COOK, Thomas II

Thomas Cook rose to become one of the most important figures in fifteenth-century London, and came to occupy an equally prominent role on the wider political stage. His infamous ‘troubles’, portrayed in the chronicle written by his apprentice, Robert Fabyan, were taken up as a cause célèbre by Tudor writers, who used his case to demonstrate the iniquities of Yorkist rule. Yet despite his turbulent career, he succeeded in laying secure foundations for his family’s future prominence as landowners in Essex.5 This biography draws heavily upon the detailed studies of Cook’s fam. and career in John Vale’s Bk. ed. Kekewich et al; A.F. Sutton, ‘Thomas Cook and his “Troubles”’, Guildhall Studies in London Hist. iii (2), 85-108; M. Hicks, ‘The Case of Sir Thomas Cook’, EHR, xciii. 82-96. Cook was a Londoner by birth, although his family retained its links with Lavenham in Suffolk, where his grandfather had been born. His father was a leading London draper who, although never elected as an alderman in the city, held the post of warden of London Bridge for some 17 years before his death in 1458.6 Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 248, 381; jnl. 6, f. 177v. Cook followed his father into the drapery trade and was apprenticed in 1425 to William Weston†, a resident of the parish of St. Andrew Cornhill. In the meantime the elder Cook had established strong links with another leading member of his mystery, Philip Malpas, for whom he acted as an arbiter in a dispute heard before the court of aldermen that same year, and the bond between the two men was affirmed, once the younger Thomas had completed his apprenticeship, by his betrothal to Malpas’s daughter Elizabeth. The later marriage of Elizabeth’s sister to Ralph Josselyn† forged a further tie among the leading ranks of London’s merchant elite.7 Jnl. 2, f. 42.

Cook rapidly established himself as a cloth merchant, a task made all the easier by his father’s position within the Drapers’ Company and his links with Malpas and others. From the late 1430s onwards he was active as an exporter of cloth to Gascony through the ports of London and Southampton, and the size of his shipments to the continent grew gradually over the next two decades, before the loss of the English possessions in France forced him, like other merchants, to make much more of contacts with Burgundy and the Low Countries. In September 1458 alone he took more than 200 cloths through the port of London in three shipments that were bound for Flanders. In return he imported large quantities of a variety of goods. In 1438 he brought some 260 ells of canvas into Southampton, while in the late 1440s he was shipping iron worth more than £50 into London. A commodity that was especially popular with merchants such as Cook was woad, and from the early 1440s onwards he and some of his fellow drapers established contacts with the Italian community in Southampton with a view to organizing regular imports of this product. In the 12 months from Michaelmas 1459 he imported some 636 bales of woad, two bales of grain for dyeing and 96 undyed cloths. Woad worth more than £190 was just one of several shipments he shipped into Southampton in 1461.8 E122/73/20, 76/48, 141/38/4, 209/1; P. Nightingale, Med. Mercantile Community, 507; Brokage Bk. 1443-4 (Soton. Rec. Ser. iv), 10; A.A. Ruddock, ‘Decline of Southampton’, Econ. HR, ser. 2, ii. 140. Some of these imported goods may have been supplied to the Great Wardrobe: payments were made in the early 1440s for quantities of green and black cloth obtained from either Cook or his father.9 E101/409/6, 12. The younger Thomas’s dealings with the Italian community also played a part in ostensibly unrelated business ventures. In the autumn of 1459 he supplied goods worth just over £114 to a fellow merchant, Richard Heyron, and the obligation for payment was delivered to a Florentine merchant who failed to appear in court on four occasions when ordered to do so by the mayor.10 Cal. P. and M. London, 1458-82, p. 22.

Both in London and further afield Cook established a formidable network of business associates. One of his partners in the 1440s and early 1450s was the draper Henry Bray. The two men were joined in a dispute with the prominent draper Simon Eyre, and they had dealings with provincial merchants, dyers, and other cloth-workers that were reflected in ‘gifts’ of goods and chattels made to them as security for loans or goods supplied on credit.11 CPR, 1441-6, pp. 212, 383; 1446-52, p. 398; CCR, 1447-54, p. 439; Cal. P. and M. London, 1437-57, p. 147. They had further commercial dealings with Eyre in the late 1450s, and in the autumn of 1459 the latter’s executor acknowledged a quitclaim in respect of a bond for £1,579 9s. 4d. in which Cook, together with his father-in-law Malpas, Stephen Forster* (whose son John† had by this date married Cook’s daughter) and an Italian merchant were bound to Eyre.12 Cal. P. and M. London, 1458-82, p. 11. More obscure are Thomas’s relations with the Londoners from a wide range of crafts who came into contact with him as donors of goods and chattels: some, particularly the tailors, upholders and drapers, were doubtless his customers; others probably used him as a source of finance.13 CCR, 1441-7, p. 365; 1447-54, pp. 20, 28, 102, 133, 136, 191, 278, 333, 437; 1454-61, pp. 50, 79, 252, 427. Outside London, Cook maintained similar ties in Essex and Hertfordshire, where he was in the process of acquiring property. Once again, a number of those who pledged goods, rents or other items were involved in the cloth-making industry, especially in centres such as Colchester and Ware. Given his links with the port of Southampton it was not surprising that on another occasion a ‘gift’ was made by a merchant of that town to Cook, William Waynflete, bishop of Winchester, and a Hampshire esquire.14 CCR, 1435-41, p. 342; 1447-54, p. 163; 1454-61, p. 433; 1461-8, p. 303.

While Cook’s father appears to have lived in the Candlewick Street area of London, he himself took up residence in the parish of St. Mary Woolchurch, where he served as a churchwarden in 1442.15 Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 272. Five years later he took out a long lease on a large house next to the Stocks market in the neighbouring parish of St. Christopher, which he held until 1474.16 CAD, ii. 257. He was still living there in 1456, but subsequently sub-let it to the wealthy and influential financier, Gherardo Caniziani, while he himself moved to an even bigger residence in the parish of St. Peter le Poor. Over the course of his career Cook acquired a good deal of other property in the city, including a ‘grete place’ in the parish of St. Margaret Lothbury, The Swan near Aldrichgate, and a substantial brewhouse in the parish of St. Andrew Eastcheap. The last of these probably came to him on the death of his father-in-law, when his wife inherited several properties including Malpas’s principal residence, the Green Gate in Cornhill, other holdings in the same parish, and tenements in Lime Street, along with the Bear, the Dolphin and a number of buildings in Southwark.17 Corp. London RO, hr 184/6, 187/50; PCC 36 Wattys (PROB11/6, ff. 280-5).

Outside the city, Cook acquired property in a number of counties both in the south-east and beyond. His Southwark property aside, in 1455 he purchased the Surrey manor of Chelsham Watvile, while in neighbouring Kent he came to own property in Maidstone.18 VCH Surr. iv. 271. He reaffirmed his family’s links with Suffolk by buying 12 messuages and 100 acres of land, meadow and pasture in Bury St. Edmunds, and in the nearby parishes of Fornham Martin and Fornham All Saints. He also came to own unspecified holdings in Whitchurch in Cheshire, almost certainly also part of the Malpas inheritance. Yet these were of relatively minor importance when compared with the estates in Essex which he and his father-in-law acquired systematically from the 1450s onwards. By the 1460s Cook and Malpas had built up substantial holdings in the county, particularly in the northern part of the royal lordship of Havering atte Bower which included Romford and Hornchurch. Cook’s property comprised an estate of about 900 acres which included the manors of Earls, Bedfords, Haghams and Gidea Hall. In the reign of Edward IV these were augmented by the purchase of East House, Redden Hall and Magdalen Laver, the latter acquired by mortgage in 1468, and subsequently by some of Malpas’s manors, notably Appultons and Bellhouse. The most important of Cook’s Essex estates was Gidea Hall, which he purchased from Robert Saltmarsh in 1452. He built a mansion there in the 1460s, receiving a royal licence to enclose 140 acres of land and to fortify the house in October 1466.19 VCH Essex, vii. 14, 67-68. See M.K. McIntosh, ‘Cooke Fam. of Gidea Hall, 1460-1661’ (Harvard Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1967). For a full list of Cook’s lands see M. Albertson, ‘London Merchants and their Landed Property during the reigns of the Yorkists’ (Bryn Mawr Coll. Ph.D. thesis, 1932), 91-94. Cook also acquired a certain amount of property in Colchester: in 1453 Richard Bexhill granted him tenements in East Stockwell Street and three years later he acquired a larger portfolio of holdings in the town when houses in Holy Trinity parish, as well as meadows, pastures and fish and meat stalls in the vicinity, were conveyed to him.20 Mercers’ Co., London, St. Paul’s school mss, cart. ff. 218-19, 225v-6v.

Cook’s growing importance in the city of London, particularly among his fellow drapers, was apparent as early as 1440 when he represented Nicholas Yeo* in a case brought before the mayor’s court. Four years later he was chosen by the city government as one of the collectors of a loan of £1,000 which was raised for the Crown, while later that same year he was appointed as a supervisor of work that was underway to extend the city’s conduits, a project sponsored by William Estfield*.21 Jnl. 3, f. 70v; 4, ff. 38v, 50. His father’s position in the city government was undoubtedly helpful to him at this point in his career, and in September 1445, while the elder Thomas was warden of London Bridge, Cook was chosen as one of the four auditors of the accounts of the city and of the Bridge itself. From this time onwards he began to be appointed to civic committees, and in January 1447 he attested the city’s parliamentary election return for the first time.22 Jnl. 4, ff. 81v, 91, 146v. In the spring of 1449 Cook made his first bid to reach the highest echelons of the civic hierarchy, yet although that March he put his name forward for election to the court of aldermen for Cornhill ward, following the death of John Gedney*, he was passed over in favour of Simon Eyre, and the following month he lost out a second time, to William Marowe*, for Eyre’s previous ward of Broad Street.23 Jnl. 5, ff. 8v, 9.

By the mid 1440s Cook’s abilities had also come to the notice of the Crown. In October 1446 Chancellor Stafford appointed him an arbiter in a dispute between the French merchant Baldwin Sanheuy and William Bowes II* of York,24 CCR, 1441-7, pp. 444-5; C4/5/26-28. and in December 1448 he was made collector of customs in the port of Southampton. According to one source he owed this appointment directly to the favour of Queen Margaret, and links with the queen may well be reflected in an assignment to her in April 1449 of tallies worth more than £3,000 on the customs dues on wool and wool fells collected by Cook and his fellow official Thomas Pound*.25 CPR, 1446-52, p. 267. The post also brought him into contact with John Norris*, the courtier, to whom he paid large sums of money for the queen. Ties with Norris were clearly in the interests of ambitious cloth merchants such as Cook, despite the displeasure caused to the city of London and the Drapers’ Company by Norris’s appointment to the lucrative office of packer of woollen cloths.

Now, however, Cook found himself drawn into political events on a wider stage, as in the summer of 1450 the commons of Kent rose under the leadership of Jack Cade and threatened the city of London. On 16 June the King sent emissaries to receive the written complaints of the rebels encamped at Blackheath. It is possible that Cook was one of them, for among the documents collected by his servant John Vale was a safe-conduct issued by Cade, and another unique document which contained the rebels’ demand that the Italian merchants of the city be organized to provide them with arms, harness and 1,000 marks in cash. After a show of force by the King’s soldiers the rebels withdrew temporarily, but soon threatened London again, whereupon the King departed for Kenilworth. With the city left to face the insurgents alone, pressure from the common council mounted for the removal from his aldermanry of Philip Malpas, one of the rebels’ principal targets among the citizens. In the meantime the civic authorities kept watch on the rebels, and it is possible that Cook’s safe-conduct in fact related to a visit to Cade’s camp made on their behalf, on or about 29 June, rather than to the earlier delegation from the Crown. Either way, efforts to keep the insurgents out of London failed, and on 3 July they entered the gates. In subsequent days prominent royal officials and foreign merchants were attacked, but more poignantly for Cook, his father-in-law’s house was looted, an event recorded in several chronicles, as well as by Vale.26 Cook’s failure to prevent this can be taken as evidence for rejecting the argument that he was in sympathy with the rebels: John Vale’s Bk. 79.

Although Malpas’s reputation and career had been damaged by his connexions with the Crown, Cook evidently emerged from the crisis with some credit, and soon secured further advancement. In October he was appointed as Queen Margaret’s ‘deputatie’ in connexion with a large shipment of wool that left London in a fleet of six ships bound for Calais.27 E122/73/26, ff. 45-46, 48-49, 50v. A year later he was appointed with his father to the post of farmer of the alnage of cloth at Lavenham and elsewhere in Suffolk, an office which the elder Thomas had held in his own right since the early 1430s. Yet, just two months later the post was granted to Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset.28 CFR, xvi. 110; xvii. 64, 280; xviii. 243-4. Over the course of the next few years Cook served on a series of royal commissions, particularly those appointed to deal with the activities of pirates off the south coast of England. He also began lending money to the Crown and although the sums he lent were not great, it is striking that both he and Malpas were among those Londoners who in the spring of 1453 advanced money individually, following the rejection by the city government of royal requests for corporate advances of finance.29 E403/777, mm. 9, 13; W. Smith, ‘R. Finance and Politics in Eng.’ (Manchester Univ. Ph.D. thesis), 224, 268.

Following the end of Cade’s revolt Cook renewed his efforts to join the court of aldermen. In July 1451 Simon Eyre moved from Cornhill to Langbourne Ward, but once again Cook’s candidature to replace him was unsuccessful. He suffered a fourth defeat later that month. In September 1453, however, he was chosen as sheriff of London and Middlesex by the commonalty, a position which he clearly hoped would propel him towards membership of the aldermanic body. He was, nevertheless, to be disappointed a further four times, indicating some deep seated reservations as to his suitability among his influential neighbours, perhaps resulting from his occasional outbursts in the presence of the aldermen.30 Jnl. 5, ff. 60-61, 170, 202; 6, ff. 26v, 33. Only in October 1456 was Cook finally successful and was chosen as alderman for the ward of Vintry, from where he moved two years later to his own ward of Broad Street.

Cook spent the late 1450s consolidating his position within London’s oligarchy. He served on numerous committees during the last years of Lancastrian rule, and in September 1457 he was sent by the mayor and aldermen to the King to receive instructions as to the fitting out of a fleet of ships that was to respond to French raids on the port of Sandwich. The following month he was one of the two candidates for the mayoralty, and although not chosen on this occasion he was clearly marked down as a future holder of the office. He obtained a royal pardon in January 1458, apparently in anticipation of difficulties that might arise in connexion with his tenure of the posts of sheriff and customs collector.31 Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 382; jnl. 6, ff. 114v, 132, 177v, 180v; C67/42, m. 17.

What Cook could not anticipate was the open civil war that broke out in the autumn of 1459, and the consequent collapse of Henry VI’s kingship. In the immediate term, London remained faithful to the house of Lancaster, but in the summer of 1460 the city fathers decided to admit within the walls the Yorkist earls of Salisbury, Warwick and March, who had invaded England from Calais. The decision followed on from a meeting between a delegation of Londoners, including Cook, and the earls. It is possible that Cook’s role in the negotiations had been an important one, for a few weeks later, when a Parliament was summoned in the wake of the earls’ victory at the battle of Northampton, he was elected one of London’s MPs for the first time. By the end of 1460, Parliament appeared to have found a formula for a permanent dynastic settlement, under the terms of which Henry VI was to remain King for life, but be succeeded by the duke of York and his heirs. During the Christmas recess, however, all of this changed. By the time Parliament reassembled at the end of January 1461, the duke of York and the earl of Salisbury had met their deaths at the battle of Wakefield, and the ranks of Lords and Commons alike were depleted. Within a few days, Parliament hastily disbanded on news of the approach of Queen Margaret’s army from the north. Following her victory at the second battle of St. Albans, the queen’s force marched on London. Many leading Londoners who had played a part in negotiating the city’s accommodation with the Yorkists now went in fear of reprisals, among them Cook’s relatives Philip Malpas and John Forster, who sailed for Zeeland. On the way, their vessel, which also contained some of Cook’s portable property (whether for purposes of trade, or in a bid to move it to safety, is uncertain) was taken by the French, and the passengers were held to ransom.

Their flight proved unnecessary. The Lancastrian army stayed its hand, withdrawing to the north, and on 4 Mar. the new duke of York was acclaimed as King Edward IV outside St. Paul’s cathedral. Cook, like many of his fellow aldermen, adapted speedily to the change of regime, and soon found himself in favour with the new rulers. Just a few weeks later, in May, he shared with (Sir) Thomas Tyrell* a 20-year-lease of the royal lordship of Havering atte Bower, and in July he was appointed keeper of the royal park there. Furthermore, in the summer of the following year he was named one of the feoffees, headed by the chancellor, Bishop Neville of Exeter, who were to hold the forfeited estates of the earl of Devon and others in the event of the death without male issue of William Neville, earl of Kent, to whom they had been granted.32 CFR, xx. 18; CPR, 1461-7, pp. 27, 225. Before long, the Crown’s requests for financial support from the citizens of London also resumed. By late 1461 Cook himself was once again lending money, and within a few months the city once again received the King’s letters soliciting collective contributions towards the defeat of the remaining Lancastrian loyalists and their Scottish and French allies.33 E403/824, mm. 7, 11; 827A, m. 10; 832, mm. 2, 3; Orig. Letters. ed. Ellis, i. 126; John Vale’s Bk. 84n., 135-8; Patronage, Crown and Provinces ed. Griffiths, 18. The King’s letter was sent to all aldermen, not just to Cook as implied in C. Scofield, Edw. IV. i. 242. In the autumn of 1462 Cook was elected mayor of the city, and as a result assumed a leading role in the raising of finance for the government’s efforts to root out its enemies. Shortly after his election, the city provided King Edward with 1,000 marks to support campaigns against Queen Margaret in the north, while another £2,600 was provided by the end of the year to support the siege of three Northumbrian castles still in Lancastrian hands, all of which were soon captured. Like many who held the highest civic office Cook did not always endear himself to his fellow citizens: in March 1463 Robert Bifeld was sent to Newgate after accusing Cook and his predecessor, Hugh Wyche*, of being unjust judges.34 Cal. Letter Bk. London, L, 22. If Cook failed to acknowledge (let alone act upon) the King’s personal request that he might sub-let some of his property in the parish of St. Christopher le Stocks to Neapolitan merchants, this did not diminish the esteem in which he was held by the monarch. In March 1463 he was added to the Essex bench, and in an extraordinary display of royal favour he was knighted along with several other prominent London aldermen on the eve of Elizabeth Wydeville’s coronation as Edward’s queen in the spring of 1465. Indeed, he established an indirect link with the new consort, whose endowment included the lordship of Havering, when his son-in-law was appointed her receiver-general.35 A.R. Myers, Crown, Household and Parlt. 264-6. By 1468, therefore, Cook had successfully survived the change of dynasty and had established himself as both a wealthy London citizen and a country gentleman, with close ties to the royal government. His marriage had produced a male heir and he was in the process of building an impressive new residence at Gidea Hall, which he had licence to empark in October 1466.36 John Vale’s Bk. 169, 265; Gt. Chron . London ed. Thomas and Thornley, 429; CChR, vi. 214-15.

Now, however, Cook’s fortunes changed suddenly and dramatically, costing him dear in terms of his personal wealth, position and connexions. No hint of what was to come was in evidence in May 1468 when Cook was among 63 Londoners, headed by the mayor, who entered into a bond in £200, as part of arrangements to secure the payment by the merchants of the Calais staple of £10,000 to Charles, duke of Burgundy, for his marriage to Edward IV’s sister, Margaret.37 E404/74/1/45; Gt. Chron. London, 429; C.D. Ross, Edw. IV, 111; Scofield, i. 453. Less than a month later, however, he was accused of complicity in treasonable efforts to send aid to the exiled former queen, Margaret of Anjou. It is probable that Cook’s earlier connexions with Margaret alone were enough to render him suspect, but the evidence of his apprentice, the chronicler Robert Fabyan, suggests that the draper had indeed been asked by John Hawkins, a servant of John, Lord Wenlock*, to provide Margaret with money at various times, but had refused to help. The charges against Cook originated in the capture of a Lancastrian agent, one Cornelius, who under torture implicated Hawkins. The latter for his part had incriminated a number of leading Londoners, including Cook and the grocer Sir John Plomer, together with the distinguished soldier (Sir) Gervase Clifton*. The arrests and allegations helped to fuel an atmosphere of suspicion at a time when it was known that forces led by Jasper Tudor were planning to relieve Harlech castle, still held by the Lancastrians. The date of Cook’s arrest is not clear, although he was present at meetings of the court of aldermen on 3 and 18 June, and it seems likely that he remained at liberty while Margaret of York was still in the country (a reflection of his standing in her eyes). Even so, Fabyan was almost certainly wrong to state that Cook had been released on bail at her instigation; he was probably imprisoned in the Tower of London shortly after her departure on 23 June.

Following Cook’s arrest, his wife Elizabeth was confined to the mayor’s house in London, but she nevertheless made an attempt to raise the sum of £20,000 to bail her husband out of gaol. This proved unsuccessful, and while Cook awaited his trial his houses in Essex and London were ‘seaside by the lord Ryvers and his wife & servauntys clerely putt owth thereof’. The damage done was considerable: Cook’s London residence was later said to have been left in an ‘ill pykyll’, and in the ensuing months and years some of his valuable possessions passed through the hands of royal officials and courtiers, notably the treasurer Earl Rivers (the queen’s father), but also the treasurer of the royal household, Sir John Fogg†, with most, but not all, finding their way into the Exchequer. Among the goods were fine tapestries, including one which, according to Fabyan, had been coveted by Rivers’ wife, the duchess of Bedford, and was ‘wrought in moost Rycchest wyse wt goold of the hool story of the Syege of Jherusalem which I herd the fforeman of my maystrs saye that it cost in barture whan my said mastyr bowgth it viij C li.’.38 The notion that the duchess acquired the tapestries as a direct result of the ransacking of Cook’s house is based on a misinterpretation of Fabyan’s testimony by later chroniclers, although the former apprentice was in no doubt that she disliked Cook: Issues of the Exchequer ed. Devon, 491; Gt. Chron. London, 204-8.

Cook’s trial opened in the Guildhall in London on 4 July, with the duke of Clarence and the chief justice Sir John Markham heading the commission of oyer and terminer, which also included the mayor of London, Thomas Oulegreve, a ‘replete and lympish man’ who fell asleep during the proceedings. The indictments alleged that Hawkins, Hugh Mille* and Peter Alfray had been making approaches to various Londoners since October 1466 in order to obtain financial support for the Lancastrian garrison at Harlech. Cook himself was accused of contributing woollen cloths. The Lancastrian agents were dealt with first: all were found guilty and Hawkins was executed, although Mille and Alfray were able to go free after producing royal pardons. When it came to Cook and two of the other prominent individuals indicted, Hugh Pakenham and Thomas Portalyn*, things proceeded less smoothly for the commission. A grand jury refused to charge them with providing money and would only accept a charge of concealing the plot revealed to them by Hawkins and the others. It was left to a second jury of Londoners, empanelled on 6 July, to indict Cook and two others of giving aid to the Lancastrians and of concealing a plot to invade England. In the event, however, Markham instructed the trial jury to acquit Cook of sending aid to Queen Margaret and her forces, leaving only the charge of concealment. On this charge – misprision – he was found guilty, a verdict not recorded in the trial record itself but apparent from records of the fine imposed on him.39 KB9/319, mm. 17-19, 40.

Following the verdict Cook was sent first to the compter in Bread Street and then to the King’s Bench prison in Southwark while a decision was awaited from the King about the level of fine he was to pay. His stay in the Marshalsea was far from pleasant, for the keeper of the prison ‘owgth hym lytyll ffavour’ and he was placed in the common gaol. Cook therefore asked Sir Ralph Josselyn and other friends to try and secure his removal to the keeper’s house, for which he agreed to pay 20s. a week.40 Gt. Chron. London, 204-8. Eventually Cook was condemned to pay a fine of 8,000 marks for his misprision, a hefty payment that was clearly meant to be a deterrent to men of his rank and wealth. However, he was permitted to set some of his personal possessions against this sum, and in this category were included many of the goods looted from his houses the previous month. An additional charge of 800 marks, or ten per cent of the fine, was also payable, for it appears that Queen Elizabeth chose to insist on her right to ‘queen’s gold’. Nevertheless, matters appear to have been agreed between the parties, for Fabyan recorded that ‘Sir Thomas hadde his ende, how well ther was noon opyn spech of It afftyr’.41 Ibid. 208; Patronage, Crown and Provinces, 50-51. On 18 July Cook and his sureties presented themselves before two royal justices and arrangements for the payment of the principal fine were agreed. Crucially, so it was recorded, the fine was ‘not recorded or assessed’ by the justices, but had been arranged by agreement with the solicitor-general, Richard Fowler†, who was acting directly for the King. In the eyes of many, the verdict against Cook, and in particular the fine imposed on him, subsequently came to characterize the alleged iniquities of the Yorkist regime, and the fact that he escaped with a verdict of misprision is indicative of the weakness of the case against him. The verdict was, however, in one sense a fair reflection of what Fabyan recorded of his master’s activities at that time: he was clearly not a Lancastrian agent or, at this stage at least, an overt sympathizer, but his connexion with Margaret of Anjou was well known and this made him an obvious target for those seeking support for her. However ill Cook was treated in practice, he was not, as was implied both at the time and in some later narratives, the deliberately targeted victim of Queen Elizabeth and her covetous parents, Earl Rivers and his wife. Allegations that the Wydevilles had exerted pressure on Chief Justice Markham had little basis in fact and were typical of those put about by opponents of the queen’s family in the late 1460s.42 Scofield, i. 459-62; Sutton, 89-90.

As soon as 26 July 1468 Cook was granted a royal pardon and released from prison. A week later, on 2 Aug., he paid his fine in a single lump sum, indicative of the very substantial resources still available to him. In late November, finally, he could come into the court of King’s bench and present his pardon and proof that all monies had been paid.43 John Vale’s Bk. 154-7; CPR, 1467-77, p. 98; A. B. Steel, Receipt of Exchequer, 293. The Londoners, many of whom had – like Cook – been caught up in the witch-hunt of 1468 were rather more reluctant to move against him. The reluctance of the first jury to indict Cook of any crimes was mirrored by a long delay before his expulsion from the court of aldermen, which, in the event, was brought about only by the King’s direct intervention on 21 Nov., rather than by any pressure exerted by the aldermen.44 Jnl. 7, ff. 182, 185.

Deprived of both his royal and civic offices, Cook played no part in public life during 1469 and 1470. This changed in the autumn of 1470, when Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, for some time disenchanted with his royal cousin’s policies, came to an understanding with Margaret of Anjou, invaded England with French assistance, drove Edward IV into exile and restored Henry VI to the throne. This presented the Londoners with a dilemma. Most of the aldermen had vested interests in the policies that had been pursued by Edward IV’s government, but with the King in exile there was in practical terms little point in trying to resist Warwick’s army. It was essential to find spokesmen who would be agreeable to the new rulers and could protect the city’s interests. Events moved swiftly: Thomas Oulegreve was forced to resign his aldermanry, leaving the way clear for the return of Cook to the bench. Evidence from the city’s journal indicates that he was reinstated at the explicit request of the Readeption regime, and shows that he was regarded as a vital part of the new government’s attempt to establish itself and win over London.45 Ibid. f. 225v. A Parliament was summoned to meet on 26 Nov. and not surprisingly Cook’s name was among those returned as representatives of the city. His appearance in the Parliament was noted by Fabyan who observed that Cook,

beyng an excellent & well spokyn man & a profoundly Resonyd, shewid In the opyn parlement of the grete wrongys and lossys that he hadd susteynyd for the ffydelyte that he bare unto kyng henry and Quene Mergaret, and Requyrid Restytucion of xxij Ml mark that he hadd lost by fforce of the fforesaid wrongys. And to bryng his purpoos abowth made many freendys to his grete charge and cost.46 Gt. Chron. London, 213-16.

Cook was now in a position to take his revenge for his humiliation in 1468. Even Fabyan could not write favourably of his actions, alleging that

Where the mayor sundry tymys ffeyned hym sylf syke for ffere of mynystryng of his office, the said Sir Thomas casting noo peryllis, executid the uttyrmest of his powar to the hurt and Indempnyte of such as he knewe bare any ffavour to kyng Edward.47 Ibid. 241.

Evidence from the city journals suggests that the mayor, John Stokton, was absent from his duties from about 21 Feb. to 10 Apr. 1471. During this period the court of aldermen was presided over first by Richard Lee*, whose sympathies were almost certainly with the Yorkists, and subsequently by Cook. It must have been with some dismay that the draper received the news of King Edward’s landing in the north, and his unimpeded march south, which may have turned to genuine horror when the duke of Clarence, who had initially made common cause with Warwick, switched sides, and took his substantial force into Edward’s camp. While Henry VI was still lodged in the bishop’s palace in the city, the only force that could have come to his defence was that of the earl of Warwick, which was holed up far away in Coventry. On Tuesday of Holy Week 1471 the Yorkist loyalists imprisoned in the Tower of London overcame their guards and took control of the fortress in Edward IV’s name. Two days later, the King himself entered the city in triumph.48 H. Kleineke, ‘Gerhard von Wesel’s Newsletter’, Ricardian, xx. 79-80. By this time Cook and his son Philip had fled the city and sailed for France, only for their ship to be intercepted by pirates. They were eventually set ashore in Zeeland. On the continent Cook appears to have benefited once more from the favour of Margaret, duchess of Burgundy. Fabyan recorded that she wrote on his behalf to her brother the King, persuading him to spare his life in return for another hefty ransom. Some of this money may have been advanced by the duchess, for there is evidence that during 1471-2 she held Cook’s manor of Gidea Hall, presumably as security for the loan. Cook returned to England where he was sent to live under house arrest with Alfred Corneburgh†, a royal servant who was a friend and Essex neighbour.49 Gt. Chron. London, 222.

Cook was eventually pardoned, along with his son Philip, on 20 July 1472.50 CPR, 1467-77, p. 347. The effect that the four years of his ‘troubles’ had had upon his fortunes was mixed. On the one hand he had lost all his offices, had valuable possessions seized and despoiled by the royal officials, and been forced to hand over a large sum of money to the Crown after his conviction. Yet, according to Fabyan, this did not subsequently prevent him from taking up where he had left off in his building work at Havering and elsewhere. The death of Philip Malpas in 1469 had resulted in considerable estates in Essex and London coming the way of his daughter and her husband, and a reversionary interest was also left to them in property bequeathed to the childless Sir Ralph Josselyn.51 PCC 27 Godyn (PROB11/5, ff. 210-12). Some evidence of temporary difficulties is apparent from several petitions submitted by Cook to Chancery. In one instance he claimed to have been defrauded by the cloth merchant William Vowell* of Wells while he ‘was in suche troble and duras’,52 C1/64/480. and in another he stated that when he was residing with Corneburgh and ‘in grete sekeness and in jepertie of his liffe’, he was persuaded by Robert Harding, a goldsmith, to mortgage to him two Surrey manors and, most dramatically, his ‘grete place’ near the Austin Friars in London, in order to raise finance. Cook managed to repay most of the money, but in the mid 1470s some of it was still owing. Harding persuaded all but one of Cook’s trustees to make a release to him, and so was forced to take out an action of debt for the remaining money. Not long afterwards all the holdings finally came into Harding’s possession.53 VCH Surr. iv. 271; C1/50/21. Cook’s petition also referred to the ‘the great grudge and evil will’ that Josselyn, another trustee, bore towards him. The breakdown in relations between the two men can be traced back to at least November 1470, when Cook was bound over in the sum of £2,000 to abide by the award of arbiters in a dispute between them. It later emerged that at around the time of his trial in 1468 Cook had borrowed more than £530 from his erstwhile friend and brother-in-law, pledging some of his Suffolk and Essex estates as security. He managed to repay much of the money, but Josselyn was not satisfied and petitioned Chancery when Cook and his feoffees refused to hand over the property. Cook may well have regretted not repaying his former friend, for Josselyn was able to cause a good deal of trouble because of his prominent role as a trustee of some of Cook’s other properties. Among these were houses in Bury St. Edmunds which Cook wanted to sell, a course of action that Josselyn decided to oppose while the debt to him remained unpaid. It seems likely that Cook eventually won the case, for neither he nor Josselyn died possessed of any property in Suffolk.54 C1/51/249, 54/66.

The loss of his chief London residence, and the ongoing lawsuits with Josselyn and other feoffees did not greatly affect Cook’s wealth, for apart from the brief period when Gidea Hall was held by Duchess Margaret he appears to have kept all his lands in Essex intact and mortgage-free. As well as resuming building work at Gidea he was able to build a new house, a ‘lytlyll mansion’, near the Austin Friars in London, adjacent to his old residence, and although smaller, it was evidently large enough to provide separate suites of rooms for both him and his wife. Some evidence of his improving fortunes in the public arena can be found in his appointment in 1475 to a commission to hear an appeal from the staple court of Calais.

In his will drawn up on 15 Apr. 1478, Cook asked to be buried in the church of the Austin Friars, opposite the tomb of William Edward, a grocer and former mayor of the city. His funeral arrangements were to include the attendance of 16 poor men carrying torches and tapers, but he specified that there was to be no ‘curious hers or candilstikkes’. He established a chantry at Witham in Essex, which he endowed with lands nearby called ‘Freshes’, but his most impressive charitable legacy was his foundation of an almshouse in his rents in Black Alley in the parish of All Hallows London Wall. This was to house six poor, blind men for a period of 90 years after his death. Among those who benefited from personal bequests were Cook’s chaplain, Robert Whittingham, a servant and relative of Robert Whittingham II*, and John Vale to whom he left £50 of ‘the best detts that been to me nowe owing’. The bulk of his personal effects were left to his son Philip, who was to ensure that the mass books, psalters, vestments and chalices were passed on to whichever of his two younger siblings entered the priesthood. The residue of his goods was divided into the customary three parts, of which Elizabeth, his widow, was to receive one, while the rest was to be split between Philip on the one hand, and his two remaining brothers William and John on the other, once they had reached the age of 24. A fourth brother, Thomas, had predeceased their father.

When it came to the disposition of Cook’s considerable property holdings Philip was once more the chief beneficiary. He received the bulk of the Essex estates, including Cook’s seat at Gidea Hall and the manor of Esthouse, as well as many of the holdings in London and others in Somerset and Cheshire. Philip was also to inherit his father’s main residences in London, as well as the Malpas property after his mother’s death. By contrast, John and William received only relatively small endowments: John was left holdings in Brentwood and was to inherit the manor of Bellhouse after his mother’s death, while William was to have Cook’s tenements in Colchester and the reversion of the manor of Appleton. In addition, Cook’s daughter and her husband John Forster were left two tenements in Southwark. Further property in Kent was to be sold by the executors (who were headed by Philip), to perform his will. It is clear that in dividing his estate in this way Cook was ignoring the wishes of his wife, but he was careful to insert clauses in the will which precluded any alteration to its terms and stated that ‘she shall nott cause by no many wise thise my saide testament to be altred, chaunged or broken or any other wise to be made thanne I my silfe have ordeigned’. He died on 28 Apr. and an inquisition post mortem held in Essex soon afterwards detailed the extent of his estates there and confirmed that Philip was over the age of 24. The will was proved on 1 June.55 PCC 36 Wattys; C140/68/51. Shortly after her husband’s death Elizabeth Cook conveyed her estates to an influential body of feoffees, including William, Lord Hastings, and John Morton, bishop of Ely, men to whom she was connected through her son-in-law John Forster, by now an important royal official. Her own will, drawn up in November 1484, attempted a redistribution of her paternal inheritance, a move which inevitably set her at odds with her eldest son. Her attitude may have been influenced by Philip’s partial failure to undertake his duties as heir by settling his father’s outstanding lawsuits. Elizabeth’s death later the same month precipitated a falling-out between Cook’s sons, one which was only partially diminished by John Cook’s death in 1486. Nevertheless, Philip’s substantial estates in Essex ensured that he was able to fulfil his father’s ambitions of establishing the family as prominent landed gentry.56 PCC 9 Logge (PROB11/7, ff. 72v-73); St. Paul’s school cart., ff. 231v-2; C141/7/39; John Vale’s Bk. 98-99. For the litigation that ensued see: C1/37/19, 57/3-4, 9-13, 58/111, 60/88, 61/115.