BROCK, Henry

Brock was probably the son of a minor Devon lawyer of the same name, who was still active as an attorney in the Westminster law courts in the early years of Henry VI’s reign and apparently survived into the 1430s.7 CP40/652, rot. 357d; 699, rot. 332d. Like his putative father he trained in the law and by the late 1420s was himself appearing as an attorney in the royal courts.8 KB27/670, rot. 78. At the time of his return to Parliament in 1433 the younger Brock was still in the early stages of his career, but he had probably already forged two links that would be of importance in his later life, that with the burgesses of Totnes, a town not far from his principal residences at Ashprington and Washbourne, and one with the locally influential Pomeroys of Berry Pomeroy, the second wealthiest non-noble family in Devon, who owned the Totnes suburb of Bridgetown. Brock continued his association with the Pomeroys throughout his life, serving as attorney for the executors of Edward Pomeroy† of Sandridge, and later for the widowed Lady Margaret Pomeroy.9 Watkin, i. 379; CP40/755, rot. 415; 758, rot. 209d; KB27/778, att. rot. 2. It thus seems that his candidature may have been agreeable both to the local electorate and the locally dominant gentry. Nothing is known of Brock’s activity in the Commons, and it certainly did not lead to his employment in office under the Crown.10 It was probably the MP’s father who on 8 Nov. 1433 (while the Parliament was in session) served on the jury taking the inquisition post mortem of Lady Elizabeth Botreaux at Crediton: C139/63/24.

It is possible that this was a conscious decision on his part, for throughout his life he maintained a wide-ranging and profitable private legal practice. He was accredited as an attorney in both King’s bench and common pleas and also regularly appeared as a pledge in Chancery.11 CP40/696, rot. 132; 720, rots. 51d, 115d, 147, 303, 312; 730, rot. 276; 734, rots. 94d, 193, 220(1)d, 250d, 292; 745, rot. 151; 749, att. rot. 1; KB27/681, rot. 60d; 729, fines rot. 1d; 781, rot. 71; C1/16/611, 74/12. His clients included merchants, such as Thomas Cook I* of Exeter and Robert Wenyngton alias Cane* of Dartmouth,12 CP40/720, rot. 147; 730, rot. 99d. gentry like William Champernowne of Modbury, Elizabeth, the widow of Sir Thomas Carew and her son Sir Nicholas,13 CP40/708, att. rot. 3d; 734, rot. 104d; 749, rot. 107; 750, rot. 44; 760, rot. 102d. as well as some of the greater clergy of the south-west, including the abbots of Buckfast and Torre.14 KB27/680, rot. 24d; 778, att. rot. 2; 781, rot. 62. It was probably the older man who served as attorney for Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland, in the autumn of 1429: KB27/674, rot. 28d. Among the most important of these clients were the Courtenays of Haccombe and Boconnoc, kinsmen and close associates of the Courtenay earls of Devon. In 1424 he had served as attorney for Sir Hugh Courtenay† of Haccombe, and later his services were drawn upon by Sir Hugh’s widow and son, Hugh* of Boconnoc,15 KB27/653, att. rot. 1; 729, rots. 37d, 38d. as well as Hugh’s brother-in-law, Sir Robert de Vere*.16 CP40/771, att. rot. 2; 773, att. rot. 1; KB27/778, att. rot. 2. Brock’s other commitments included his participation in the group of trustees, headed by John Fortescue*, which was entrusted with the keeping of the alien priory of Modbury in 1438, and his provision of surety for Otto Gilbert to whom the wardship of the lands of John Mules* was entrusted in 1444.17 CFR, xvii. 25, 291. Two years earlier, he had also accepted appointment as attorney for the civic authorities of Exeter at an annual fee of 13s. 4d., an office which he doubtless owed to his connexions among the wealthy merchants of the city.18 Exeter receiver’s acct. 21 Hen. VI. Relations with these men were, however, not always amicable. Thus, in about 1449 Brock sued Richard Druell* and another Exeter merchant for the abduction of his son and heir, John, forcing them to find mainpernors among the most important of their neighbours, including the powerful John Shillingford*.19 CP40/755, rot. 272; 758, rot. 84d.

A witness statement made by Brock in the court of King’s bench in the summer of 1442 provides a rare glimpse of his professional activity. Sworn to give evidence in a suit over the alleged forgery of a royal writ of sub poena by John Medelond*, Brock described how on Monday in Holy Week 1441 he had been approached by the fisherman Gervase Walsh and the merchant John Bygge, both from Ditttisham, and that Bygge had asked him to act as counsel for Walsh. Walsh had shown Brock a writ which the lawyer had immediately deemed suspicious, as it had been sealed with white wax. Brock nevertheless instructed his client to keep the day in court set in the writ. Later, he had confronted Walsh’s opponent, Andrew Fyssher, another fisherman, from Street, who had sued out the writ, and questioned him as to the cause of his quarrel with Walsh and the name of the lawyer who had procured the writ for him. As a result of this information, Medelond was arrested and placed in the Marshalsea until he secured his release on bail.20 KB27/725, rex rot. 38d.

Brock’s extensive legal practice brought him substantial rewards, at least some of which he invested in land. By the early 1430s he was seised of lands in Dean Prior, while at the time of his death he also held the manor of Hampson, as well as scattered holdings at Washbourne, Bow, Corndon, Farleigh, Harbourneford, Hernaford, Lillisford and North Tawton, altogether said to be worth in excess of £25.21 KB27/681, rot. 16; CIPM Hen. VII, iii. 248. Such wealth, however, particularly when newly acquired, was prone to arouse jealousy among neighbouring landowners. Thus, Brock’s purchase of some lands in Harbourneford to the west of Totnes from one William Turpyn and his wife Joan attracted the attention of Nicholas Hawley, head of one of the wealthiest and most influential families of Dartmouth. He approached a local man, William Gatecombe, who had been party to the transaction, and induced him to enfeoff him of the lands, even though Gatecombe had already released his rights in the tenements to Brock. Hawley retained a following of mariners and professional thugs, and the physical threat posed by this retinue persuaded Brock that a petition to the chancellor for redress was an option preferable to an open suit at common law.22 C1/70/71. However, such considerations did not apply to Gatecombe, a mere husbandman, whom Brock sued for trespass in the court of King’s Bench in the 1430s. He accused Gatecombe of having broken into his house at Washbourne Water with a number of associates, stolen goods worth 100s. and abducted two of his female servants.23 KB27/675, rot. 21d; 703, rot. 24. This was not the only occasion on which Brock’s house was entered by intruders. In early 1461 he was suing John Brugge, a chaplain of Loddiswell, for breaking in, taking goods worth £10 and assaulting yet another female servant.24 CP40/800, rot. 186. As with Gatecombe, a group of husbandmen and a pardoner who challenged Brock’s title to some holdings in Brixton in 1439, were easy prey for a qualified lawyer. Brock brought a suit under the statute of forgery, leaving the defendants to plead their innocence in vain.25 KB27/792, rot. 40. A highly litigious man, Brock was usually pursuing suits of his own alongside his clients’ business when he appeared in the Westminster courts, and only rarely took recourse to appointing an attorney to act for him.26 CP40/682, rot. 69d; 695, rot. 69; 696, rot. 47; 697, rot. 179d; 745, rot. 66d; 760, rot. 294; KB27/681, rots. 16, 41d, 52; 703, rot. 24; 791, rot. 2d; CPR, 1452-61, p. 623.

There is no indication that Brock became involved in the violence which swept south-western England in the mid 1450s, even though he had maintained his links with the Courtenays of Boconnoc. In particular, Sir Hugh Courtenay was forced to draw upon his services in 1450 when he was indicted for piracy and imprisoned in the Tower and could only regain his freedom by providing substantial sureties. One of these sureties was Brock, who pledged the huge sum of 1,000 marks.27 C1/13/18, 21-22.

Brock’s later career is largely obscure. He probably owed his nomination as reeve of Totnes during the first year of the reign of Edward IV as much to his longstanding links with the Pomeroys as those with the Totnes authorities. Nevertheless, the latter continued to employ him into the 1460s, even though he had on occasion found himself in opposition to some of the leading men of the town.28 Watkin, i. 436, 437, ii. 928; CP40/745, rot. 164. Not long after relinquishing his office, Brock’s health may have begun to fail, for he last occurs in the records in late 1465.29 KB27/818, rot. 83d. The exact date of his death is not known, but he was certainly dead by 1480.30 C1/64/29. He may have been predeceased by his son John, for his daughter, Joan, who had married Thomas Coterell, then became his sole heiress.31 CIPM Hen. VII, iii. 248.