CHAWORTH, Sir Thomas

In the earlier biography of Chaworth,11 The Commons 1386-1421, ii. 533-6. the significance of his maternal inheritance has been underestimated. His mother was not only the sole heiress of her father, who held manors in East Bridgford (Nottinghamshire), Saxby (Leicestershire), and South Thoresby and West Allington (Lincolnshire), but also of her maternal uncle, Sir John Brett. On Brett’s death in about 1385 she brought to the Chaworths the important manor of Wiverton in south Nottinghamshire (together with scattered parcels of land in Derbyshire, Warwickshire and Lincolnshire) and this prompted the family to remove their main residence from Medbourne in Leicestershire to Wiverton. The inheritance of Chaworth’s second wife was even more substantial and made him not only the richest of the Nottinghamshire gentry but one of the richest men of his rank in the country. In the subsidy returns of 1435-6, his annual income was assessed at as much as £320.12 Payling, 26-27; E179/240/266.

It is an indication of Chaworth’s high status, even in the early part of his career, that, in September 1406, he should have been chosen by William, Lord Roos, as godfather to Roos’s younger son, Thomas. This Thomas was to succeed to the Roos barony on the death of his elder brother, John, Lord Roos, in 1421, and maintained a close connexion with our MP until his death in 1430.13 CIPM, xxiii. 139. For Chaworth as a feoffee of his godson: ibid. 531-2, 536, 539-41, 544; C1/26/461-2; C4/1/24. In his early career Chaworth was also connected with another local magnate, Richard (d.1418), Lord Grey of Codnor, for whom he acted as a feoffee.14 CIPM, xxvi. 230-1, 238. Closer still was his relationship with John Scrope, a younger brother of the ill-fated Henry, Lord Scrope of Masham, who had suffered execution and forfeiture for his involvement in the Southampton plot of August 1415. At some date shortly before 24 Aug. 1418 our MP contracted his daughter Elizabeth, the heiress of the lands of his late wife, in marriage to Scrope. This seems to have been a speculation on Chaworth’s part. When the marriage was made it was seemingly not a particularly good one: not only were the Scrope estates under forfeiture but John was not yet heir to them even if that forfeiture should be reversed. On the other hand, not that much would have to change to improve the groom’s prospects. Only one life (that of his elder brother, Stephen Scrope, archdeacon of Richmond), stood between him and the status of heir, and the restoration of a significant part of the Scrope estates was in agitation on the grounds that entail protected it from rightful forfeiture. Chaworth’s speculation soon yielded fruit. The archdeacon died on 5 Sept. 1418 – it may be that his death was already known to be imminent when the marriage was made – and, in the Parliament of 1425, the groom secured livery of the lands he claimed to have been entailed.15 Payling, 101-2; Test. Ebor. i (Surtees Soc. iv), 388; CP, xi. 567. The alleged entailment has been described as a ‘fraudulent pretence’: T.B. Pugh, Southampton Plot, 121n. It is, however, hard to believe that no significant part of the Scrope estate was entailed: B. Vale, ‘Scropes of Bolton and of Masham’ (York Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1987), i. 225-7. Shortly before this restoration, our MP had, on 3 Dec. 1424, invested in his son-in-law’s success by settling on the couple an annual rent of 40 marks assigned on the manor of Medbourne.16 Leics. RO, Neville mss, DE221/2/1/11.

While the latter part of Chaworth’s career is notable for the lack of evidence of contention between him and his neighbours, this early career was not so peaceful. He was not on good terms with all the local peerage. In January 1406 he secured a commission of oyer and terminer against John, Lord Darcy, who he alleged had led a devastating raid on his park at Alfreton in Derbyshire. Sessions were not held until the following August, by which time Chaworth had taken the law into his own hands by attacking Darcy’s property at Eckington, several miles to the north of Alfreton. Although he won damages of as much as 600 marks against two of Darcy’s servants, it is very unlikely that he ever received any part of them.17 CPR, 1405-8, pp. 151, 235-6, 238; JUST1/172. Later he incurred the enmity of the wealthy Lincolnshire knight, Sir Walter Tailboys†. If indictments and an information laid against Tailboys are to be credited, on 3 Aug. 1410 he had come with 160 horsemen to Lincoln with the intention of killing our MP, who, in the curious words of a subsequent commission, ‘was altogether ignorant of his malice and had come there for his own amusement’. Chaworth had only recently finished a term as sheriff of Lincolnshire, and it is likely that he had incurred Tailboys’s hostility through something he had done ex officio. It may be that he had intervened in favour of the townsmen of Lincoln, who seem to have been in dispute with Tailboys.18 CPR, 1408-13, pp. 316-17; KB9/201/3, mm. 3-8; SC8/124/6178.

Soon after his apparent flirtation with lollardy early in 1414, Chaworth was obliged to call upon the surety of his wealthy friends. On the following 22 May William, Lord Ferrers of Groby, Sir Simon Felbrigg, Sir Robert Plumpton† and the young Ralph Cromwell posted bonds in Chancery for his good behaviour.19 C259/7, m. 5.

In June 1437 Chaworth contracted his young son and heir, William, in marriage to Elizabeth Bowet, grand-daughter and coheiress-presumptive of his friend Sir John Zouche*. The contract makes clear that it was accepted by this date that the bride would fall heir to the lands of her grandmother, Margaret Burgh. Margaret’s lands in south Yorkshire were to be settled on the couple within a month of the deaths of her and her husband. In return our MP undertook to settle upon the bride a jointure with an annual value of as much as 40 marks. Later, however, it became apparent that the bride and her sister would fall heir not only to the Burgh lands but also to the property of Sir John himself. By a fine levied in 1447 the right of the senior line of the Zouches, represented by William, Lord Zouche, to these estates was limited to a distant reversion. The occasion of the levying of this fine was probably the marriage of the second grand-daughter, Margaret Bowet, to our MP’s second son, John. Lord Zouche is unlikely to have entered so disadvantageous an arrangement without a considerable financial inducement, and it is a reflection of Chaworth’s great wealth that he was able to obtain two such valuable brides for his two eldest sons and a striking of piece of ill-fortune that the marriages should prove to have such unfortunate consequences. Earlier, by a grant under the seal of the duchy of Lancaster dated 2 Nov. 1431, he had acquired the wardship and marriage of William, son and heir of John Fitzwilliam of Sprotborough in south Yorkshire (not far from his own manor of Wadworth), and he contracted him in marriage to his daughter Elizabeth.20 Add. Ch. 20542; CP25(1)/293/71/314; DL42/18, f. 20.

To marry some of his other children, Sir Thomas took advantage of the close relationship he had established with Ralph, Lord Cromwell. The most important of these was that of his fourth son, George, to Alice, daughter and sole heiress of John Annesley. The manor of Annesley, a few miles to the north of Nottingham, was held of Cromwell’s honour of Crich, and, shortly after John’s death in 1437, Cromwell leased the manor to Chaworth to hold during Alice’s minority. By the late 1440s she had been contracted in marriage to George, and it is likely that our MP had purchased her hand from Cromwell.21 HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, i. 217; Notts. IPM (Thoroton Soc. xvii), 9-10; CP25(1)/281/160/50, 293/72/388. This marriage was to save the family from extinction in the male line. Two of our MP’s daughters also married wards of Cromwell. Margery married John Benstede of Bennington (Hertfordshire), whose wardship and marriage Cromwell had purchased from the royal grantee in 1442. Her sister Joan married Thomas Goldsburgh of Goldsborough (Yorkshire), a ward of Cromwell in right of his lordship of Blankney in Lincolnshire. Sir Thomas’s connexion with Cromwell brought him many advantages, but the benefits did not all flow in one direction. He was active in Cromwell’s support in two notable disputes: one with Sir Henry Pierrepont* over the valuable Heriz manors and the other with Henry, Lord Grey of Codnor (for whose father our MP had acted as a feoffee).22 Payling, 102-3.

Chaworth’s pre-eminence among the gentry of Nottinghamshire made him a popular choice as arbiter. In 1411 he had been one of those nominated by John Tuxford to arbitrate his quarrel with the Meryngs, the failure of which arbitration led to serious disorders in which he and the other arbiters were implicated. More happily, in 1425 he was among those who successfully resolved a dispute between two of the shire elite, Sir Nicholas Strelley and Hugh Willoughby, and in the late 1440s he successfully concluded a dispute between Sir Thomas Rempston† and his mother Margaret over the valuable manor of Bingham. His part in maintaining the peace of the county during the second half of his career is nicely illustrated by his intervention in a disruptive quarrel between two of the lesser gentry, John Brokestowe and David Preston. In an attempt to disinherit Preston’s wife, Brokestowe leased the disputed manor of Broxtow Hall to our MP as a preliminary to an outright sale. However, when (Sir) Hugh Willoughby informed him of the lease’s illegal purpose, Chaworth withdrew from the bargain.23 Ibid, 192, 203, 206.

During the course of Chaworth’s many years of service on the Nottinghamshire bench, his record of attendance was varied. Not until the early 1430s did he become a regular attendant of the sessions. For example, between September 1430 and January 1435 he was present on 22 of the 55 days on which the justices sat. In the early 1440s he was even more active, attending all meetings save those held in the north of the county, but thereafter he sat infrequently, presumably a function of his advancing years.24 Payling, ‘Political Society in Notts.’ (Oxf. Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1987), pp. 310-13.

Sir Thomas’s lengthy will shows that he was responsible for the extension of the chapel of the Trinity in the church of the Augustinian priory of Launde (Leicestershire). The advowson of the priory was part of the extensive possessions of his second wife, and the priory became the focus of the couple’s religious patronage. It was there that they founded a chantry and chose to be buried. They were commemorated by a large brass (now known only from the antiquarian record) adorned with the arms of the ten families to which they were heirs.25 J. Denton, ‘The East-Midland Gentleman’ (Keele Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 2006), 83-87, 149-56. There can be little doubt that Chaworth was also responsible for the building of the manor-house at Wiverton, of which the gatehouse survives (now incorporated into a 19th-century house), for, on 22 Mar. 1446, he secured a royal grant to enclose 200 acres there to form a park.26 J. Nichols, Leics. iii (1), facing p. 327; N. Pevsner, Buildings of Eng.: Notts. 383; R. Thoroton, Notts. ed. Throsby, 197-8; CChR, vi. 59. The gatehouse is not his only surviving memorial. At least three grand manuscripts commissioned or owned by him are extant, most notably the ‘Wollaton Antiphonal’ now in Nottingham University Library. His interest in books is further implied by the bequests of several in his will.27 Wollaton Med. MSS ed. Hanna and Turville-Petre, 20-29.

Chaworth’s will recites a series of minor wrongs that he wished to see rectified, but not mentioned was one that was apparently more serious. In 1453 he and his wife had made a claim to the manors of Dodford (Northamptonshire) and Oxhill (Warwickshire), formerly of Sir John Cressy*, on the basis of a false descent, and then maintained it, on the basis of a true descent, against the right heir at law, John Hathwick. The will makes no mention of this episode, but it may be significant that our MP’s son and heir made no attempt to pursue the claim, surrendering his interest in the matter to his mother’s sister, Eleanor, widow of (Sir) Humphrey Stafford I*, who came to a compromise settlement with the right heir.28 S.J. Payling, ‘Imposter Pilgrim’, in The Fifteenth Cent. X ed. Kleineke, 34-35.

Sir Thomas was succeeded by his eldest son, Sir William, described in 1465 as ‘a sekely man and often tymes nott of power to labour in rydyng’. The family’s high status was confirmed shortly before William’s death in 1467 when his young son and heir-apparent, Thomas (b.1457), was contracted in marriage to Margaret, sister of John Talbot (d.1473), earl of Shrewsbury. This, however, marked the high point in the family’s fortunes: not long afterwards the great estate the Chaworths had built up through marriage over many generations fell victim to partition. Thomas died childless in 1483, leaving his sister Joan (c.1463-1507), wife of John Ormond (d.1503), as his common-law heir. In his will of 1459 our MP had sought to protect the male line of the family from the most damaging effects of such a contingency by ordering his feoffees to settle his own inheritance (he made no mention of his wife’s Aylesbury lands) in tail-male. This settlement was not, however, carried through because the greater part was already bound by entails in tail-general, some of which dated back to the early fourteenth century. Moreover, the very survival of the male line of the family was in doubt in the mid 1480s. Sir Thomas’s second son, John, murdered in 1464 by his wife and her lover, left an only son who died childless in December 1485; and in the previous May Sir Thomas’s third son, Thomas, had also died without issue. This left as the sole surviving heir male of the family, George (d.1521), the young grandson of Sir Thomas’s fourth son. Fortunately he survived, and, although the bulk of the family’s property passed to the heir general, Joan Ormond, and thence to her three daughters, the young George inherited the manor of Wiverton and that of nearby Edwalton, which had been in the family since the early thirteenth century. His direct descendant, George† (d.1639) was elevated to the peerage as Viscount Chaworth of Armagh in 1628.29 Payling, Political Society in Lancastrian Eng. 69; idem, ‘Murder, Motive and Punishment’, EHR, cxiii. 11-15; CP, iii. 155.