NICOLL, John IV

The John Nicoll who represented Rochester in Parliament three times between 1447 and 1453 is not to be confused with his namesake the Kentish lawyer who was a frequent pleader in the royal courts at Westminster.3 That John Nicoll served as attorney at Westminster for the city of Canterbury in 1448 and earlier for some of its leading citizens (CP40/737, rots. 2, 202d; 751, rot. 507; KB27/747, rex rot. 24d; 750, rots. 59d, 111), and it was probably he who delivered a bequest of ten marks to the wardens of Rochester bridge from the Canterbury man, William Billyngton*: Rochester Bridge Trust, wardens’ accts. 1445-6, F 1/45. In 1460 he was associate justice of assize on the Kent circuit: KB27/790, rot. 23d. Rather, he was the mercer who married one of the daughters of an earlier MP for the city, and participated in the Rochester’s government. Perhaps coming from nearby Chatham, Nicoll was already a leading member of the community of Rochester by September 1435, when he stood surety for the city’s two representatives for the Parliament of that year. A place in the civic hierarchy is suggested by the order sent to him in Hilary term 1442 to arrest John Potager*, the bailiff of the city then accused of illegally selling victuals while in office, and to bring him to the court of common pleas. He himself occupied the post of bailiff in 1446, although the precise duration of his term is not known.4 C219/14/5; CP40/724, rot. 391; KB145/6/25. He probably vacated the bailiffship before his election to the Parliament summoned to meet at Bury St. Edmunds in February 1447, and was certainly no longer bailiff when he witnessed the will of a local man in the following May.5 Rochester consist. ct. wills, 1440-53, DRb/PWr 1, f. 48.

In the wake of Cade’s rebellion Nicoll was among those indicted in August 1450 before the commissioners appointed to inquire into offences and extortions in Kent. A Rochester jury accused him of imprisoning Thomas Gore of Rochester for three weeks and three days and not releasing him until Gore had paid 16d. and given Nicoll a pot of wine; and on 16 Sept. a Maidstone jury presented that in 1438 Nicoll had broken into the house of Felicia Abbot of Chatham and assaulted her, and in February 1447 had wrongfully imprisoned one John Cheseman of Strood.6 R. Virgoe, ‘Ancient Indictments in K.B.’, in Med. Kentish Soc. (Kent Rec. Ser. xviii), 222, 228, 231-2. Given the long time-span between these alleged offences and the indictments, it seems very unlikely that Nicoll had carried them out as one of the Kentish followers of the powerful James Fiennes*, who while sitting as a knight of the shire in Nicoll’s first Parliament had been elevated as Lord Saye and Sele; rather, they seem to have been the actions of a man who easily resorted to violence in his personal quarrels. Despite the jurors’ accusations, Nicoll’s position within the local community does not appear to have suffered. Indeed, in October 1451 he sat on a local jury which reported on resumed royal lands and offices in the county.7 C145/314/6.

There are few records of Nicoll’s commercial activities, although it seems likely that he was engaged in overseas trade for in 1457 he was one of the appraisers of merchandise seized in a ship from Flanders.8 E159/233, recorda Hil. rot. 34. He was frequently involved in litigation. In 1437 he successfully sued the widowed Felicia Loche of Strood for breaking into his property at Chatham and assaulting him, while three suits in the court of common pleas in the next year probably arose from his business activities. The first involved John Wyse of Rochester who, Nicoll claimed, owed him £10. Nicoll had delivered an obligation made by Wyse to a local lawyer, Henry Hickes*, for safe-keeping, and when Hickes refused to return it he sued the lawyer for damages. Determined to recover the debt, he forcibly entered Wyse’s property at Chatham, an action for which he found himself accused of trespass, and in his turn Wyse bought a separate plea of debt for £4 against Nicoll.9 CP40/705, rot. 431; 711, rots. 40, 97d, 100, 218d; 712, rot. 453d. In 1443 Nicoll was accused by one Richard Hierde of an assault at Sevenoaks and of stealing linen cloth, tartan and other drapery worth £30. In his defence, he claimed that Hierde had failed to abide by an arbitration award made in Rochester four years earlier concerning a disputed horse and that he was only acting to recover the damages awarded to him by the arbiters, yet a local jury disagreed and found against him.10 CP40/731, rot. 114. Nicoll appeared in King’s bench in Hilary term 1446 in a suit concerning one John Compworth of Keston, already in custody in the marshalsea of the court after failing to answer his plea of debt for 100s. He claimed damages of £10 for firewood which he had delivered to Compworth’s safe-keeping in London and which Compworth had then lost. The jury found in his favour but assessed his damages at only 56s.11 KB 27/734, rot. 35; 740, rot. 27.

The date of Nicoll’s marriage to one of Thomas Bolour’s daughters is not known, although it had probably not taken place before the summer of 1440, when Bolour sued him in the court of common pleas for a substantial debt of £40 (unless, of course, their dispute had something to do with the marriage settlement).12 CP40/718, rot. 93d. In the will which Bolour made in July 1455 he left his two daughters certain holdings in Rochester and its suburbs, including a malt mill, on condition that each of them paid 33s. 4d. to his estate. They would not inherit a substantial part of their father’s property until the death of his widow Silvestra, who may have outlived Nicoll.13 The Commons 1386-1421, ii. 274-5; Rochester consist. ct. wills, DRb/PWr 2, ff. 29d-31.

In his own will, drawn up on 10 Apr. 1465, Nicoll asked to be buried in St. Nicholas’s parish church, Rochester, and left money for ten obits, for the fabric of the church and his tomb, and to the parish clerk. His widow Marion was to have for life an annuity of 2s. 6d., a garden in Rochester called ‘Ballokkysleghe’ (held by John’s brother, Richard), and his lands in Chatham, including those leased from the local hospital of St. Bartholomew. After her death an annuity of 4s. 6d., from the sale of his property was to be distributed to the poor for the health of their souls. Marion was appointed as his sole executrix.14 Rochester consist. ct. wills, DRb/PWr 2, ff. 317v-8. Nicoll made no mention in his will of his son, William, perhaps because he had already made provision for him. Soon after his death William and his wife Godlefe petitioned in Chancery against Nicoll’s feoffees for a tenement, garden and salt marsh in Rochester, which they said the MP had intended them to have as a marriage settlement.15 C1/30/73.