CATWORTH, Thomas

Catworth’s family almost certainly took its name from the settlement of Great Catworth in Huntingdonshire, although by the early fifteenth century his father was living at Rushden, a few miles to the west in Northamptonshire.5 VCH Northants. iii. 267-9. It appears that he retained some links with his native county throughout his career,6 Stowe 860, f. 52. He was thus periodically a party to local property transactions in and around Rushden: CCR, 1435-41, p. 266; Northants. RO, Cokayne mss, C3143. even though from an early date he was resident in London, where both he and a relative, William, became members of the Grocers’ Company. The earliest reference to Thomas shows that as early as 1403 he had become involved in the grocery trade in the capital, for in that year he was fined the sum of 13s. 4d. ‘pur Poyere [pepper]’. This was one of the staple goods sold by members of the Grocers’ Company, many of whom were indeed known as ‘pepperers’ because of the spices they bought and sold. Although the nature of the offence committed by Catworth was not recorded, it provided an early indication of the independent-mindedness which was to characterize his business dealings.7 Ms. Archs. Grocers’ Company, i. 84, 114. His admission to the livery probably took place by 1410, for by 1418 he was of sufficient standing within his craft to be chosen as one of the wardens for the ensuing year, a post to which he was to be elected on another two occasions. He played a prominent role in the life of his company throughout his career, notably in the late 1420s when the Grocers completed the acquisition of the site of their hall in Conyhope Lane, and began building work there. In 1427 he contributed 50s. towards the cost of purchasing the land, and soon afterwards became a feoffee, with other prominent grocers, of the hall itself, valued at five marks p.a. In November 1429 a licence to grant the property in mortmain was obtained for £50 by virtue of which Catworth and the others conveyed it to the wardens of the Grocers, who included John Welles II*. The licence also permitted the Grocers to acquire in mortmain property to the annual value of 20 marks.8 Ibid., i. 117, 125, 164; Corp. London RO, hr 157/8; CPR, 1429-36, p. 78. Catworth continued to contribute to levies raised by the Company throughout his career but, like a number of his fellow grocers, he frequently appears to have fallen behind with some of the dues and other payments for which he was liable. In 1430-1, for instance, he handed over the sum of £6 relating to ‘all manner charge and discharge’, while in 1434-6 the wardens received 51s. 2½d. from ‘my Mayster Catworth’, in settlement of a debt.9 Ms. Archs. Grocers’ Company, ii. 199-200, 216-17, 232, 241.

Catworth’s business dealings are fairly well documented. At the heart of his activities was the trade in spices and other goods traditionally supplied by members of his craft, and it is clear that he became one of the most prominent dealers in the capital. In March 1427 he and other grocers appeared before the court of aldermen to testify in a trade dispute that the price of ‘beladyne’ (a type of ginger) had been 2d. a pound the previous April.10 Corp. London RO, jnl. 2, f. 91. In common with other prominent grocers Catworth developed a network of business contacts, both in London and in the provinces. Formal gifts of goods and chattels were frequently made in the course of business transactions, often as security for goods which were bought on credit. Catworth was a frequent recipient of such goods, suggesting that he was active throughout his career as a wholesale supplier of goods, particularly to his fellow Londoners such as the grocers Godwin Catesby, John Wattys, and John Domenyk.11 CCR, 1429-35, p. 352; Cal. P. and M. London, 1413-37, p. 264; 1437-57, p. 168. Many of these goods were purchased abroad: in February 1428 a London brewer and a butcher entered into a bond in £40 with Catworth in which they undertook to produce a shipman from Calais who would testify that he had not after all brought a cargo of ‘Castell soap’ from Sluys to London. Presumably the merchandise had gone missing, leading Catworth to sue those who were associated with the shipment.12 Cal. P. and M. London, 1413-37, pp. 215-16; jnl. 2, f. 107. These goods were also typical of those supplied by grocers, but it is clear that by this time Catworth had branched out into the wool trade. Indeed, he was one of only six members of the Grocers’ Company who were involved to any significant extent in the export trade in wool in the 1420s and 1430s. An account book compiled by the King’s customer at Calais for the year from 4 Feb. 1426 listed numerous shipments of both wool and furs which were exported by him from the port of London to the continent. Like William Cottesbroke* and Stephen Brown* he also occasionally exported cloth, although the bulk of this trade remained predominantly in the hands of London mercers. His business links with Cottesbroke appear to have been close: in April 1439, following the settlement of a dispute between the latter and another grocer, Catworth was ordered to hand over 56s. of Flemish money which was owed to Cottesbroke’s opponent.13 E101/189/7, ff. 40v, 48v-49; E122/76/13-14; E203/1, mm. 23, 34v; P. Nightingale, Med. Mercantile Community, 390, 434; Cal. P. and M. London, 1437-57, p. 15.

His major trading ventures aside, Catworth also had mercantile interests inland, and offered his wares at country fairs, such as the Stourbridge fair held at Cambridge in early September. Like other London companies, however, the Grocers were reluctant to submit their weights and goods to the scrutiny of local officials, in this case the chancellor of Cambridge university. At the fair held in the autumn of 1418 Catworth and John Aylesham, another grocer, were ordered to hand over their weights to be assayed. They refused and continued to sell their merchandise, even after the fair had officially ended, which prompted the chancellor to send two scholars to seize any unsold goods. The grocers again refused and were arrested and briefly imprisoned by the sheriff of Cambridgeshire. The incident prompted the university to petition the King’s council requesting that Catworth and Aylesham be rearrested and imprisoned on the grounds that they had infringed the right of the chancellor and scholars to keep the assize of measures in Cambridge and the suburbs. Aylesham and Catworth appeared in person before the council declaring that their arrest had been unlawful and as citizens of London they had the right to appoint their own wardens to hold pleas at fairs throughout England, without interference. Indeed they claimed that before the fair in question they had themselves been appointed to that position. It is clear that Catworth and Aylesham were representing the views of the City government in what was a long-running dispute with the Cambridge authorities. Copies of the submissions to the council were included in the city’s Letter Book in 1419, and in September that year the mayor, aldermen and commonalty agreed that expenses incurred by Catworth and Aylesham totalling £25 should be repaid in recognition of their role in trying to protect the city’s liberties. The Grocers, too, contributed the sum of £5 8s. 4d.14 Cal. Letter Bk. London, I, 216-19; jnl. 1, f. 60; Nightingale, 387.

This dispute apart it was by no means clear that attendance at provincial fairs was in the interests of the City of London and its citizens. Indeed several companies, notably the Mercers, banned their freemen from attending fairs in order to persuade country dealers to come and buy in London where both the quality and price of goods could be more carefully controlled. It may have been in response to the aggravation experienced by Catworth and Aylesham that, in 1420, the Grocers also introduced a ban. It is evident, however, that men such as Catworth and Richard Lee* ignored this sanction and continued to travel to fairs to sell their goods. As a result both men were fined by their company: the sum of 10s. was extracted from Catworth in 1424 ‘pur le Feyre’. Clearly, however, the profits to be made outweighed the impact of these fines.15 Ms. Archs. Grocers’ Company, ii. 145, 219, 239, 249; S.L. Thrupp, ‘The Grocers of London’, in English Trade in 15th Cent. ed. Power and Postan, 273-6.

Catworth enjoyed close connexions with many of his fellow grocers, several of these links having doubtless been established as a result of business partnerships. He was a popular choice as both a feoffee and as an executor, for men such as John Pytman (d.1420) and William Mitchell† (d.1426). On occasion such tasks turned sour: some years after Pytman’s death his widow accused Catworth and his fellow executor of trying to influence an arbitration award in their favour by persuading one of the arbiters to make a false statement in the mayor’s court and by securing her imprisonment while the award was still pending. Less controversially, Catworth frequently acted as a surety for his fellow grocers in the city’s courts, including William Cottesbroke, while in March 1424 he was granted the guardianship of the two daughters of William Lynne (d.1423), whose two sons were to remain with their mother. On another occasion that year he acted as a surety when the guardianship of the four children of William Waldern† was committed to his widow and her second husband. More than a decade later Waldern’s son, William, acknowledged receipt from Catworth and his fellow sureties of more than £160 out of £644 of his father’s goods and chattels.16 CPR, 1429-36, pp. 6, 98; CCR, 1435-41, p. 41 C146/3121; C1/69/73; Cal. Letter Bk. London, I, 252; K, 26, 47.

Further evidence of Catworth’s prominence in the capital is provided by the numerous property transactions in which he was involved as a feoffee, most frequently for other members of his company, but increasingly also for other citizens and for individuals from outside the city. In the early 1420s he acted for Sayer Acre and Robert Otley, fellow grocers who had each married a sister and co-heiress of the Sussex gentleman Thomas Horsham.17 London hr 154/11. Other transactions in which he was involved include: hr 157/25, 159/41 (William Sevenoak); 161/11-12 (Robert Gayton*); 165/15; 167/17; 168/34; 169/42; 173/2; 176/20; 179/13; 181/12; CCR, 1435-41, pp. 258, 264, 270; 1441-7, p. 197. Most of these transactions proceeded smoothly, but there were occasions when all did not go according to plan. On one occasion he and John Bacon (a regular associate) were the subject of a Chancery petition from one Thomas Cosyn who complained that they had refused to settle back on him property which he had inherited from his father.18 C1/10/47; London hr 166/13. Catworth’s Northamptonshire origins were almost certainly responsible for his close links with fellow grocers Robert† and William Chichele†, and their circle of friends and associates. The brothers’ father, Thomas Chichele, had been a prominent resident of the town of Higham Ferrers, a few miles from Rushden, and it is conceivable that Catworth’s own career as a London grocer owed something to family connexions with the Chicheles. In October 1417 William Chichele offered his estates in the parish of St. Margaret Moses in London to Catworth, William Sevenoak†, and Edmund Twyn as security for the payment of a debt of £130. They eventually made a release back to Chichele in July 1425.19 London hr 145/46, 47, 153/79. Catworth’s links with William’s brother Robert were more close, principally because of the latter’s extensive property holdings in London which led him to call on the services of friends to act as his feoffees. Chichele had acquired a substantial estate in London on his first marriage to Elizabeth, the widow of a wealthy vintner, and had taken the precaution of settling these lands and tenements, located in four parishes, on his own feoffees, who, in turn, had confirmed him in the reversion, should Elizabeth predecease him. Her death in fact occurred in the spring or early summer of 1420, whereupon Chichele granted the reversion of these estates to a new group of trustees which included Catworth and two other prominent grocers.20 Ibid. 148/14-18; The Commons 1386-1421, ii. 560. This group had made its first appearance with Chichele and his wife two years before, when William Oliver† and two other men made a conveyance to them of property in several parishes, including the Saracen’s Head in St. Mildred’s parish. In November 1421 Chichele, Catworth and the others settled these properties back on Oliver alone, indicating that the latter had in fact acquired them in his own right. 21 London hr 146/34, 149/43; The Commons 1386-121, iii. 872.

Catworth continued to act as Oliver’s feoffee until the latter’s death in 1432 or 1433. In July 1448 he made a conveyance of property in Bucklersbury, which Oliver had earlier granted to him and other trustees (now dead), to a new group of feoffees headed by Thomas Canynges* and Richard Lee. It is possible, though unclear from the transaction, that Catworth had in fact acquired the property himself, although it is equally likely that these estates were among those which were the subject of litigation after Oliver’s death, so preventing the immediate foundation of a chantry in the church of St. Thomas Acon.22 London hr 161/13, 14, 17, 158/79, 169/43, 44, 177/2; The Commons 1386-1421, iii. 874. What is certain, however, is that Catworth was living in Bucklersbury by 1428 when he was described as a resident of that street in a list of the Grocers’ liverymen. This was an important centre for the London grocery trade in the mid fifteenthth century and lay close to the recently acquired site of Grocers’ Hall. It is almost certain, therefore, that he owned property there, and possibly also in parishes such as St. Dunstan in the East in Tower Ward, whose alderman he became in 1435.23 Ms. Archs. Grocers’ Company, i. 175; Nightingale, 403. The uncertainty over the extent of Catworth’s property in the capital is compounded by his entry in the return made for the income tax granted in 1436 by the sheriffs of London and Middlesex. This did not record his London holdings, but instead noted that he held property in Essex and Norfolk worth an impressive £24 p.a.24 S.L. Thrupp, Merchant Class Med. London, 379. By the time of his death he had acquired the manor of Manningtree in Essex, and during the 1420s and 30s he was concerned in transactions involving property in other parts of the county.25 Essex Feet of Fines, iv. 13, 15; P. Morant, Essex, i. 460-1. He formed an especially strong connexion with the city of Norwich, one which, in 1431-2, resulted in his admission as a freeman. This enabled him to expand his business interests there, and to purchase tenements in the city, although their precise location is not recorded. Catworth’s involvement in the commercial affairs of Norwich and its region is confirmed by a Chancery petition submitted by him in which he complained about a spicer named Richard Purchase of Diss, probably one of his suppliers, who had taken out two actions against Catworth in the city’s court. As a result certain of Catworth’s goods in Norwich were seized. At the time he was in fact ‘absent ferre out of the same citee’ and so was unaware of the suits, and also of the fact that one Nicholas Waleys had, without his permission, acted as his attorney. Catworth naturally feared being condemned in his absence, and so requested that the sheriff of Norfolk should certify the actions in Chancery where he could prove that they were without foundation.26 Cal. Freemen Norwich ed. Rye, 29; C1/19/146.

Catworth’s involvement in the civic affairs of London can be traced back to at least 1417 when he appeared before the court of alderman as a surety for the sum of £100 owed by a citizen to the King.27 Jnl. 1, f. 24v. Not surprisingly, given his prominence as a feoffee, Catworth was a popular choice as both a surety and as an arbiter in the many disputes which were brought before the court in the 1420s.28 Jnl. 2, ff. 32, 42v, 84; Cal. Letter Bk, London, K, 5, 47, 116. His appointment as a tax collector in 1428 indicated that his civic career was gradually achieving the same prominence as his career within the Grocers’ Company, and it was perhaps not surprising that he attested the election of the city’s MPs in September 1429. His own first election to Parliament duly followed four years later, though at this stage he was one of the two Members elected by the common council. His promotion to the aldermanic bench occurred in 1435: the precise date is uncertain but he had been elected for Tower Ward by 13 Oct. that year when he was present at the election of Henry Frowyk I* to the mayoralty. There is some evidence, however, that he was never entirely happy with the ward he represented, for in January 1437 and again in April 1449 he was an unsuccessful candidate for the vacant aldermanries of Broad Street and Farringdon Within, respectively. Despite this, there is nothing to suggest that Catworth was anything other than conscientious in the performance of his duties, and in the autumn of 1436 he and Frowyk were chosen by their fellow aldermen to attend the Parliament to be held from 21 Jan. the next year.29 Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 177, 193; A.B. Beaven, Aldermen, ii. 8; London jnls. 3, ff. 122-3; 5, f. 9. By this time Catworth was also beginning to be appointed to further positions of responsibility which were a mark of his standing in the city. In March 1439 alone he was chosen to serve on four separate committees, appointed to deal with issues ranging from the city’s water supply to the maintenance of London Bridge.30 London jnls. 3, ff. 11, 11v, 12v-13, 76v; 4, f. 217. Meanwhile, in November 1437, he had been chosen to serve on a royal commission which was to inquire into the activities of alien and denizen merchants who were avoiding the Calais staple. This would have been an issue close to his heart, given his own interests in the wool trade.31 CPR, 1436-41, p. 146. Further recognition of his status came in August 1442 when he, along with John Hatherley* and Robert Clopton*, was requested by the court of aldermen to attend upon the King, dressed in their scarlet aldermanic gowns. The purpose of this visit is not recorded, although it may well have been connected with a loan that the city had raised the previous month to pay for the costs of a recently settled trade dispute between London and the city of Bayonne in Gascony. Catworth himself had been one of those appointed to raise the money.32 Jnl. 3, ff. 143, 144v; Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 271.

In October 1443 Catworth, ‘per viam Spiritus Sancti’, was himself chosen mayor of London. His election took place less than a month after the disturbances that had surrounded the election of the city chamberlain, during which a crowd outside the gates of the Guildhall had clamoured for the appointment of William Cottesbroke. This was the latest in a series of disturbances which had seen a radical artisan movement emerge, seeking to widen participation in these elections to all citizens, not just those specifically summoned. Extra care was therefore taken at Catworth’s election, and it was recorded that only the common council men and ‘certain other powerful and discreet citizens from the several wards’ were summoned to take part with the mayor and aldermen. All those summoned had to wait at the gate of the Guildhall until their names were called out, after which they could enter the Guildhall itself. Following Catworth’s promotion the Grocers’ Company contributed towards the expenditure on the accustomed processions and pageantry.33 Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 288; Ms. Archs. Grocers’ Company, ii. 281. In May 1444 he was chosen as one of the guardians of the keys to the common chest of the city, and the following month, notwithstanding his duties as mayor, he was appointed to another royal commission, once more in connexion with the avoidance of customs duties, although this time concentrating upon vessels from Italian ports.34 Jnl. 4, f. 24; CPR, 1441-6, p. 291. Catworth’s mayoralty appears to have passed without incident until the eve of the election of his successor, when the aldermen met together to consider urgently a letter from the King urging them to elect William Estfield*. The latter had already served two terms as mayor, a fact which, following ordinances of 1424 and 1435, would normally have prevented him from serving again. Henry VI’s request acknowledged the city custom, but nevertheless asked that Estfield be re-elected. Catworth and his aldermen considered the request, but concluded that city custom should be upheld, and consequently the following day Henry Frowyk was chosen to serve a second term.35 Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 301-2. This assertion of London’s independence in the dying days of his mayoralty can only have enhanced Catworth’s reputation in the city, and it was no surprise that on 27 Jan. 1445 he was chosen once again to represent London in Parliament. This third election was, however, less than straightforward. Six days earlier the recorder, Robert Danvers*, had been the original choice of the aldermen along with John Reynwell*, and the reason behind the change is not recorded. It is possible that Danvers’ duties as a justice of assize prevented him from accepting the role, or that he had been promised a county seat in his native Oxfordshire, which in the event failed to materialise. This would have left the aldermen no choice but to draft in a suitably reliable candidate, such as the former mayor Catworth. It is, however, equally possible that opposition to the return of the recorder (which had only taken place once before) had arisen in the ranks of the aldermen themselves, who wanted to keep their parliamentary representation in their own ranks. The circumstances of his election may well help to explain the fact that Catworth was one of only a small number of MPs in this period who attended meetings of the court of aldermen while the Parliaments to which they were elected were in session. In May 1445, for instance, he attended three meetings and he was present at further meetings of the court on 11 Nov., 2 Dec. and on 25 Feb. the next year.36 Jnl. 4, ff. 59v-60; C.M. Barron, ‘London and Parliament’, Parlty. Hist. ix. 367.

Shortly after the end of the Parliament of 1445-6 Catworth became involved more closely in the political affairs of the city of Norwich. The internal difficulties and disturbances which beset the city from the early 1430s had, in July 1437, resulted in the appointment of the London grocer John Welles II as keeper and escheator of the city, and it was only with the assistance of John Carpenter II* that the citizens were eventually able to recover their liberties the following year. This proved to be only a temporary suspension of Crown control, however, for in the aftermath of further rioting which broke out in January 1443, the city’s liberties were seized once again, and on 14 Mar. the king’s council appointed Sir John Clifton as warden of the city. Clifton held the post until April 1446, when he was replaced by Catworth. As a former mayor of London he was eminently qualified for the position. In August he was appointed a j.p. for the city, and from Michaelmas that year he undertook all the duties that had formerly been exercised by Norwich’s own mayor. During his period in office he was also chosen as a member of a royal commission charged with inquiring into the lands held by his predecessor, Clifton, who died in 1447. In the event Catworth was only to hold the post of warden for just over a year, for on 1 Dec. 1447 the city’s liberties were formally restored to its citizens, pending discussions into future constitutional arrangements which eventually led to the granting of a royal charter in 1452.37 Norwich Recs. ed. Hudson and Tingey, i. pp. lxxxiii-xciii, 298; ii. 71; CPR, 1441-6, p. 475; CFR, xviii. 76; PPC, v. 244, 256; C241/232/26; F. Blomefield, Norf. iii. 156.

Despite his appointment as warden of Norwich, Catworth continued to be active in London throughout the late 1440s. He retained a close connexion with his company, and in 1444-6 served as governor over the wardens, a post allocated to a member of the company who had reached the rank of alderman.38 Ms. Archs. Grocers’ Company, ii. 285. He was among a group of Londoners appointed to another royal commission in the summer of 1448, this time in connexion with the seizure of a Portuguese ship off the Isle of Wight. In January 1449 he was chosen for a fourth time as one of London’s MPs, thus becoming one of only nine men who were returned on more than three occasions for the city. His election occurred on 22 Jan., the day after a dispute between him and a prominent draper, Simon Eyre, had been put to arbitration by the court of aldermen. The nature of the dispute was not recorded, but the seriousness with which it was viewed was reflected by the appointment of four aldermen as arbiters. They completed their investigation quickly and on 5 Feb. it was decided that the two men should appear before the court and shake hands as a public mark of reconciliation.39 CPR, 1446-52, p. 188; jnl. 5, ff. 4-5. Catworth’s reputation was clearly unaffected by these events, for the following year, in the face of violent disruption caused by soldiers returning from Normandy, ‘Catworth being the maires depute and the shirrefs and certen aldermen rode wt CCC men well arraied and defensable unto the ffeyr of sent Bartholmewe to see that the peas and good rule wer kept that the sowdeours shuld doo noo harme to the Chapmen and peple of the contree’. Given his own dealings at fairs, this was no doubt an appropriate note on which Catworth could retire from public life, and indeed on 4 Dec. 1450 he made his final appearance at the court of aldermen. He almost certainly sought to be exonerated from his aldermanry soon afterwards, and on the following 16 Feb. Christopher Warter was chosen in his place.40 R. Flenley, Six Town Chrons. 128, 134-5; CFR, xviii. 167; Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 333; jnl. 5, f. 54. Like most Londoners of his rank, however, he may well have found it difficult to avoid further public duties, and in March 1453 he was appointed a commissioner of oyer and terminer to deal with the alleged riots and treasons of a London vintner. Nothing further is recorded of him until 1 Feb. 1454 when he drew up his will, asking for burial in St. Andrew’s church in Norwich where Margery, his first wife, was buried. One of the few London aldermen to be buried outside the capital in this period, Catworth left his property in Norwich and Essex to his widow, Agnes. The will was proved on 12 Mar.41 CPR, 1446-52, p. 320; Reg. Kempe, f. 318v.