PELHAM, Sir John

More may be added to the earlier biography.2 The Commons 1386-1421, iv. 39-44.

It may be remarked how swiftly Pelham responded to writs instructing him to hold inquisitions post mortem following the death of Thomas Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, his rival for influence in Sussex. The earl, who had sailed back across the Channel from Harfleur grievously ill, died at Arundel on 14 Oct. 1415; writs de diem clausit extremum were issued from Chancery on the very next day; and Pelham was at Arundel holding an inquisition on the 22nd.3 CIPM, xx. 665-6. The earl’s death left him undisputed in his dominance of the county, and challenged only by Robert, Lord Poynings, with whom he quarreled in 1419. He and his mainpernors, headed by the earl of Northumberland, were required to enter an obligation for £1,000 to Henry V to keep the peace towards Poynings, and this matter was not finally laid to rest until July 1425, when Pelham obtained writs of non molestitis to the Exchequer where his letters patent of February 1422 and other proceedings regarding his dispute with Poynings were enrolled.4 E159/201, brevia Trin. rots. 11d, 14d, recorda Trin. rots. 3, 6.

In the course of his career Pelham had been put in charge of a number of political prisoners on the King’s behalf. In Henry IV’s reign he had been made custodian at Pevensey castle of the young Edmund Mortimer, earl of March, who as a potential claimant to the throne and focus for rebellion needed to be kept under strict supervision. He and his ward established a rapport, and besides the grants subsequently made to him by the earl (mentioned in the earlier biography), in or before 1415 Pelham also received by the earl’s gift – and for term of his life – the fee farm of the city of Chichester, which amounted to £36 p.a. On occasion, however, he encountered difficulties in extracting payment from the civic authorities: for instance, he was forced to take legal action against John Exton* and Thomas Baron I* to do so.5 CP40/651, rot. 483; C1/7/30.

The earl of March was also mentioned in the proceedings of lawsuits brought against Sir John by the wealthy London mercer Thomas Fauconer*. Initially, Fauconer pursued Pelham in the Exchequer of pleas for the substantial sum of £300 which had been assigned to him by tally but had never been paid, despite his dealings with Pelham as treasurer of England in 1412, and was still taking action against him in the court of common pleas as late as 1426.6 E13/135. rot. 17d; CP40/650, rot. 104; 660, rot. 317d. Fauconer made a different claim in Trinity term 1425. He said that Pelham, as his ‘bailiff’ in a messuage in the parish of St. Martin Pomary in London from 4 Feb. 1409 to 25 Jan. 1412, had had in his care furnishings including a dorser, ten costers, a bed, curtains and embroidered tapestries, books, an altar cloth and most important a valuable ruby. He had failed to account for them. Pelham responded that Fauconer had given him the goods of his own free will as a sign of friendship, and that the dorser, bed and tapestries were embroidered with Pelham’s arms and erected in the hall and chambers in the earl of March’s establishment in the parish of St. Katherine, Aldgate ward, where Pelham was then staying. Other goods had been freely given by the mercer to Sir John’s wife Joan, at their home at Laughton. As for the ruby, this had previously belonged to the abbess of the Minories, whose proctors had sold it to Fauconer and John Ikelyngton for 80 marks, and Pelham had paid Ikelyngton (since deceased) 100 marks for it.7 CP40/658, rot. 317.

After Pelham’s death in February 1429 his widow and son Sir John Pelham the younger were subjected to detailed scrutiny at the Exchequer. They were attached in Michaelmas term to answer for a certain ship and its cargo forfeited to the late King Henry V, and for wastes allegedly committed by Sir John in the valuable St. Cler and Tauk estates he had held in wardship, but the barons investigations led only to their recovery of two sums of 20s. each.8 E159/206, recorda Mich. rots. 26-29, 37d, 38, 39d, 40d. In the following July the younger Sir John, now lord of the rape of Hastings, made a quitclaim to Battle abbey of all the lands and tenements the abbey held of him within the rape, together with all rents and services due, in return for divine services for the souls of himself and his late father.9 W. Suss. RO, Cowdray mss, COWDRAY/6/(ii); CPR, 1429-36, p. 245. Eventually, the widowed Joan secured a royal pardon of any offences committed before the day of Henry VI’s coronation in England, and in June 1437 the Exchequer was instructed not to trouble her further.10 E159/213, brevia Trin. rot. 5.