BRAY, John

Bray is probably to be identified with the namesake, described as ‘of Rothersthorpe’, just outside Northampton, who, in 1408, entered into a statute staple in 40 marks to a Northampton ironmonger, John Gregory. His parentage is unknown, but he was no doubt a kinsman of Roger Bray, a Northampton mercer who committed suicide in June 1421. Our MP was one of the jurors who testified that the dead man’s goods were worth nearly £20.1 C241/201/21; E153/1285. His own career conformed to a pattern common among the MPs for Northampton in that his official career consisted of a single term as bailiff followed soon afterwards by a lone return to Parliament. Most of what is known of his career comes from two petitions arising out of his troubled term as bailiff. The first of these, presented to the chancellor, implies that these troubles were serious. He and his fellow bailiff, Thomas Colley†, complained that, in carrying out their legitimate duties, they had incurred the hostility of a mercer of the town, William Clerk†, and that this had made it impossible for them to discharge their office. If their complaint is to be credited, the quarrel arose out of a pledge Clerk had offered on behalf of a defendant in the borough court but whom he had failed to produce. This default led the bailiffs, of whom the defendant was technically a prisoner, to be found liable for the debt and damages in which the court condemned the defendant, and they, not unreasonably, turned to Clerk for redress. On his refusal to compensate them they attempted to levy the debt and damages by distraining his goods and were physically assaulted for their pains. Worse still, Clerk’s hostility was such that they dared not exercise their office and were thus unable to collect the fee farm of £120 due to the Crown. This alleged inability to levy the farm implies an element of special pleading and it may well be that the bailiffs were exaggerating a local dispute as an explanation for their financial shortcomings.2 C1/69/385.

More straightforward difficulties underpin Bray’s second petition. Here there is no reason to doubt its basic veracity. He and Colley complained that, after their condemnation on 16 July 1420 in damages of £10 before justices of inquiry for the escape of two felons from Northampton gaol, two records of the case had come before the Exchequer (the one of this inquiry, the other of an inquest before the town coroners). Unfortunately for them these two records varied in the date they gave to the escape and the Exchequer thus acted upon them as separate offences, condemning the bailiffs in damages of another £10. The petitioners asked that this second fine be rescinded. More interesting than the petition’s complaints is, however, its date. The undated petition was addressed to the King in Parliament and it is tempting to conclude that Bray’s enthusiasm to forward it in person explains his return to Parliament in 1422. This temptation is probably to be resisted. The petition bears the superscription ‘per comitem Wygornensis xv die Martii’ and not until 1426 was a Parliament in session or prorogation on 15 Mar. Problematically, however, there was no earl of Worcester between the death of Richard Beauchamp at the siege of Meaux on 18 Mar. 1422 and the elevation to the earldom of John Tiptoft in July 1449. It may therefore be that the petition was presented to Beauchamp on 15 Mar. 1421 in anticipation of the Parliament summoned on the previous 26 Feb. to meet on 2 May.3 SC8/96/4761.

After his election in 1422, nothing more is known of Bray before the autumn of 1429, when he stood as mainpernor with John Bertram* for the attendance of Henry Stone* at Parliament, and was also sued by Joan Balde for dumping several cartloads of earth, timber and stone so near the walls of her house in the town as to endanger its structure. This case put out nisi prius before justices of assize at Northampton on 18 July 1430, but no verdict was returned as some of the jurors were deemed ‘suspectuosi’.4 C219/14/1; KB27/674, rot. 106; 677, rot. 25d; 678, rot. 47. Of greater interest is a petition Bray presented in Chancery at a slightly later date. He claimed that he and John Bosworth* (who, incidentally, was the husband of John Gregory’s widow) had entered into a bond to Thomas Swayn, a dyer of Coventry, in the sum of £53 as payment for 22 cloths of violet, but the dyer had failed to deliver the cloths within the agreed period and the seals had been duly pulled from the bond. None the less, Swayn ‘of high fraude soteltee and dissayte ... kytte oute newe agneys’ of the bond, sealed it again with his own seal and sued on it before the mayor and bailiffs of Northampton. Bray asked that the borough court be required to suspend the matter, but this resulted only in Swayn resuming the action in the court of common pleas for, soon after February 1436, Bray was outlawed there for his failure to answer. The matter was closed in June 1440, when he was pardoned his outlawry.5 C1/12/66; CP40/705, rot. 42; CPR, 1436-41, p. 335.

Little else is known of the latter part of Bray’s career. In January 1437 he stood surety for the attendance of Robert Rous*, who had been elected to represent Northampton in Parliament. In the same year he had an action of debt pending against Thomas Acton* as executor of his former friend, John Bosworth. His co-plaintiff was a London mercer, Thomas Onhand, but this is the only indication that our MP had trading interests in the capital. It is unknown when he died, but he had done so by July 1455, when Henry Bray, probably his son, stood mainpernor for the attendance of Edwin Stannop* at Parliament.6 C219/15/1, 16/3; CP40/706, rot. 19d.