TAMWORTH, Henry I

Nothing is known of Tamworth’s origins, although it is probable that they lay in the city he represented in Parliament. During his lifetime other Tamworths were active in the city’s affairs: William Tamworth was sheriff there in 1416-17 and Thomas Tamworth was present at the city’s common congregation of 12 Nov. 1421.2 Ibid. 233; Lincs. AO, Lincoln city recs., White bk. L1/3/1, f. 3. More interesting is the possibility that these Tamworths were near kinsmen of the escheator of Lincolnshire in 1430-1, John Tamworth, who held land at Reepham near Lincoln. John was, among other things, receiver-general of Ralph, Lord Cromwell, in the late 1420s, and from 1443 receiver of the duchy of Lancaster lands in Lincolnshire.3 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, i. 207; R. Somerville, Duchy, i. 578. There is, however, no direct evidence to connect our MP with this important man.

Henry first appears in the records in July 1408 when he and his wife sued out a papal grant of plenary remission of sins at the hour of death.4 CPL, vi. 145. Thereafter he quickly established himself among the leading citizens, serving as both sheriff and mayor. He was present at the common congregations of November 1421 and April 1422 at which the government of Lincoln was reformed, and was a natural candidate to represent the city in Parliament as he did in 1427. He was also a regular elector at the city’s parliamentary elections, and in 1431 he stood surety for the attendance of one of the elcted MPs, Roger Knight*.5 Lincoln White bk. L1/3/1, ff. 2v, 3v; C219/13/5; 14/2. Like many other Lincoln MPs, his principal trade was in cloth. In the many actions of debt he brought in the court of common pleas he was described as ‘draper’, ‘litster’ or more vaguely as ‘merchant’; and, at least until near the end of his life, he had a shop in the parish of St. Martin, where the city’s cloth market was located.6 CP40/651, rot. 28; 679, rot. 130; 666, rot. 54d; 699, rot. 492; Lincoln Arch. Trust, xi (1), 5. Yet he also had commercial interests beyond the cloth trade. At some date before Hilary term 1427 he contracted with a yeoman of Cockerington to carry 40 quarters of grain from the Lincolnshire port of Saltfleet Haven to Harfleur in a ship Tamworth owned. The alleged failure of the yeoman to do so led our MP to sue him for damages of £40.7 CP40/664, rot. 29.

This routine information about Tamworth’s career is supplemented by the unusual story of his dispute with the Leicestershire knight, Sir Robert Woodford of Sproxton. The dispute seems to have begun when Woodford was outlawed at our MP’s suit for a paltry debt of 40s.8 CPR, 1429-36, p. 20. Woodford’s response was a hostile one. If a plea sued by Tamworth in Michaelmas term 1430 is to be credited, he conspired to have our MP indicted for the rape carnaliter of the knight’s servant, Cecily Hotoft, an offence alleged to have taken place as long before as July 1416. As a result of this indictment, taken, probably in 1428 or 1429, before the Lindsey j.p.s sitting at Caistor (the conspiracy is said to have taken place near there at Spital-in-the-Street), the unfortunate Tamworth was arrested and, if his own compliant is to be believed, confined to the King’s prison at Leicester. He secured his acquittal before the justices of gaol delivery at some date between June 1429 and Michaelmas 1430, and in Trinity term 1431 writs of outlawry were issued at his suit against Woodford (who had been pardoned the earlier outlawry in June 1430).9 CP40/679, rot. 130; 680, rot. 65d; 682, rot. 81. He was acquitted before Strangeways and Ellerker, justices of assize on the midland circuit until 25 June 1429: CPR, 1422-9, p. 533. Unfortunately the relevant gaol delivery roll does not survive. The knight responded by suing Tamworth for abducting Cecily and taking goods worth £20 from his Leicestershire manor of Brentingby. One can only speculate about what was going on here – perhaps Cecily was Tamworth’s concubine and her master sought to bring the relationship to an end – nor is it known how the matter was concluded. Litigation was still pending as late as Trinity term 1441 and it may have been brought to an end only by Tamworth’s death.10 CP40/684, rot. 203d; 722, rot. 130.