BERKELEY, Sir Maurice I

On 16 Feb. 1401, just a fortnight after he was born, Berkeley’s wardship and marriage were granted to the ‘King’s knight’ Sir Francis Court, although a few months later this concession was limited to estates to the value of £60 p.a. According to inquiries held following the death of the infant’s father in the previous year, his manors of Brigmerston and Milston, in Wiltshire, and Kings Weston, Aylburton, Rockhampton, Uley, Bradley, Stoke Gifford and Wallscourt, in Gloucestershire, were worth at least £154 annually, and his portion of the manor of Kingston Seymour in Somerset produced £5 p.a. more. A substantial part of this income, perhaps as much as £100 a year, was received by Berkeley’s mother as her jointure and dower until her death in 1412, and for a further 11 years profits from the estates also continued to be paid to Court’s widow, Alice de Vere, who married Lewis John*. Fresh inquiries about Maurice’s paternal inheritance were held in the spring of 1422 and again in the following year, but it was not until 6 Apr. 1423, when he was 22, that he made formal proof of age and received seisin.8 CPR, 1399-1401, p. 431; 1401-5, p. 20; CIPM, xviii. 408-9; C138/61/65, 64/30; C139/1/23, 8/80.

The delay may have been occasioned by military service overseas under Henry V, for before the end of the reign Berkeley had been knighted. It may be speculated that although he was then only 16 he was the Sir Maurice who was mustered in the retinue of Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, before crossing to France in July 1417.9 E101/51/2. His namesake of Beverstone, still an esquire, served on the same campaign under his brother-in-law the de jure earl of Arundel. Besides his paternal inheritance, Berkeley also stood to receive in 1423 possession of a third part of the former Botetourt estates, by virtue of his descent through his grandmother, Katherine, from the 2nd Lord Botetourt. He had been recognized as being a coheir in 1407 on the death of Joyce, wife of Hugh, Lord Burnell, but Burnell (who lived on until 1420) retained an interest in the whole estate for life, and while Berkeley was still a minor his fellow coheirs sold their reversionary interests to Burnell’s close friend and executrix, Joan Beauchamp, Lady Abergavenny.10 CIPM, xix. 261; CP, ii. 234; CCR, 1419-22, pp. 87-89; 1422-9, pp. 39, 84; CPR, 1416-22, pp. 302, 305. Now, in 1423, Sir Maurice fully expected to take possession of various of the former Botetourt properties as his share of the inheritance, and he may have passed unchallenged for a while. But Lady Joan, evidently regarding the whole estate as her own and wishing to dispose of it to her heirs, subsequently enfeoffed her principal feoffees and executors, Robert Darcy I* and Bartholomew Brokesby*, of the same. By the mediation and ‘stering of meane persons’ (so Berkeley later alleged), he and the two feoffees were bound in 1,000 marks to the earl of Warwick, ‘to stond to [his] laude dome and ordenaunce’ in the settlement of their differences, with the result that, probably in the mid 1430s, Warwick awarded that Berkeley should keep certain of the disputed properties (the castle of Weoley and the manors of Northfield and Cradley, all in Worcestershire, together with an annual rent of £2 from the manor of Old Swinford) as his third part of the estate, in return for relinquishing his claim to the rest.11 C1/19/6 (printed in Wm. Salt Arch. Soc. n.s. vii. 250-1).

However unsatisfactory he may have found the outcome, in his dealings with Warwick Berkeley no doubt benefited from the advice of his father-in-law, Sir William Mountfort, one of the earl’s most prominent retainers and councillors. His marriage to Mountfort’s daughter, Eleanor, had taken place by September 1429, and just before the opening of his second Parliament (which Mountfort also attended, as a shire knight for Warwickshire), he settled on her in jointure his principal manor of Uley. Eleanor was not an heiress, but her father was the wealthiest non-baronial landowner in Warwickshire, and their family was clearly one of high standing. Sir Maurice is recorded paying visits to his father-in-law’s house at Coleshill in 1433-4.12 CCR, 1429-35, p. 120; Shakespeare Centre Archs., Archer mss, DR37, box 73. He had first shown an interest in parliamentary affairs by attesting the Gloucestershire elections at the beginning of the reign, and had been returned to Parliament himself in 1425 when still a young man, aged 24. It was not until after his second Parliament that he was pricked as sheriff of Gloucestershire and began to be appointed to ad hoc royal commissions. Most of his public service took place in his home county at this stage, and he was made a j.p. in 1432, took the oath there not to maintain those who broke the peace in 1434, and served a second term as sheriff in 1436-7 (taking over directly from his kinsman Sir Maurice Berkeley II*).13 CPR, 1429-36, p. 373.

Berkeley’s standing in the county is indicated by his links with other members of the gentry. Before 1431 he was enfeoffed of the Gloucestershire manor of Dymock, for its sale by John Merbury* and Agnes his wife, and in May 1433 he and his co-feoffees, who included Henry Bourgchier, count of Eu, were awarded keeping of the same at the Exchequer for a year. However, within two months they were unjustly removed from possession, and litigation over their title to Dymock continued for several years more.14 CPR, 1429-36, pp. 141, 281-2; 1436, p. 159; CFR, xvi.148. Berkeley was also named as a trustee of the estates of the late Sir Maurice Russell† in Gloucestershire and elsewhere, from 1434 acting on behalf of Russell’s two daughters and coheirs, at that time married to John Kemys* and Stephen Haytfeld*. He actively supported Kemys in his disputes over lands at Siston, where Kemys’s wife, as widow of Sir Gilbert Denys†, held a sizeable estate. This support not only brought him to the law-courts as a defendant in an assize of novel disseisin, but led to serious allegations against him in a petition sent to Parliament by Robert Stanshawe* (probably in 1433). Stanshawe asserted that Kemys and many others had been wearing Berkeley’s livery when they had forcibly prevented one of the King’s bailiffs from delivering seisin of the disputed property to him. Berkeley was long to remain close to his retainer Kemys, continuing to act as his feoffee until shortly before his death.15 C66/435, rot. 17d; SC8/139/6916; CP40/687, rot. 572d; CPR, 1429-36, p. 367; 1452-61, p. 419; CP25(1)/292/68/161; CCR, 1454-61, p. 161; 1476-85, no. 499.

The confrontation at Siston was by no means the only occasion that Berkeley’s followers reportedly came out in force to promote his interests, and in the late 1440s he was frequently called to account in the courts at Westminster. He was accused of taking woollen cloths worth £20 from members of the Stanburgh family in the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, in 1445, and proved unsuccessful in his plea that the men concerned were bondmen on his manor of Aylburton.16 CP40/745, rot. 117. Then in January 1448 he was indicted before the j.p.s at Worcester for aiding Richard Fayrechild, a tailor from King’s Norton, accused of murdering one John Bydell on the previous 1 Nov. In addition, he was alleged to have congregated with up to 60 other malefactors two days earlier at Pedmore, where they had broken into two houses and assaulted the inhabitants, including one Thomas Hert.17 KB27/781, rex rot. 2d. The latter was a servant of Fulk Stafford*, who later brought a plea in the King’s bench against Berkeley and 25 of his followers for the attack. At the same time Berkeley accused Stafford and his kinsman Richard Stafford of Feckenham along with over 100 other men from the counties of Worcestershire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Gloucestershire of an unspecified trespass.18 KB27/747, rots. 81, 82; 749, rots. 37, 37d; 750, rot. 28.

Although not explicitly described in such terms in the plea rolls, some of those whom Berkeley accused, including Fulk Stafford, are known to have been closely linked to a more powerful opponent of his. Berkeley’s standing in the locality and at the centre was being undermined by a major dispute over the former Botetourt estates with Sir James Butler, son of the earl of Ormond and grandson and heir of Lady Abergavenny. The feud over this inheritance had reopened in about 1440, some five years after Lady Joan’s death and shortly after the demise of the earl of Warwick, whose mediating influence had helped to preserve order. At first it was concentrated on Aston in Warwickshire, where Berkeley could claim to be overlord of the manor and entitled to a view of frankpledge. In 1444 John Holt, esquire, the tenant of the manor, claimed in a petition to Chancery that Thomas Hore of Solihull, gentleman, with some 40 others arrayed for war, had by the ‘heddryng and comandement’ of Berkeley, come to Aston, driven away 40 oxen, and while seeking out his bailiff with the intention of murdering him, had assaulted the latter’s wife. Holt claimed that on another occasion Sir Maurice had sent John Newhay of Nechells to lie in wait to slay him; and that he had ordered a gang of 60 or more to attack his servants in the marketplace at Birmingham. Furthermore, Berkeley harboured outlaws and ‘recles people’ in his house, and he himself had no recourse to common law because of Sir Maurice’s ‘myght’ and ‘for doubte of his riotous felischip’. Holt looked for help not only to Sir James Butler, whom he perceived to be his rightful overlord, but also to Ralph Butler, Lord Sudeley, the then treasurer of England.19 KB9/246/18; C1/15/207. These events are placed in the context of Warws. politics by C. Carpenter, Locality and Polity, 388-9, 410, 415, 422.

The dispute formed the background to suits in the courts of common pleas and King’s bench in 1448. In the Easter term Berkeley and 12 others were attached to answer John Baker, a labourer of Northfield, Worcestershire, who alleged that they had conspired to have him falsely indicted before the j.p.s in Warwickshire (who included Berkeley’s father-in-law) for an illegal entry. Baker claimed damages of as much as £1,000.20 CP40/749, rot. 412; 750, rot. 114. This was followed in August when Sir James Butler, choosing to disregard the award of the late earl of Warwick, and supported by the Lords Sudeley and Beauchamp of Powick, brought an assize of novel disseisin against Berkeley for property in Northfield, including two parts of Weoley castle, 12 messuages, some 1,000 acres of land and annual rents of £20, and after receiving judgement in his favour he claimed tripled damages of 900 marks. Sir Maurice was outlawed in the following spring for his failure to comply with the award, although promptly acquired a royal pardon. Naturally enough, Sir James, created earl of Wiltshire two months later in July 1449, pursued his claim for damages in the King’s bench in Easter term 1450; and at the same time Sir Maurice was attached to respond to him in the court of common pleas on the charge that ten years earlier he had stolen from Weoley castle goods and chattels valued at £100 and including suits of armour, the contents of the kitchen, and 40 virgates of red and white worsted cloth. In this latter suit the earl sought damages of £200. Berkeley appealed to the chancellor, saying that the assize had been sued out without his knowledge, and that by ‘grete maytenaunce and power’ the earl had seized all his part of the former Botetourt estates, contrary to the late earl of Warwick’s award.21 C66/465, rot. 11d; KB27/756, att. rot. d; 770, rex rot. 7; CP40/754, rot. 343; 757, rot. 303; C1/19/6.

Attempts were made to arbitrate between them. In December 1450 Earl James was bound in 1,000 marks to perform covenants of agreements with Berkeley, and in the following June he promised to abide by the arbitration of Sir William Mountfort (nominated by Berkeley) and Henry Filongley*, his own retainer.22 Hants RO, Jervoise of Herriard mss, 44M69/C/647, 773. Yet it was no doubt through the earl’s influence at the centre of government that Berkeley was removed from the Worcestershire bench, and imprisoned in Worcester castle gaol, along with John Berkeley (perhaps his son) and a number of gentlemen and yeomen from the county (men who had been indicted with him in 1448). However, on 6 Dec. 1451 his father-in-law Mountfort was commissioned to deliver him and the rest from prison. It may be that they had successfully asked for help from Humphrey, duke of Buckingham, with whom Mountfort was then on good terms. (The duke had nominated him for the Order of the Garter in the previous year, albeit unsuccessfully. Furthermore, the duke’s employees included Berkeley’s supporter at Aston, John Newhay.) Indeed, at some point before the mid 1450s one of Sir Maurice’s kinsmen and namesakes became a member of Buckingham’s household. Whatever the reason, on 19 Oct. 1453 the earl of Wiltshire acknowledged in the King’s bench that he was satisfied of the damages awarded him at the assize, and Berkeley pleaded his pardon of outlawry to bring the court’s proceedings to an end. Furthermore, it would appear that he managed to retain Weoley – at least, he was called ‘of Weoley’ in April 1455, and neither Weoley nor Northfield were among the estates which the earl forfeited to the Yorkists six years later.23 KB27/770, rex rot. 7; CPR, 1446-52, p. 534; NLW, Peniarth mss, 280, p. 51; Staffs. RO, Stafford fam. mss, D641/1/2/23; C67/41, m. 21. However, he was called ‘formerly of Weoley’ in 1462: C67/45, m. 24. Berkeley came to the King’s bench in summer 1456 and presented a pardon granted him on 8 Nov. 1455 enabling him to be finally acquitted of the charges arising from the indictments of 1448. He took out another pardon early in 1458.24 KB27/781, rex rot. 2d; C67/42, m. 35.

Through his wife’s family Berkeley had been drawn into the affairs of another Warwickshire landowner and former retainer of the late earl of Warwick, Sir William Peyto‡. Together with his brother-in-law, Edmund Mountfort*, he stood bail for Peyto in November 1451, guaranteeing under pain of £100 that he would appear in the King’s bench in the following Easter term. When the date arrived Berkeley went to the court to explain that Peyto was currently overseas on royal service in the defence of Calais, and offered mainprise for his appearance the following Michaelmas. However, even though Peyto did subsequently present himself (and was committed to the Marshalsea), it was decided in 1454 that the King might still recover sums of money against his mainpernors; and Berkeley was not excused payment until April 1455. Before Sir William Mountfort’s death in December 1452 Berkeley had been party to transactions regarding his manor of Mollington, apparently intended to work to the advantage of Edmund, Sir William’s favourite son by his second marriage, yet he seems to have avoided involvement in the disputes arising from Sir William’s favouritism which divided the Warwickshire gentry for the rest of the decade and beyond.25 CPR, 1452-61, p. 231; CCR, 1468-76, no. 1326. Nevertheless, he did become enmeshed in a serious quarrel with Bishop Carpenter of Worcester: in February 1460 he was bound in recognizances for 400 marks that he and three of his sons would abide by the award of Richard Chokke, serjeant-at-law, William Nottingham II*, the King’s attorney, and Thomas Young II*, the arbitrators chosen on behalf of the parties, to end their dissensions. The quarrel may have had its origins in Berkeley’s dispute in the 1440s with Carpenter’s predecessor, Thomas Bourgchier, over presentation to the mastership of St. Mark’s hospital in Bristol, patronage of which he claimed by inheritance from his father.26 CCR, 1454-61, p. 431; CP40/737, rot. 332. Possibly through his links with the duke of Buckingham, in the late 1450s he had become closely attached to William, Lord Botreaux: both he and the duke were feoffees of Lord William’s estates, making settlements on him and his wife. Sir Maurice not only witnessed deeds for Botreaux, but along with his old associate, John Kemys, he was named as an executor of his will in July 1462.27 CCR, 1454-61, pp. 339-40; 1461-8, pp. 117, 145-6; Reg. Bourgchier (Canterbury and York Soc. liv), 202.

Sir Maurice died on 25 Nov. 1464, and was buried in what is now the ‘Lord Mayor’s chapel’ in St. Mark’s hospital. His effigy depicts him wearing the Yorkist collar of suns and roses, although nothing recorded about him suggests any personal connexion with Edward IV, and, indeed, his public service to the Crown had ended nearly ten years earlier.28 C140/14/29; Trans. Bristol and Glos. Arch. Soc. xv. 98 (where his tomb is wrongly ascribed to Sir Thomas Berkeley, who died in 1361); xxvi. 257-62. His name was written in the martyrology of the Blackfriars of Bristol, along with those of his parents: J. Dallaway, Antiqs. Bristow, 120. His heir was his eldest son, William. His wife survived him, and in January 1475 she released to a younger son, Maurice, the manor of Bradley and certain other properties in Gloucestershire.29 CCR, 1476-85, no. 69.