NEWTON, John I

A vinter and ‘merchant’, Newton is not known to have exercised office within Worcester, in spite of representing the city in at least three Parliaments, two of them consecutive.1 CCR, 1447-54, p. 344; CPR, 1452-61, p. 264. There is no evidence that he was the John Newton, a servant of John, Lord Beauchamp of Powick, who appeared in the Exchequer on behalf of his master and others on several occasions in the 1450s: E403/798, m. 8; 816, m. 1; 817, m. 11. Among those who witnessed his election to that of 1450 was Christopher Newton, presumably a relative. During the initial session of his first Parliament, Newton and his fellow burgess, William Clyve*, with whom he was re-elected in 1450, joined Humphrey Stafford of Frome and others in entering a staple staple at Westminster. The statute was intended to ensure Stafford and his associates would pay 500 marks to Joan, widow of Sir William Lichfield*, and William Walwyn, Lichfield’s stepson, presumably in connexion with Stafford’s marriage to Lichfield’s grand-daughter and heir, Margaret Corbet.2 C131/70/11; The Commons 1386-1421, ii. 657.

It would appear that Newton had business dealings in London, since during his last Parliament he was pardoned an outlawry he had incurred at Westminster for failing to answer a suit for debt brought by a grocer from the City.3 CPR, 1452-61, p. 264. Furthermore, just days after the Parliament ended, the sheriffs of London were ordered to proceed against him over a statute staple for £10 in which he had bound himself to another London grocer, William Tailor†, in mid 1452. The sheriffs, John Young* and Thomas Oulgreve, subsequently returned that they had arrested Newton, who had enjoyed immunity from any such action while an MP.4 C131/236/7. In the same period, Newton also faced demands from Walter Ayleworth, a merchant from Tewkesbury, who was suing him for the alleged detinue of five marks.5 CP40/780, rot. 452d.

Away from Parliament, Newton was among those who bound themselves in a recognizance for £200 in late April 1452, as a guarantee that two men from Worcester, a spurrier and a corviser, would come before the King and the council whenever the Crown commanded. Newton and a fellow surety, John Colman, went to Chancery in person on the following 4 May when the keeper of the rolls directed them to ensure that their fellow townsmen would appear within 15 days.6 CCR, 1447-54, pp. 344-5. Newton appears to have taken the opportunity to pursue his own interests during this visit to London, since in the same May he obtained the farm of the subsidy and alnage of cloth in Worcestershire and Worcester from the Crown. Initially, his grant (for which William Clyve was one of his sureties) was for seven years at £7 3s. 4d. p.a. but Robert Muchgode* made a counter-offer for the farm, forcing him to tender the Crown an extra 10s. p.a. in order to retain it. In the end, however, he lost out to his rival, to whom the Crown made a new grant of the subsidy and alnage in October 1453.7 CFR, xviii. 244; xix. 62-63. The following year saw Newton (in association with Maurice Payn alias Sherman*) dealing in lands at Stoulton, a few miles south-east of Worcester, although apparently only as a feoffee. The properties had made up part of the inheritance of Margaret, daughter of Thomas Hethe and wife of John Graunger of Worcester. At some previous date she and Graunger had conveyed them to Newton and Payn, who now reconveyed them to Walter Hunt and his wife.8 C146/3323; CAD, i. C486; vi. C4862.

In early February 1457 the sheriff of Herefordshire, (Sir) John Skydemore*, was directed to take action against Humphrey Stafford and his associates, Newton included, for failing to meet the obligations placed upon them by the statute staple of 1449. Just over four weeks later, Skydemore returned that he had imprisoned Stafford at Hereford but had not found Newton or any of the other men, none of whom possessed any lands or goods within his bailiwick.9 C131/70/11. It does not necessarily follow that Newton was still alive at this date, although a bill he sued in Chancery against one Rawlyn Skynner of Gloucester raises the possibility that he survived well into Edward IV’s reign. In the bill, dating from either 1433-43 or 1467-72, he asserted that Skynner was pursuing vexatious lawsuits against him, at Gloucester and elsewhere in Gloucestershire. As a result, he was suffering financial losses and dared not enter that ‘contre’ to conduct business there. Unendorsed, the bill is the only surviving evidence relating to this suit, the outcome of which is unknown.10 C1/45/171.