in city life, arbitrated his neighbours’ disputes, served as one of the auditors of the city accounts in 1437-8 and twice (in 1435 and 1437) formed part of the civic delegation that certified Wells’s parliamentary election result to the sheriff of Somerset. Perhaps as a reward for his good services, in 1434 the city authorities granted him, along with three other burgesses, an annual rent of 4s., and in the autumn of 1444 his standing in the city was recognized by his election as one of the lifetime members of the council of 24.23 Ibid. 295, 300, 314; Wells City Chs. (Som. Rec. Soc. xlvi), 106-7; C219/14/5, 15/1.

Yet, as a substantial south-western landowner Austell also had concerns further afield. He played a part in local administration commensurate with his standing: thus, in 1431 he was among the jurors charged with assessing taxation in Chewton hundred,24 Feudal Aids, iv. 421. and he was regularly present at the shire elections at Ilchester, attesting those of 1427, 1429, 1430 and 1437.25 C219/13/5, 14/1, 2, 15/1. He maintained connexions among the principal landed gentry of Somerset and Devon, including men as important as (Sir) Philip Courtenay* of Powderham and John Bampfield* of Poltimore,26 Som. Feet of Fines (Som. Rec. Soc. xxii), 84, 100, 104-5, 197; Harl. Ch. 46 H 14; CCR, 1435-41, p. 185; 1441-7, pp. 37, 50; CFR, xvii. 79; Bath and N.-E. Som. Archs., Bath Ancient Deeds, BC151/3/60. but was also well regarded among the townsfolk of the region: thus, in 1441-2 he was in receipt of a gift of wine from the burgesses of Bridgwater.27 Bridgwater Bor. Archs. 1400-45 (Som. Rec. Soc. lviii), no. 711. By 1439 Austell’s status in the south-west was such that he was able to secure return to Parliament as knight of the shire for Somerset. A few royal commissions and an appointment to the Somerset bench followed,28 E101/586/10, m. 4. but no major offices were accorded him until 1446, when he was pricked sheriff of Cornwall.

Although Austell established connexions among the Cornish gentry (later, in 1449, he was to stand surety in Chancery for the good behaviour of Henry Bodrugan† towards Robert Curteys†),29 C253/30/157. the appointment was a curious one, as he possessed no lands in that county. It thus probably reflected the regard in which he was held by some at the centre of government (perhaps not least his old patron, the chancellor, John Stafford, who had been translated from Wells to the see of Canterbury in 1443), but is also an example of the regime’s inept handling of the administration of the south-west. As a consequence of his lack of a landed base in Cornwall, he seems to have struggled to carry out his duties, and in the course of 1447 he was repeatedly fined for his official failures.30 CFR, xviii. 69, 71. Worse still, when he came to present his account at the Exchequer, he was found to be owing the huge sum of £1,296 16s. 8d. Proceedings relating to this default continued for over a decade, until he was finally able to secure and plead a royal pardon in January 1458.31 C67/41, m. 14; E159/227, brevia Hil. rot. 27d; 234, Hil. rot. 3.

Austell’s troubled shrievalty did not, apparently, diminish the government’s trust in him, and following his service in the first Parliament of 1449 as a knight of the shire for Devon he was appointed sheriff again that December (this time closer to home, in the double bailliwick of Somerset and Dorset). It seems that by comparison with his first term of office this second shrievalty was uneventful, but not long afterwards his career suffered a setback, and in July 1451 he was removed from the Somerset bench. Whether this demotion arose more from political or personal factors is hard to determine. Certainly, the dismissal of Bishop Stafford as chancellor in January 1450 had lost him a patron at court, but a year later he fell seriously ill; in February 1451 he was excused a personal appearance at the Exchequer in connexion with the ongoing investigation into his Cornish shrievalty on account of ‘the grete sikenesse that he is laboured with’.32 E159/227, brevia Hil. rot. 27d.

Although Austell recovered from this illness, thereafter he led a quieter life. Following the death of Margaret Fitzpayn in or before the spring of 1447 he had remarried, and this second marriage gave him another daughter, Emmota, and finally also a legitimate son, Thomas.33 Som. Med. Wills (Som. Rec. Soc. xvi), 371; Som. Med. Wills, 1501-30, 133; C140/8/17. He probably settled in the city of Wells, where he continued to serve on the council.34 Harl. Ch. 111 D 6. Otherwise, his public activities remained restricted to a few isolated royal commissions. By and large, these were un-contentious appointments, although Austell’s inclusion in the commission of array appointed in December 1459 to prepare for a possible invasion by the Yorkist lords from the stronghold of Calais does indicate that the ageing esquire was still regarded as a reliable supporter of Henry VI’s administration. The victorious Yorkists who seized the reins of government the following summer, in the aftermath of the battle of Northampton, found no use for his services.

Austell died on 8 June 1462, leaving his son Thomas as his heir.35 C140/8/17. Thomas was then said to be only eight years old, but must have been older for by 1466 he was assisting his mother with the execution of Austell’s will.36 CP40/810, rot. 39; 818, rot. 288d. There was little for him to inherit: since the lands of Austell’s first wife had descended to her daughters, he had to join his half-brother in seeking to make his way in the Church. Like John, Thomas was sent to Oxford, and he eventually acquired prebends at Salisbury, Exeter and Wells, and rose to become treasurer of Exeter cathedral, where he chose to be buried at his death in 1515.37 Biog. Reg. Univ. Oxf. 78; Som. Med. Wills, 1501-30, 132; HMC Wells, ii. 239. Within a few years of her husband’s death, Austell’s widow had married the also recently widowed Hugh Champernowne of Modbury.38 CP40/818, rot. 288d; Wells convocation act bk. 1450-1553, p. 82.