BARTELOT, Thomas

Successive generations of the Bartelot family are chiefly remembered for their service in the fifteenth century to the earls of Arundel in the administration of their estates in Sussex. Thomas’s father not only acted as an executor of Thomas Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, but after the earl’s death in 1415 was employed for the next ten years or more as receiver of the lands of the widowed countess, Beatrice. Both Thomas and his elder brother John assisted their father in his duties: for instance, in 1424-5 while John farmed land of the countess and took responsibility for making payments to her steward, Thomas supplied cattle to her household.3 Arundel Castle mss, Arundel receiver’s acct. A230. It was probably the Bartelots’ links with the earls and their retainers which led to Thomas’s marriage, for his wife Joan’s maternal grandfather had been a Fitzalan tenant both in Sussex and East Anglia, and her mother Isabel had married two of Earl Thomas’s followers in succession. Joan stood to inherit at least part of her mother’s estate, which, situated at Rusper, Warnham and Slinfold, had been estimated to be worth £8 p.a. for the purposes of tax assessment in 1412.4 Feudal Aids, vi. 523. Whether Joan ever had an interest in her father’s holdings at Arundel and Yapton, worth a further £12 p.a., or in her mother’s property at Exning in Suff. is not known. The marriage was arranged by Isabel and her then husband, Robert Jugler†, and property in Rusper and Warnham (a messuage and some 185 acres of land) was settled on the couple in tail, their tenure to begin after the expiry of the Juglers’ life interest. Isabel alone confirmed the arrangement in August 1426. Jure uxoris, Bartelot also acquired holdings elsewhere in west Sussex, at Arundel, Shipley, Pulborough and Tottington.5 E149/217/11.

Before his first election to Parliament, Bartelot had twice appeared as a juror at inquisitions post mortem held in Sussex: at Horsham in 1433 at that conducted after the duke of Norfolk’s death, and two years later at East Grinstead at the inquiry into the holdings of Sir Walter Sandys†.6 C139/60/43, 70/33. There is no ready explanation for his return to the Parliament of 1447 for the Wiltshire borough of Ludgershall, although it may have come about through his links with the west Sussex family of Erneley, which possessed landed interests in that county. Indeed, John Erneley* of Sidlesham represented the same borough two years later. Bartelot’s election for Midhurst is more readily explicable, in view of his tenure of property not far away. During the disturbances in the wake of Cade’s rebellion he saw fit to procure a royal pardon, which, dated 7 July 1450, described him as a ‘gentleman of Rusper’.7 CPR, 1446-52, p. 368. The pardon need not imply that he himself had followed Cade; perhaps like Bartholomew Bolney* he felt the need for insurance against prosecution in troubled times.

Thereafter Bartelot made few appearances in the records, save as a witness to deeds dated at Warnham.8 E. Suss. RO, Suss. Arch. Soc. mss, FB/126. Nevertheless, he continued to be a respected member of the Sussex community, and was asked by John Burdevile esquire to be an executor of his will.9 CP40/769, rot. 396. He was acting in the same capacity for his late brother John at the time of his own death.10 Add. 39376, f. 134d. This occurred on 7 Sept. 1465. Bartelot’s wife Joan had died 17 years earlier, but he had retained her property ‘by the courtesy’. Their son and heir, William (b.c.1430), now also heir to the lands of his maternal aunt, had been an idiot from birth. Accordingly, in the following January the inheritance was placed in the custody of Sir John Scott†, controller of the King’s household, to hold for William’s lifetime.11 E149/217/11; CPR, 1461-7, p. 423. Different arrangements were made in 1474, when John Fust† secured a lease of the property for a term of 20 years, paying the Exchequer £3 14s. 9d. p.a. (at which it had been valued).12 CFR, xxi. no. 211. When William eventually died, in 1482, his heirs were his five sisters, two of whom were also said to be mentally incapacitated.13 C140/85/43; Suss. Arch. Collns. xxvii. 39. This enabled the Crown to retain the wardship of at least part of the estate for some time longer.14 CFR, xxi. nos. 690, 704, 802-3; BL Harl. MS. 433 ed. Horrox and Hammond, i. 20-21.