GARGRAVE, John

The career of this MP for Bodmin was a highly unusual one, encompassing as it did employment by three dukes, sometimes concurrently, and a rather ignominious 11-year term as marshal of the Marshalsea prison. Gargrave came from the other end of the country from the borough he represented in the Commons. A Yorkshireman, he belonged to a family which had settled in Wakefield by the early fourteenth century and had made a house at Snapethorpe its principal residence.7 J.W. Walker, Wakefield, ii. 659-61. This account and the ped. given there cannot be verified, as Walker failed to cite his sources. They contain obvious inconsistencies. e.g. it is stated that John’s father John was born in 1382 but that he himself was knighted and became master of the ordnance and a governor in France under Hen. V, which is impossible on chronological grounds. He is said to have married Margaret, da. of William Skargill esquire, had two sons (Sir Thomas, who died unmarried in 1427, and William, who inherited Snapethorpe) and died at Bayonne. From 1416 the future MP also held a lease on the Yorkshire manors of Shitlington and Hollinhurst for term of the life of John Amyas esquire, for which he paid an annual rent of £8.8 Yorks. Deeds, viii (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser. cii), 114. The fact that he was later fined for failing to take up knighthood indicates that he was thought to have landed holdings worth at least £40 a year.9 E159/224, recorda Mich. rot. 59. Gargrave also derived an income from fees paid for his services. In 1418, when he was starting off on his career as a lawyer and estate manager, Thomas Saville* of Thornhill retained him as his legal counsel for the extraordinarily long term of 60 years (should the two of them live so long), with an annual fee of 26s. 8d.10 CP40/755, rot. 624d. A close friend, perhaps even a relation, of Saville, Gargrave shortly afterwards settled lands and tenements in Sowerby on him and his wife Margaret in tail.11 Notts. Archs., Savile of Rufford mss, DD/SR/28/3/8. Involvement in the affairs of the gentry of the same part of Yorkshire continued until his death,12 Yorks. Deeds, i (Yorks. Arch. Soc. Rec. Ser. xxxix), 112. and on occasion he brought lawsuits in the courts at Westminster relating to alleged assaults on his servants and the breaking of his closes at Wakefield.13 CP40/746, rots. 317d, 515; KB27/746, rots. 1d, 45, 45d.

Yet Gargrave’s abilities were to take him far away from the north of England, in a move probably initially prompted by his tenancy of land pertaining to Edward, duke of York, at Horbury, Osset and Wakefield, and through an early association with the farmer of the duke’s lordship of Sowerby, the prominent Lancastrian retainer Robert Waterton. In 1416, following the duke’s death at Agincourt, Gargrave acted as Waterton’s attorney at the assignment of dower to the widowed Duchess Philippa, and their association strengthened after Waterton was appointed guardian of the duke’s nephew and heir, Richard. He stood surety for Waterton at the Exchequer, and probably owed his appointment in 1422 as receiver-general of the young duke’s landed inheritance to his patron’s recommendation.14 Rosenthal, 194; CIPM, xx. 491; CCR, 1413-19, p. 311; E159/205, brevia Mich. rot. 36; CFR, xiv. 406. During his seven-year term in office, Gargrave was also tasked with the management of the estates which Duke Richard inherited on the death of his maternal uncle, Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, in 1425. For instance, in 1427 he appeared as mainpernor at the Exchequer for the men given custody of the lordships in the marches of Wales which had been taken into the Crown’s possession for recovery of the late earl’s debts.15 CFR, xv. 202. A measure of his importance in the estate administration may be seen in his association from December 1429 with a group headed by the earl of Northumberland and John, Lord Tiptoft†, who were granted the Mortimer estates at a yearly farm of their full value.16 P.A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 10, 232; Egerton rolls 8759, 8774.

York’s wardship and marriage had earlier been assigned to Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland, and it was on behalf of the latter’s executors that Gargrave received assignments at the Exchequer in 1428 and 1431, after they had taken on the ward’s governance.17 E403/688, m. 7; 698, m. 7. Furthermore, described as the duke’s ‘guardian’, Gargrave represented the young man in the court of common pleas in the late 1420s and early 1430s, and also appeared on occasion as his attorney in the King’s bench.18 CP40/664, rot. 336; 666, rot. 131; 673, rot. 335; 677, rot. 132; 678, rots. 131d, 133. After York attained his majority the Exchequer was ordered to cease its processes against Gargrave and the others with regard to the late earl of March’s estates, following their delayed release to Duke Richard early in 1436.19 E159/212, brevia Hil. rot. 24. Nevertheless, he continued to do York service, at least until 1448, as a receiver of revenues on his behalf,20 CP40/761, rot. 264. and the duke called on him to assist in a number of business transactions, of which the most notable was an enfeoffment of property in Southwark in 1446, apparently undertaken on behalf of Sir John Fastolf.21 CCR, 1441-7, pp. 439, 447-8; CP25(1)/232/73/23.

It is perhaps not surprising that during the 1430s Gargrave was also retained by the King’s uncle, Duke Humphrey of Gloucester, for the latter had been farmer of York’s inheritance in Wales and the marches, and when York received livery of these estates in 1432 he was expected to pay Gloucester £969 from the revenues.22 CFR, xv. 103-4, 249-50; CPR, 1429-36, pp. 207-8. No doubt it was Gargrave who was given the responsibility of making the payments. This would explain his appointment to a commission that year to inquire into treasons in north Wales, where Gloucester was justiciar. In the autumn of 1434 Duke Humphrey appointed him his receiver-general in England and Guînes.23 E159/211, recorda Mich. rot. 1; 216, brevia Trin. rot. 13d. He failed to deliver the inqs., but escaped a fine by producing his pardon of 1447: E159/224, recorda Mich. rot. 60. As such, Gargrave regularly received assignments at the Exchequer for payment of the duke’s annuities, the sum of 3,000 marks granted him in the summer of 1436, and his fee for attendance at the King’s council.24 E403/721, m. 10; 723, mm. 6, 10; 727, m. 11; 729, mm. 4, 7, 13; 731, mm. 2, 4, 6, 12. Meanwhile, in July 1435 he had joined the earls of Huntingdon and Northumberland and Lord Grey of Ruthin in sealing three recognizances of 500 marks each to guarantee that Duke Humphrey would pay £1,000 to obtain the King’s pardon for certain landed transactions carried out illicitly by him and his duchess, Eleanor Cobham.25 CCR, 1429-35, p. 359; CPR, 1429-36, p. 505; E159/213, recorda Mich. rots. 5, 5d, brevia Mich. rot. 16. Gargrave continued to be active on the duke’s behalf until the autumn of 1438.26 Add. Roll 26597.

Why Gargrave left the duke of Gloucester’s service is unclear. It may be that he wished to concentrate more on the business of the law-courts and less on estate administration. He had become a fellow of Lincoln’s Inn probably late in 1425, and stood pledge for the admission of his son, John junior, eight years later.27 Lincoln’s Inn, Black bk. f. 14v; L.Inn Adm. i. 5, 7, 8. The Christmas of 1428 was said to be his third as a fellow. Father and son both caught the attention of John Mowbray, duke of Norfolk, who in February 1439 granted them the office of marshal of the Marshalsea of the King’s bench for term of their lives in survivorship. Gargrave senior came to the court to take the oath of office.28 KB27/711, rot. 72d. It was probably because of their position that the two Gargraves were party to an indenture made in the King’s presence in October 1440 to settle the extreme ‘variance’ between the abbot and the prior of St. Peter’s abbey, Westminster. The settlement contained the provision that the abbot would grant an annuity of £100 from lands in Middlesex and Surrey to a distinguished body headed by Cardinal Beaufort and including the Gargraves, for payment to the prior for his lifetime.29 CCR, 1435-41, pp. 432-3.

Probably because of his commitments elsewhere, Gargrave seriously neglected his duties as marshal. In 1440 he was fined heavily for his laxity in allowing prisoners to escape from his custody, the penalties in Trinity term that year amounting to £11. It should be noted, however, that the release of one of these prisoners may have met with the approval of his lord the duke of Norfolk, for the man concerned was a Mowbray retainer who had been appealed for the murder of the Ipswich lawyer James Andrew†.30 The Commons 1386-1421, ii. 32-34; KB27/716, fines rot.; 717, fines rot. During his term as marshal, Gargrave regularly brought suits for debt in the common pleas and in King’s bench in his own interests,31 CP40/724, rot. 357; KB27/723, rot. 82; 726, rot. 6; CPR, 1441-6, p. 216; 1452-61, pp. 7, 129. yet more often he was summoned as a defendant, to face charges initiated by his own creditors. Members of the duchess of Gloucester’s family sued him as ‘late of Southwark alias late of Wakefield, esquire’, for a debt of £40 in Hilary term 1442,32 CP40/724, rot. 62d. and in Michaelmas term 1443 his fellow Yorkshireman, Thomas Skargill* (a member of the royal household), asserted that as Gargrave had wrongfully released a debtor of his from prison he should be held liable for the £20 and 10s. damages awarded to him by the justices, and in addition should be fined £5. The court awarded in Skargill’s favour, albeit reducing the sum demanded to a total of £21.33 KB27/730, rot. 83.

Despite such suits Gargrave continued to ride high. The duke of Norfolk asked him to witness a grant to Sir Robert Wingfield* and his wife of the manor of Weston by Baldock in Hertfordshire in May 1444,34 CCR, 1441-7, p. 215. and in the following month he was appointed to a royal commission to examine Italian and Spanish vessels in the ports of London, Sandwich and Southampton, checking the merchants’ books recording shipments made in the previous five years to uncover cases of evasion of customs duties. The commissioners were granted a moiety of any forfeited goods and money in recompense for their labours.35 CPR, 1441-6, pp. 272, 291-2. Although it is unclear why he should have been placed on this body, which was headed by Bishop Bekynton of Bath and Wells and included such prominent members of the royal court as John Norris* and Master John Somerset*, it may be indicative of his own standing in the Household, where he was evidently on good terms with other leading royal servants. For instance, in February 1446 he was a mainpernor for the lease to Ralph Legh* of demesne lands at Kennington. That same month Gargrave obtained the King’s pardon of all escapes of felons and prisoners committed to his keeping as marshal, exonerating him from any negligence, and he took out another pardon a year later in March 1447.36 CFR, xviii. 25-26; CPR, 1441-6, p. 408; E159/226, brevia Mich. rot. 8. He made use of his pardons to escape fines for his failure to take up knighthood, penalties for neglecting his duties in Wales, and Exchequer processes in 1455: E159/224, recorda Mich. rots. 59-60; 231, brevia Trin. rot. 1d. Nevertheless, he failed to reform his practices, continuing to be an entirely unsatisfactory marshal. That summer, a London fishmonger successfully claimed from him £20 6s. 8d. after he had wrongly allowed a debtor to go free from the Marshalsea.37 CCR, 1441-7, p. 484. To add to his troubles, one of his prisoners was stabbed to death by another; Gargrave stood pledge for the prosecution of the homicide, who was sentenced to be hanged.38 KB27/746, rot. 6; 754, rot. 38d. Furthermore, he now fell out with his old patron Sir Thomas Saville, alleging in the common pleas in Michaelmas term 1449 that Saville had failed to pay him his fee for the past 24 years. This now amounted to 48 marks, and he also claimed damages of £40. The court gave Saville licence to negotiate, and deferred the case to the following term, but by then the knight was dead.39 CP40/755, rot. 624d. Meanwhile, in December Gargrave stood bail for an important prisoner in his custody, the maverick courtier Thomas Daniell*.40 KB29/81, rot. 3d.

Gargrave’s final fall from grace came less than a year later, in November 1450, when the duke of Norfolk expelled him from the office of marshal, ostensibly and credibly on account of his many failings.41 KB27/763, rot. 26. It is entirely possible, however, that his expulsion came as a consequence of the current political crisis. Parliament had just assembled at Westminster following months of turmoil and rebellion in the south-east, and the duke of York with his principal ally Norfolk was mounting a strong challenge against the authority of the King’s closest advisors and members of the Household. Significantly, Gargrave was among the 29 individuals whom the Commons singled out in their petition for the speedy removal from the royal presence of those of bad character. It may not have been a coincidence that it was while the Parliament was still in progress, during Easter term 1451, that York himself brought legal actions against his erstwhile servant Gargrave. The latter was summoned to the common pleas to answer the serious charge that he had failed to render an adequate account of revenues during the period when he had been the duke’s receiver, in the 26 years from 1422. The sums said to be owing to York amounted to over £10,500, and in addition the duke claimed damages of £2,000.42 PROME, xii. 184-6; CP40/761, rot. 264. It is now difficult to interpret the purpose of the many transactions listed in the suit and to judge Gargrave’s culpability. York was suffering under enormous financial difficulties, largely owing to the Crown’s indebtedness to him; so much so that he was later to claim that he was forced to sell land and pawn his plate and jewels. He was currently engaged in a major dispute with Thomas Brown II*, over Exchequer tallies for substantial amounts of money, and it may be that the sums itemised in his suit with Gargrave similarly related to assignments that he had proved unable to convert into actual revenues.43 J.M.W. Bean, ‘Financial Position of Richard, Duke of York’, in War and Govt. in the Middle Ages ed. Gillingham and Holt, 182-98. Nor was this the only trouble faced by Gargrave at this time, although the other lawsuits begun against him were comparatively trivial affairs. For example, the widow of Garter King of Arms, William Brugge, was suing him for the unlawful detinue of £16 13s. 4d., this being the amount that Brugge had recovered in court against a debtor whom Gargrave had wrongfully released from the Marshalsea a year earlier.44 KB27/759, rot. 46.

Gargrave may have escaped the consequences of York’s suits when the military debacle at Dartford in the following year presaged the return to power of the duke’s opponents. By Hilary term 1453 he had recovered sufficiently to press his own claims in the law-courts once more,45 CP40/768, rot. 436. and it was perhaps in order to gain the temporary immunity from arrest accorded to Members of Parliament that he decided to stand for the assembly summoned to meet at Reading on 6 Mar. that year. In this Parliament an unusually large number of MPs were connected with the royal household, but there is nothing to indicate that Gargrave secured election for the Cornish borough of Bodmin through influence from that quarter. Although he had no known links with the town or its burgesses, it may be conjectured that his return was arranged through the auspices of the Moyle family, who came from Bodmin and like him had established themselves as residents of Southwark. William Moyle II* was an associate-fellow of his at Lincoln’s Inn, and William’s kinsman the more prominent lawyer Walter Moyle* was summoned to the Parliament as ‘King’s serjeant’. Significantly, in November 1454, after Walter Moyle’s elevation to the judiciary, he was to be one of the feoffees Gargrave chose to place in possession of his property in Southwark.46 CCR, 1454-61, pp. 46-47.

Throughout the early 1450s Gargrave continued to face charges in the Westminster courts relating to his earlier failures as marshal. For example, in Hilary term 1455 he was in mercy for many defaults, having failed to appear to answer one John Combe in a plea for unlawfully keeping £50. This represented the sum Combe had recovered at an assize of novel disseisin, but had never received since Gargrave had prematurely released his opponent from the Marshalsea.47 CP40/776, rot. 335. In his turn, Gargrave continued to bring his own pleas, such as one in Trinity term 1456 against Sir John Melton* for a debt of £64.48 CP40/782, rot. 218.

The MP died early in the following year, 1457. At the time of his death he owed Lincoln’s Inn five marks for his commons; the Inn’s treasurer thought he might approach Gargrave’s executors for it, only to find that he had died intestate.49 L. Inn Black Bk. i. 29. On 28 May Archbishop Bourgchier commissioned John Giffard, a citizen of Exeter, to administer Gargrave’s goods, of which Giffard was to provide an inventory before the following Michaelmas.50 Reg. Bourgchier, 190. It remains unclear why Giffard was chosen, rather than someone from the family of the deceased or a business colleague. Pursuing Gargrave’s debtors in the law-courts proved to be a thankless task, which engaged the administrator’s attention for several years.51 CP40/793, rot. 389; 795, rot. 389; 798, rot. 270; 799, rot. 22; 808, rot. 140. Meanwhile, on 11 Nov. 1457, Gargrave’s widow, Agnes, had placed her own chattels in the hands of John Trevelyan* (a Household esquire who had been known to her late husband, with whom he had sat as a knight of the shire for Cornwall in the Parliament of 1453), John Symonde, a yeoman of the Crown, and a ‘gentleman’ called William Slingsby.52 CCR, 1454-61, p. 256. This was no doubt to protect her interests against the demands of such litigants as John Rissheworth, who claimed that Gargrave had owed him £200 under a bond entered at Wakefield as long before as 1429.53 CP40/791, rot. 445. The son John with whom our MP had been appointed marshal officially relinquished the post to William Brandon† in October 1460. This was a formality, as he had shown no interest in it for many years.54 CCR, 1454-61, p. 490. Our MP’s immediate successor as marshal in 1450 had been John Leventhorpe II*, and Brandon had been appointed in Jan. 1457: KB27/795, rots. 81, 82.

This younger John, perhaps the MP’s second son, may be identified with the John Gargrave junior, ‘of Wakefield, gentleman’, who was brother and heir of William Gargrave. The latter had died on 11 Jan. 1434 from injuries sustained in a vicious assault, and his brother brought an appeal in King’s bench against John Brome of London, gentleman, the son of a Cornish tin merchant, for premeditated homicide, and six other men for sheltering him. Brome was kept a prisoner in the Marshalsea from early in 1435 until the summer of 1438, when as his accuser failed to come to court the suit failed.55 KB27/695, rots. 61, 61d. John, who was distrained in Yorkshire for failing to take up knighthood in 1458, was called ‘of Snapethorpe, esquire’. Before November 1460, he transferred to his son and heir apparent, another William, the manor of Midgley and appurtenances in Stanley, Yorkshire, known as ‘Miggeley Halde’, and father and son were subsequently engaged in transactions with members of the family of Copley concerning lands in Osset, Horbury, Snapethorpe and Wakefield, to fulfil a marriage contract for William’s son and namesake. The settlements involved lands which John held in jointure with his wife Margaret, and the promise to young William, his grandson, of lands worth 40 marks a year.56 CP40/811, cart. rots.; C1/31/133, 42/13. The date of John’s death is not known, but he was still living in 1464. His son William died before 24 Feb. 1466.57 CFR, xx. 146. Snapethorpe and other properties which the Gargraves had held passed to the Pilkingtons soon afterwards: CIPM Hen. VII, ii. 3. A descendant of the Gargraves of Wakefield, Sir Thomas Gargrave†, was to be elected Speaker in the Parliament of 1559, the first summoned by Elizabeth I.58 The Commons 1509-58, ii. 188-9.