FUST, John

John’s father, Richard, had inherited property in Warnham near Horsham, and also held land at Sullington and Rudgwick, nearly all of which passed to his elder son, Walter. Nor did John gain possession of his mother’s inheritance on the coast near Chichester, for this descended on her death in 1420 to his half-brother William Scardevyle.4 The Commons 1386-1421, iii. 150. Richard, who had represented Chichester in Parliament in 1421, was still alive in the autumn of 1435,5 CP40/699, rot. 651. but by that date he had already handed over some of his landed holdings to Walter. The latter was the more prominent of the two brothers, as is clear from his appearance at the shire elections held at Chichester in 1419, 1426 (with his father), 1431, 1432, 1435, 1437, and both those of 1449; and his standing as one of the ‘gentlemen’ of the county is also evident from his inclusion on the list of Sussex notables required to take the oath against maintenance of law-breakers as administered in 1434.6 CPR, 1429-36, p. 372; C219/12/3, 13/4, 14/2, 3, 5, 15/1, 6, 7. It is therefore surprising that it was John rather than his father or brother who was elected to the Parliament of 1433 for Midhurst. Perhaps an explanation may be found in the brothers’ employment by a later sheriff of Sussex (Walter as under sheriff, John as the sheriff’s ‘bailiff’);7 KB27/734, rex rot. 21d, where they are given as employees of Walter Strickland I*, the sheriff of 1441-2. it may be the case that links with the sheriff of 1433 (John Arderne) had led to his return.

By contrast with his brother, John had to make his own way, and did so through trading ventures focused on Chichester, where he lived. Moderately successful, he was able to build up his own landed possessions, acquiring in 1438 tenements and rents in Yapton, to which he added more in the following year. He appears to have concentrated his acquisitions on Chichester harbour, so that before his return to Parliament for the city in 1449 he also owned land called ‘Lyperyngges’ in Itchenor and Birdham, as well as more substantial properties at East Wittering. Something of the expansion of his trading activities is suggested by the suits he brought in the court of common pleas in pursuit of his debtors. For example, although in the Michaelmas term of 1439 he sued a Chichester weaver for 53s. 3d., and in 1449 he was suing a taverner from Portsmouth for £5 and a yeoman of West Wittering for 50s., a year later his suits were not only directed against Sussex merchants (for a total of £32), but also aimed at William Hore II*, one of the leading clothiers and mercers of Salisbury, who allegedly owed him 50 marks.8 CP40/715, rot. 685d; 753, rot. 94; 754, rot. 274; 759, rot. 54d; 779, rot. 168. Fust was well regarded in Chichester, where he witnessed deeds on occasion,9 Suss. Arch. Collns. lxxxix. 137-8, 161. and when the mayor of the staple, William Hore I*, died in office in 1448 he was elected to take his place, even though he had never occupied the lesser post of constable. It was during his term as mayor of the staple that Fust was returned to the Parliament of November 1449. Probably also by virtue of his office, he attested the shire elections held in Chichester on 8 Oct. 1450.10 C219/16/1.

According to testimony given in Chancery a few years later, Fust suffered from ill health for a year or more before his death. This occurred shortly before 20 Jan. 1451, when Robert Seman* was elected to fill the vacancy in the mayoralty of the staple.11 C241/235/67. The Chancery suit hinged on a nuncupative will Fust was said to have made on his deathbed, which was contested by his nephew and namesake, the eldest of his brother Walter’s sons. The nephew, a lawyer of Lincoln’s Inn, was attempting to gain possession of property said to consist of a messuage and 100 acres of land called ‘Halfknyghts’ in East Wittering and a messuage and 40 acres of land in Yapton. However, our MP’s feoffees (his brother-in-law the parson of St. Pancras, the lawyer Humphrey Heuster* and Master John Vyncent), while informing the chancellor that an estate only half this size was at issue, asserted that it had been Fust’s wish that his widow and her heirs should have it in perpetuity. This was confirmed by Fust’s confessor, Robert Sherman (the priest who administered to the brotherhood of St. George of Chichester, to which the leading citizens belonged). After hearing Fust’s testament he ‘howseled and annoynted him’ and asked the dying man whether he wished his son Nicholas to inherit the property, whereupon Fust replied that the boy should have ten marks in money, but that his wife should have the land to do with as she thought fit, for Nicholas ‘was her sone as well as his and so she shuld avise her’. Furthermore, Fust was reported to have said on various occasions that neither his brother Walter ‘nor noon of his heirs’ should ever inherit any part of his estate. Witnesses were examined at Chichester in April 1458, and confirmed the feoffees’ story, although some, such as Robert Seman, could only report rumours to this effect. In support of the nephew’s case, ‘comyn langage of his neghbours’ had it that Fust left certain lands to his son Nicholas, and that as the latter had since died childless his cousin John was now the true heir. Meanwhile, before the autumn of 1455, our MP’s widow had married William Jacob*, shortly to take Fust’s place in the mercantile community of the city, and in February 1461 the couple were also summoned to the Chancery to answer John junior. It was in the same month that our MP’s feoffees transferred seisin of property in Yapton to the Jacobs.12 C1/28/503-8; CP40/779, rot. 118; Suss. Arch. Collns. lxxxix. 162.