COTTESBROKE, William

The Cottesbrokes took their name from a Northamptonshire village where a Robert Cottesbroke of London, almost certainly a relative, held property before his death in 1393. William may even have been descended from David de Cotesbroke†, who in 1311, at the height of the popular movement for reform of London’s government, was appointed comptroller of the City chamber.3 Guildhall Lib. London, commissary ct. wills, 9171/1, f. 318; B.R. Masters, The Chamberlain of London, 27. Both William and another relative, John, were members of the Grocers’ Company: both men were included in a list of liverymen compiled in 1428, with William having been admitted to the livery four years previously. In 1424-5 he contributed 20s. towards the purchase of the ‘groceris place in Conyhooplane’, an acquisition which cost the Company more than £290. Three years later he undertook to pay a more substantial sum of £6 0s. 8d., while the next year he was assessed to pay 26s. 8d. towards a further levy raised for the hall. It seems clear from the Grocers’ accounts, however, that Cottesbroke never actually paid the sums he was supposed to, for in 1432 it was noted that he ‘gaff never nought’ to the Company. His reluctance may be explained by the fact that a number of the London grocers were experiencing financial difficulties in these years, although it could equally have been an early indication of the rebelliousness which was to be a feature of his later involvement in city politics.4 Grocers’ Archs. ed. Kingdon, 151, 164, 171-2, 175, 182-3; P. Nightingale, Med. Mercantile Community, 458-60. Despite this, his relations with his fellow grocers appear to have been generally harmonious: so, in December 1420 he had been entrusted with the guardianship of the surviving son of a member of the Company, Robert Odiham. This was later committed to another grocer, John Poley, who had married the young heir’s sister.5 Cal. Letter Bk. London, I, 177, 252; K, 29.

During the early part of his career Cottesbroke devoted much of his time to the development of his business and trading activities. From an early stage he seems to have ben buying and selling a wide range of goods, not necessarily just those which were traditionally retailed by grocers. In March 1417 a dispute between him and two other men was submitted by the mayor to the wardens of the Haberdashers, suggesting that the dispute centred on dealings which Cottesbroke had with members of that craft.6 Corp. London RO, jnl. 1, f. 17v. Cottesbroke does not appear to have played much of a part in the retailing of goods in London, but instead became active as an exporter of cloth. Thus, in February and May 1433 he shipped cloth through the port of London in three different vessels, in partnership with leading London merchants including Stephen Brown*, Hugh Wyche*, William Milreth*, and Henry Frowyk I*,7 E122/203/1, ff. 17, 22v-23; Nightingale, 458-60. and soon became a major dealer in alum and English cloth in the Low Countries.8 Thielemans, 231, 265-6, 354-5; Bk. of Privileges, 103.

By the end of the decade there is clear evidence that Cottesbroke was becoming a successful and respected overseas trader. In November 1438 he and John Bale, a prominent tailor and fellow merchant, gave their judgement in a dispute between a Genoese merchant, Geronimo Centurione, and a grocer, John Alkerich, which centred upon a transaction involving casks of Seville oil.9 Cal. P. and M. London, 1413-37, p. 9. It was shortly before this that Cottesbroke himself had become embroiled in a dispute with another grocer, Richard Thornburgh, with whom he had been associated in business dealings in the Low Countries. On 28 Nov. that year the two men entered into reciprocal bonds to abide by the award of two arbiters appointed by the mayor’s court. The following April an award was made which entitled Cottesbroke to go to Holland and, once there, extract compensation from Thornburgh in relation to ‘certeyn clothes of the said William yn that parties & his right of the some of x li.’ It appears that Thornburgh was held liable for allowing the cloth and money to fall into the hands of ‘an holander’, thus lessening the chances of being able to recover them. Thornburgh was also required to help Cottesbroke to recover seven ‘corses’ (embroidered ribbons), while William himself was to assist in the recovery of four purses, goods which they claimed from overseas merchants. Finally, it was determined that Cottesbroke was to pay his former business partner the sum of £6 8s. 8d.10 Ibid. pp. 10, 15. This was just one of many such ventures in which Cottesbroke was involved, and in December 1439 his knowledge of the dealings of English merchants with that part of Europe was reflected by his appointment to an embassy which was sent to Holland and Zeeland to negotiate better trading conditions for denizen merchants. Likewise, two years later Cottesbroke was among a group of merchants and officials authorized to treat with the duke of Burgundy’s envoys. Cottesbroke seems to have played a leading part in the negotiations which continued intermittently over the next few years, and resulted in the treaty of Holland of 1445 and the Antwerp agreements concluded a year later.11 Thielemans, 140-4; Foedera ed. Rymer (Hague edn.) v (1), 66-67, 136; C61/132, m. 8; Bk. of Privileges, 145-7, 149, 161, 164, 165, 175.

Cottesbroke’s career had not always been so charmed. At some point in the first half of the 1420s, he and four other London merchants, including the prominent mercer John Coventry and the draper William Weston†, were accused of treason by one John Newman. The details of their purported offence are unknown, and with the aid of the chancellor, Bishop Beaufort, they succeeded in bringing the matter before the Parliament of 1425 and clearing their names.12 SC8/198/9855. Some years later, towards the end of the 1430s, Cottesbroke was once again one of a number of London merchants who found themselves on the receiving end of a series of malicious allegations concerning their mercantile activities. The instigator of these was Thomas Brown II*, an Exchequer official who was probably the son of a London grocer and had himself been admitted as a member of the Company in the mid 1430s. When, in late 1437 and early 1438, Brown was appointed to a commission charged with inquiring into customs evasions in Kent, he appears to have taken the opportunity to move against some of his rivals. As well as Cottesbroke, those accused included Milreth, Thomas Canynges* and the latter’s half-brother, John Young*. In February 1438 a jury headed by Brown alleged that Cottesbroke, along with Milreth, John Harowe* and other merchants, had in July the previous year attempted to export £3,000 worth of woollen cloth and other goods from Queenborough harbour in Kent without payment of customs. All denied the charges, claiming that the merchandise had been properly customed. Most of these charges were subsequently found to be unsubstantiated, but Cottesbroke, like his fellow merchants, felt it prudent to seek a royal pardon which was eventually granted to him in December 1440.13 CPR, 1436-41, pp. 310-11, 512; Nightingale, 452-3.

In the meantime Cottesbroke became involved in another trade-related dispute and in the summer of 1441 he brought a suit against Peter Pope, a London barber, whom he accused of forcibly removing merchandise belonging to him in the parish of St. Dunstan in the East. The goods comprised 54 bars of ‘long iron’ and 47 pieces of ‘short iron’ and were said to be worth £22. In his bill, put up before the barons of the Exchequer on 26 Jan. 1442 (the day after the assembling of the Parliament in which he represented London), Cottesbroke alleged that the theft had taken place on the previous 18 Nov. and that Pope had kept the goods until 16 Jan. In his defence Pope argued that the goods had been brought into the port of London on 7 Nov. in the ship of one Richard Scot, but that Cottesbroke had failed to pay the customs duty on them.14 E199/27/18. Nothing else is recorded of this dispute, although it is probable that many of Cottesbroke’s business dealings were centred on premises in St. Dunstan’s parish. These may have been located in Thames Street, for in April 1426 Cottesbroke and two others had conveyed lands and tenements there, known as ‘Horneres Keye’, to a group of citizens headed by an alderman, Robert Otley, and including among them Thomas Catworth* and two other grocers.15 Corp. London RO, hr 169/42. Nothing else, however, is recorded of his property in London.

It was not until the 1440s that Cottesbroke first began to make his mark upon London’s political and civic life. In February 1441 he was appointed to a committee of the common council, while in September that year he was one of the ‘notable and trustworthy citizens’ who were present at St. Martin le Grand for the examination of a citizen accused of forging another man’s seal.16 Ibid. jnl. 3, f. 76v; Cal. P. and M. London, 1437-57, 43. Two months later writs were sent out for the election of Members to attend a Parliament at Westminster on 25 Jan. 1442. Cottesbroke was one of the two commoners elected, and it is striking that the return made by the sheriffs listed 82 attestors, the largest number recorded for any London election under the Lancastrian kings. In view of Cottesbroke’s subsequent involvement in a popular movement in the capital the return could be interpreted as an indicator of the extent to which he was already viewed as something of a radical by the commonalty: this may have been reflected in the presence of an unusually large number of attestors (35, or 42% of the total), mostly from the lower ranks of the citizenry, who had not attested an election before and were never to do so again.17 Jnl. 3, f. 108v; Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 266n. On the other hand, Cottesbroke’s election should also be seen in the context of the petitions and bills which were discussed at this assembly, many of which were highly relevant to the interests of London’s merchant class. These concerned the safe-keeping of the seas, the suspension of the Hansards’ privileges until they should allow English merchants a similar freedom in their own domains, and further restrictions upon the trading activities of all aliens. Cottesbroke’s election to this Parliament was perfectly consistent with the course of his own career to date, and especially his involvement in diplomatic activity on behalf of the English merchants.18 Nightingale, 454-5; PROME, xi. 384-5. For the time being, therefore, there is nothing to suggest that he was regarded with suspicion by the city government, and indeed as well as serving on another committee in May 1442, shortly before Parliament was dissolved, he was, in September the same year, chosen as one of the four auditors of the City, a post which was often a stepping-stone to higher office.19 Jnl. 3, f. 115.

Despite this it is almost certain that Cottesbroke had already established connexions with some of those who spearheaded the growing movement for political reform in the capital. This had been born out of a jurisdictional dispute between the Tailors and Drapers which developed into a wider ‘constitutional’ debate about the participation in elections of all citizens, rather than just those summoned by the mayor. The champion of the radical cause was Ralph Holland, a tailor alderman, whose candidacy for the mayoralty was rejected on three occasions, much to the resentment of his followers among the city’s artisans. Disturbances broke out in October 1441 following Holland’s third failure, and a number of skinners and tailors were put in prison. Over the course of the next two years the City put in place measures to prevent further trouble from occurring, including the obtaining of a royal writ which specifically allowed the mayor and sheriffs to select those who were to attend the mayor’s election. Discontent nevertheless continued to manifest itself, particularly after the establishment of a new peace commission for London in the spring of 1443, which was subsequently incorporated into a new charter granted to the City in the following year: this formalized the judicial powers of the mayor and aldermen, so that they were no longer merely guardians of the peace, but justices with powers to hear and determine cases. As one chronicler stated, ‘a commission was sued for the City of London which was called a charter, and the commons were greatly aggrieved therewith’. It was at the election of the sheriffs and chamberlain on 21 Sept. that trouble once again flared up, a few days after Holland himself had attacked the commission in the court of aldermen. According to contemporary reports a great number of ‘inferior’ citizens, who had not been summoned, gained entrance to the Guildhall. The sheriffs were elected without incident, but when those present were asked to re-elect John Chichele, who had served as chamberlain since 1434, ‘the greatest number of the commonalty with loud voice and uplifted hands clamoured “Cotisbrok, Cotisbrok”’. In response to this challenge the mayor and aldermen ordered all those who had not been personally summoned to depart. A new election was held and this time Chichele was elected. As a former MP and a serving auditor Cottesbroke was certainly qualified for the post of chamberlain, and his abilities were rewarded by his re-election by the commonalty to the post of auditor on 13 Oct. Yet, as the City began its investigation into the disturbances, it became clear that his popular support stemmed as much from his own radical politics as it did from his abilities as an administrator. On 16 Oct. evidence was heard by the court of aldermen which confirmed that an armed rising had been planned for the mayoral election three days before. It was claimed by John Sturgeon*, who clearly had some connexion with the radicals, that Cottesbroke had been present at secret meetings held to plan the rising, along with the prominent tailor, John Bale, John Leving*, and others. Cottesbroke himself was questioned regarding allegations that he had displayed a copy of the ‘Great Charter’ of 1319 to his associates and in the City at large, and had impugned the rule of the mayor and aldermen. The significance of this charter was that it had conferred privileges upon the wider body of freemen which, according to the radicals, were being ignored by the ruling oligarchy. It was also a contention of the radicals that, as the charter had been confirmed by Parliament, it could not be overturned by the King’s writ, such as the one which had been obtained to restrict attendance at elections. This, in any case, was popularly believed to be a forgery. Consistent with this view was evidence given by Thomas Canynges in which he accused Cottesbroke of saying that those who had not voted for Thomas Catworth as mayor on 13 Oct. need not obey him.20 For these events see C.M. Barron, ‘Ralph Holland and the London Radicals’, in The Med. Town ed. Holt and Rosser, pp. 160-83; Six Town Chrons. ed. Flenley, 117; Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 286-7; jnl. 4, f. 10; Nightingale, 454-5, 458-60. Although he denied all the allegations made against him, it seems clear that Cottesbroke was one of the principal figures among the radicals, and it is probable, in view of the nature of the charges made against him, that he provided much of the ‘theory’ behind the radicals’ demands. The displaying of the Great Charter, for instance, suggests that, whatever his personal grievances may have been, he had strongly held views about how the City should be governed and, more importantly, by whom. The popular support demonstrated for Cottesbroke in September 1443 may even have represented a conscious linking of his name with that of his putative ancestor, David de Cotesbroke.

The impact of his alliance with the radicals on Cottesbroke’s civic career was not immediately apparent, as he continued to serve as auditor until September 1444. Yet it is striking that very little is heard of him after that date, a fact which implies that his career of office-holding at least had come to a premature end. His position within the Grocers’ Company may have been precarious too, for his very visible opposition to the court of aldermen in 1443 had run counter to the Grocers’ own attempts to preserve their control over the offices of weigher and garbler in the City, for which they needed the support of the Drapers’ aldermen.21 Nightingale, 455-8. It is probable that he was increasingly conducting his business from the Low Countries, where he was embroiled in a major commercial dispute in 1449.22 Thielemans, 455-65. His reappearance as an almsman of the Grocers from 16 Aug. 1455 suggests that he was ill, that his business was in serious difficulty, or perhaps both. Either way it is likely that he had no relatives upon whom he could rely for assistance and was forced to seek help from his Company. He received the sum of 16d. a week, or £3 9s. 4d. p.a., until at least August 1457, but had died by August 1458.23 Guildhall Lib. London, Grocers’ Co. wardens accts., 11,571/1, ff. 39v, 55v, 81.