JOYNOUR, Richard

Although Joynour represented two Wiltshire boroughs in Parliament, he had no recorded connexion with either of them, or, indeed, with their county. He was the only son of a prosperous London ironmonger, John Joynour, a parishioner of the church of St. Sepulchre without Newgate, who together with his wife Ellen held property in Harrow and Roxeth, Middlesex (which they sold in 1423). The couple contested with John Wakering, the master of St. Bartholomew’s hospital, ownership of a tenement in the parish of St. Martin at Ludgate,6 CP25(1)/152/88/2; Cal. P. and M. London, 1413-37, pp. 194, 265. and outside the city walls John also held property in Fleet Street. In his will of August 1426 he left Richard, still a minor, the sum of £200 and jewelry worth £20, which were to remain in the keeping of the boy’s mother, unless she remarried or died, in which eventuality Richard’s guardianship was to be transferred to the civic authorities. This duly happened, and in May 1436 he, his patrimony and various silver vessels were committed by the mayor and aldermen to the same master of St. Bartholomew’s.7 Commissary ct. wills, 9171/3, ff. 192-4 (probate 3 Jan. 1428); Cal. P. and M. London, 1413-37, p. 245; Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 202. Having come of age by April 1440 (when he witnessed a deed in Shoreditch), in 1444 Joynour added to his property near Ludgate a brewery and shops which had earlier been held by his half-brother John Lane, another ironmonger, albeit under a questionable title.8 CCR, 1435-41, p. 366; CIPM, xxvi. 331. Initially, he practised as a silversmith, yet, clearly an enterprising young man, he soon also began to deal in grocers’ wares, and by the end of 1448 he was calling himself a ‘grocer’, although not a member of the prestigious Grocers’ Company. Fellows of the Company were fined heavily after buying spices from him, and it was made clear that he could not continue selling to them without joining the Company himself. This he did in 1450, being required to pay the large sum of £13 6s. 8d. in order to gain admittance. Shortly afterwards the Company fined him £2 for breaking the rules regarding the agreed prices of goods bought from Italian merchants.9 Cal. P. and M. London, 1437-57, p. 175; P. Nightingale, A Med. Mercantile Community, 501 (from Guildhall mss, 11571/1, f. 5); Facsimile of MS Archs. Grocers Co. ed. Kingdon, ii. 299, 300. Some of Joynour’s dealings at this time, and the expansion of his trading concerns, are revealed in a suit in Chancery over a consignment of woad and madder which Edmund Arnold, another grocer, supplied to merchants in Coventry, having purchased the goods on credit from Joynour. To recover his money, Joynour had to take action in the piepowder court at Coventry, only for his servants to suffer vexation and imprisonment there.10 Nightingale, 486; C1/17/45.

Of much greater interest, by the time he joined the Grocers’ Company Joynour had emerged as one of the leading creditors of the Crown, although how he initially raised the capital to begin his impressive programme of lending to the cash-strapped government remains a mystery, as also does the way in which he developed close relations with members of the royal Household. The succession of loans which Joynour offered the Crown began in the winter of 1449-50, at a time of profound financial and political crisis for the Lancastrian regime and while the Parliament of 1449 (Nov.) was in progress. On 22 Dec. he made a loan at the Exchequer of £104 12s. 7d., which was followed on 25 Feb. with two separate sums of £100 and a massive £1,677 8s. 6d. , and in the spring with £414 and a further £100.11 E401/813, mm. 18, 30; 815, mm. 1, 13, 16. For the most part Joynour was promised repayment of these sums by assignments on revenues due at the Exchequer,12 E403/777, mm. 9, 12; 779, mm. 8, 11. but he was also provided for in a grant by letters patent made on 20 Jan. 1450. This grant authorized Joynour, in the distinguished company of the archbishop of Canterbury, the dukes of Exeter and Suffolk, and the widowed duchess of Exeter, to receive back a total of £5,970, which they had lent the King in his great necessity, from the customs and subsidies on wool collected in London and Ipswich.13 CPR, 1446-52, p. 332. The fact that the loans were not all formally recorded in the Exchequer caused difficulties for the lenders later: E159/235, brevia Trin. rot. 4.

Besides the loans already noted, most of which were recorded at the Exchequer, Joynour handed over a further sum of £500 (perhaps directly to the King’s chamber), and as security for repayment he was given on 24 Mar. 1450 a large quantity of the Crown jewels, including various items presented to Henry VI by Cardinal Beaufort, Queen Margaret and the duke of York, and numbering among them a precious gold cross which had once belonged to the King’s ancestor St. Louis. On 20 May he passed some of these jewels on to Stephen Forster* of London, in return for £301, as a substantial part of the money he had supplied in the government’s need.14 E404/66/127; CPR, 1446-52, pp. 455-6; E159/228, recorda, Trin. rot. 25 et seq. In consideration of Joynour’s ‘good service’ the King had made him a gift of £40 by warrant dated 28 Mar.,15 E404/66/131; E403/779, m. 1. this being two days after his appointment as a collector of tunnage and poundage in London, an appointment almost certainly intended to help him to gain repayment of his loans. Furthermore, on 21 May he replaced Thomas Thorpe* as controller of the mint within the Tower of London, an office, granted to Joynour for life, which came with generous fees of 40 marks p.a. and opportunities for private profit.16 CPR, 1446-52, p. 334. All this while Joynour had been establishing useful links with persons of influence at the royal court, notably John Stourton II*, Lord Stourton, the treasurer of the Household, and John Hampton II*, esquire for the King’s body, for whom he provided sureties at the Exchequer,17 E403/781, m. 2; CFR, xviii. 154. and such links can only have worked to his advantage.

In the wake of a summer scarred by Cade’s rebellion in the south-east, the murder of certain of the King’s ministers and widespread social unrest, Parliament was summoned to meet on 6 Nov. 1450. Joynour entered the Commons as MP for Heytesbury, a borough represented for only the second recorded time. How his election was engineered is difficult to discover, and there is no indication that he was acquainted with Lord Hungerford, whose seat was at Heytesbury. It may be, however, that Lord Stourton, one of the leading landowners of Wiltshire, played a part.18 For his continuing association with Stourton, see E403/786, mm. 6, 10, 13. While in the House Joynour doubtless gave his support to the regime. On 4 Dec., during the Parliament’s first session, he made a further loan to the Crown (of £300), and in the recess in April 1451 he was appointed with Richard Merston to receive a quantity of jewels from the treasurer of England and to pledge them to any other persons willing to lend money. The two men were further empowered to sell, appreciate or alienate the jewels, and to forward any sums they received to persons nominated by royal command.19 E401/820, m. 8; E403/781, m. 5; CPR, 1446-52, p. 420. Then, on 1 June, in repayment of a loan of £300 (perhaps the one he had made six months earlier), Joynour was granted a like sum from the tunnage and poundage in London (of which he was still collector).20 CPR, 1446-52, p. 472. In July a magnificent gold spice plate, covered with pearls, sapphires and diamonds was delivered to him by the keeper of the King’s jewels, he being permitted to ‘engage, transporte, selle or aliene’ the plate for as great a sum as he might obtain, the money to be employed for the defence of the realm and the relief of Calais.21 E404/67/210, 223; E401/821, m. 22; E159/229, recorda Mich. rots. 7-7d. This desperate measure speaks volumes about the Crown’s dependence on Joynour and his like as the English territories overseas fell to the French.

Joynour’s post as collector of the tunnage and poundage in London, which he kept for over two years,22 E159/228, recorda Mich. rots. 41, 49d; E403/786, m. 8, 796, m. 1. inevitably led to difficult confrontations with other creditors of the Crown, who were fobbed off at the Exchequer with assignments on those subsidies. He and a fellow collector, Thomas Winslow II*, were sued in the court of the Exchequer in the spring of 1451 by Roger, Lord Camoys, for an alleged debt of 200 marks, a matter which was still awaiting judgement at the end of the year;23 E13/145A, rot. 21d; CCR, 1447-54, p. 324. and he was also pursued (in 1452) by a Genoese merchant, Geronimo Spinola, over a bond for £370.24 E13/145A, rots. 43, 46. However, in the spring of 1452 the appointment of a new treasurer saw Joynour lose both his post as collector and his lucrative offices in the Tower,25 CPR, 1446-52, p. 529. and that summer officials at the Exchequer pursued him to account for the Crown jewels he had received two years earlier; he had to satisfy them that Stephen Forster had received permission to keep some of the jewels, while protesting that he himself was still owed £199 as repayment of the remainder of his loan of £500, for which the jewels had been pledged.26 E159/228, recorda, Trin. rot. 25 et seq.

Joynour was still a man worth cultivating for his financial expertise. Despite his loss of some offices, he gained another – that of collector of customs and subsidies at Ipswich – and he also secured a contract to victual the garrison of Berwick-upon-Tweed, under the command of Henry Percy, Lord Poynings (although on 29 Aug. 1452 his letters of protection were revoked as he had failed to sail north).27 CPR, 1446-52, p. 570. He saw fit to take out a pardon, as ‘of London, grocer alias esquire’ on 7 Sept., to safeguard his interests when his complicated commercial affairs could only lead to trouble in the law-courts.28 C67/40, m. 18. In association with Richard Merston he was still dealing in precious stones and jewelry to raise much needed cash for the Crown: negotiations with the London goldsmith Matthew Philip enabled them to raise £1,200 to pay for the voyage of Lord Rivers to Gascony later in the year.29 E404/69/68. Yet not surprisingly the scale of Joynour’s own direct loans was now diminished.30 e.g. to £40: E403/791, m. 7.

At this time Joynour and Winslow were still encountering trouble at the Exchequer over their accounts as collectors of tunnage and poundage, some of their difficulties having arisen from a provision made in the Parliament of 1450-1 (of which Joynour had been a Member) that certain creditors owed the sum of £20,000 were to be given preference from these subsidies. They had paid out some £2,576 in response to tallies issued at the Receipt bearing their names as collectors, but because of the Act they could not gain any allowance or discharge at the Exchequer subsequently. Their final discharge was not granted until 25 Feb. 1453, nine months after they left office.31 E159/229, brevia Easter rots. 16d, 24. Joynour had plenty of reasons to seek election to the Parliament due to meet at Reading a few days later on 6 Mar. This time he was returned as a representative for the decayed borough of Old Sarum. As someone being pursued in the law-courts, he could see the advantage of gaining the privilege of freedom from arrest accorded to MPs. John Senecle, a London haberdasher, one of the plaintiffs seeking redress against him, alleged in the court of the Exchequer that Joynour was indebted to him in £84 15s., but as a Member of the Commons Joynour was able to sue out a writ of privilege, on 12 May, so that Senecle’s suit could not proceed while the Parliament was in being; and he repeated this course of action at the start of the final parliamentary session, at Westminster on 14 Feb. 1454.32 E159/229, brevia Easter rot. 20; 230, brevia Hil. rots. 8d, 13, 16d.

During the second session of the Parliament, in the previous summer, Joynour had made another loan to the Crown,33 E403/796, mm. 6, 9. but the King’s mental breakdown in July, hard upon the defeat at the battle of Castillon, led to further demands being made on him and his fellows. In November 1453 he agreed to assist in the victualling of the castle of Guînes, where Sir Thomas Fynderne* was lieutenant, only for him once more to fail to carry out his undertaking. Furthermore, that winter he also reneged on a commitment to ship supplies to the Channel Islands, under the command of John Nanfan*.34 DKR, xlviii. 398; CPR, 1452-61, pp. 141, 145. Even so, Joynour continued to have close links with the Household (receiving assignments at the Exchequer on behalf of John, Lord Dudley, its treasurer),35 E403/796, mm. 6, 9. and during the final session of the Parliament (February to April 1454) he secured reappointment as collector of tunnage and poundage in London, presumably to compensate for relinquishing his office at Ipswich.36 CFR, xix. 97.

Not surprisingly, given the state of the Crown’s finances, Joynour fell into ever deepening troubles as his debts mounted. Although he proved successful in a bill he brought in the court of the Exchequer against Nicholas Jop* alias Bokelly over a bond for £16,37 E13/145B, rot. 3; E159/231, Mich. rot. 12d. this was a small sum in comparison with those in several of the actions he was facing in the law-courts. He was the subject of a petition in Chancery brought by the Hampshire esquire, John Newport I*. Newport said he had ‘leyde in plegge’ to Joynour a warrant under the privy seal for 100 marks, a ‘cowrser’ worth £20 and other items including a silver collar, a damask robe and a Matins book covered with cloth of gold, in all worth £114, to be redeemed for the sum of £95 which was to be paid on a specified date. Before the day arrived the two men agreed instead that Newport should obtain at the Exchequer a tally assigned on Joynour for the 100 marks, and make him sufficient estate of all the property he then possessed in London (worth £20 p.a.) to hold until he was contented of the £95 (whereupon Joynour should return all the pledges and pay Newport his 100 marks). Newport alleged that Joynour had failed to keep his side of the agreement, but this Joynour denied.38 C1/19/29. In February 1455 he was bound in £100 to Thomas Welles* to accept the arbitration of the mayor and aldermen of London in disputes between them,39 Cal. P. and M. London, 1437-57, p. 145. and in Trinity term that year Thomas Beaumond, a London salter, brought a plea in King’s bench against him for a debt of £67. Beaumond claimed that in May 1453 Joynour had been bound to pay him this sum in instalments, of which the final one had been due at Easter 1455, but he had failed to do so. Joynour, brought to the court in the custody of the marshal in Michaelmas term, denied that the obligations were his, but a jury found against him, and awarded damages and costs to Beaumond.40 KB27/778, rot. 44. That September (probably to avoid the consequences of this suit) he placed his goods and chattels in the safekeeping of three Londoners.41 Cal. P. and M. London, 1437-57, p. 183.

Facing a plethora of lawsuits, Joynour fell into very serious trouble in the following spring: on 6 Apr. 1456 he was imprisoned by the sheriffs of London to answer as many as 11 suits, for debts amounting to over £1,600. Among the plaintiffs were the recorder and under sheriff of London (Thomas Urswyk II* and Thomas Burgoyne*), William Neville, Lord Fauconberg, who alleged that Joynour had withheld from him payment of 200 marks charged on the subsidies of tunnage and poundage, and the duke and dowager duchess of Exeter who claimed he owed them £1,000 (a matter dating back to their association in 1450). Six days later he was brought before the barons of the Exchequer to answer the charges, and made to render account for the tunnage and poundage. He was remanded to the Fleet prison, in the custody of its warden, William Venour, and two weeks later, still a prisoner, he made a general release of all actions to one of his adversaries, John Lambard, the London mercer.42 E13/146, rots. 50, 50d, 52, 52d, 53, 59; E159/232, recorda, Easter rot. 11; CCR, 1454-61, pp. 139-40. It is unclear how long he was held in gaol. Two years elapsed before Fauconberg came to the Exchequer to say he was satisfied of the debt owed him, and Joynour was not to be finally acquitted in another suit until well into Edward IV’s reign. Meanwhile, however, he had sued out a pardon from Henry VI on 17 Jan. 1459.43 C67/42, m. 45. He had fallen far from his earlier heights as a prominent financier, dealing in enormous sums of money and priceless jewels.

Little is recorded about Joynour after the accession of Edward IV. Described in the usual way, as a ‘citizen and grocer of London’, and ‘esquire’, but also with the alias of Vern, he purchased a pardon from the new King in May 1462; two of his many creditors declared themselves satisfied of debts and damages in their Exchequer suits two years later; and the pardon gained him acquittal in other pleas in 1468.44 C67/45, m. 26; E13/146, rot. 59; 153, rots. 108, 108d. He went on the offensive, bringing suits in the common pleas to recover sums owing to the estate of his wife’s former husband, another grocer called Thomas Swepston; and sued Robert Englefield of Berkshire for a bond for £200 entered many years earlier.45 CP40/812, rot. 257d; 814, rot. 142; 819, rot. 112. Even so, at an unknown date Joynour, fleeing from vengeful plaintiffs, was forced to take sanctuary in Westminster abbey.46 In a flight of fancy, Wedgwood held that during the Readeption Joynour took responsibility for the board and lodging of King Edward’s family in the sanctuary (HP Biogs. ed. Wedgwood and Holt, 504-5), and this is followed in Nightingale, 534, but there is nothing in the records to lead to this conclusion. On 23 Oct. 1471 commissioners were appointed to hear and determine an appeal by Robert Drope, alderman of London, against a judgement made by the archdeacon of Westminster abbey as judge of civil causes of dwellers within the precincts of the monastery – Drope’s case being that Joynour had failed to pay him the sum of 200 marks as promised.47 CPR, 1467-77, p. 317. When, a month later, Joynour purchased another pardon, his address was given as ‘of Westminster’.48 C67/48, m. 33.

Meanwhile, Joynour had twice been outlawed in the court of common pleas, for failing to answer John Coventre III* of Devizes for a debt of over £120 contracted in the 1450s, and in a plea brought by the widow of a London skinner in the 1460s. Yet having managed to secure a pardon of these outlawries on 13 Apr. 1475, he was outlawed again, this time for non-appearance in a suit for £40 brought by a Suffolk gentleman. He obtained another pardon of outlawry on 24 Jan. 1480.49 CPR, 1467-77, p. 498; 1476-85, p. 150. There were more actions against him in the Exchequer of pleas, too (one of them brought by the King’s remembrancer, William Essex* in 1473, over a tally dated five years earlier),50 E13/159, m. 35d. and yet more in the Chancery. In one such suit John Barker, a London goldsmith, protesting about litigation in the King’s bench and the Exchequer started by Joynour over two obligations Barker had entered in return for plate Joynour had sold him, referred to the MP’s ‘insatiable covertise’. This may indeed have been his dominant characteristic. Barker’s suit came before the chancellor in June 1486,51 C1/59/72; 79/20-22. but of the defendant nothing further is recorded.