WYNTER, Edmund I

The previous biography of Edmund incorrectly referred to him as the son and heir of John Wynter (d.1414);4 The Commons 1386-1421, iv. 927-8. in fact, he was a younger brother of John, who died without male heirs. Furthermore, it was ignorant of the lineage of their mother Maud, William Wynter’s first wife, namely that she was a member of the Berney family. Her family background is recorded in notes that Judge William Paston made in relation to a dispute between him and Edmund over the Norfolk manor of East Beckham, writings that also show that she bore William Wynter two other younger sons. In part, this quarrel – again not mentioned in the previous biography – reflected local rivalries in north-east Norfolk. It may well have had considerable bearing on Wynter’s decision to stand for his last Parliament since it was very much ongoing when that assembly was summoned.

Included in Paston’s notes are extracts from William Wynter’s last will as to his lands, now no longer extant although his testament has survived. If accurate, they show that William intended East Beckham, a manor that he had bought from Sir Roger Beckham† in 1379, for his only son and namesake by his second wife, Elizabeth Germayn. Crucially for Paston’s case, the extracts further reveal that Wynter provided for the sale of the manor, should Henry, one of his younger sons by Maud Berney, meet an early and childless death. If that happened, the younger William was to relinquish East Beckham and to succeed to another manor, Egmere near Walsingham, by way of compensation. Apparently Henry did indeed die young, since his elder brother John Wynter agreed to buy East Beckham in 1409, with the intent that their father’s feoffees should dispose of the proceeds of the sale for the good of the souls of the elder William and Maud. For whatever reason, the proposed transaction fell through and in December 1415, a year after John’s death, William Mariot, a fisherman from Cromer, purchased the manor. According to Paston’s notes, Edmund Wynter, by then the only surviving male Wynter, formally released it to Mariot in February 1416.

During Edmund’s time as head of the family, the Wynters also lost Egmere and most of their other manors. Indeed, his inquisition post mortem records that he died in possession of no more than his estate at Barningham Winter and a town house in Norwich. The previous biography failed to realise this serious decline in the Wynter family fortunes although it did appreciate the advantageous nature of Edmund’s second marriage to the wealthy widow of John Wodehouse. No doubt the match considerably mitigated any financial problems he may have had although he did die owing 100 marks to the estate of the late John Cornwall, Lord Fanhope.5 By virtue of a bond that he had given that peer in Feb. 1441: C241/234/5. Conceivably the decline was not altogether Edmund’s fault, as it is possible that his father had ordered the disposal of much of his estates for charitable purposes in his now lost last will. In other words, William Wynter’s immediate concern for his own immortal soul overrode any desire to ensure the prosperity of his descendants.

Whatever his financial circumstances, Edmund made strenuous efforts to recover East Beckham after William Mariot drowned at sea in September 1434. Mariot himself was significantly indebted when he died, prompting his widow Joan to put the manor up for sale. Seizing his chance, Edmund made her an offer but he was rebuffed, since she decided to sell it to Judge Paston. In desperation he seized East Beckham in the following December, before any such purchase by Paston had occurred, so initiating an extremely prolonged and complicated dispute. During 1436 Edmund managed to win unjust actions of trespass and detinue of deeds against Joan Mariot and her son John, even though it was he who was in the wrong. Possibly he had some part in an unexpected turn of events in the following year, the finding at an inquisition before the Norfolk escheator that Mariot had originated from Friesland rather than England, that East Beckham was held in chief and that Mariot had bought it without licence. In consequence, Mariot’s widow possessed no title to the manor, let alone any right to sell it to Paston.

At this point the King intervened by giving East Beckham away to his esquire, Edmund Hampden*, who was probably acting in collusion with Wynter. Hampden’s grant, of November 1437, was for life but he surrendered East Beckham back to the Crown in February 1440. There followed another twist when Joan Mariot died very shortly afterwards, since her son John rejected her agreement with Paston after her death. Furthermore, John became the principal opponent of Paston’s claims to East Beckham, again probably with the backing of Wynter who – notwithstanding the grant to Hampden – may even have remained in continual possession of the manor since 1434. In March 1441, however, Paston succeeded in gaining physical custody of East Beckham, only for John Mariot vigorously to renew his own claim to the manor after Paston’s death in August 1444.

Three and a half years later, Wynter died, so removing him from the scene, but the Pastons were not to complete their acquisition of East Beckham until the late 1460s. Unfortunately for them, they were obliged almost immediately to mortgage it to Roger Townshend†, a lawyer easily as predatory as Judge Paston, as a security for a loan. Unable to redeem the mortgage, they lost the manor to Townshend. While they never gave up hope of recovering it, it was not until the end of the fifteenth century that they were able to launch a serious bid to win it back. Finally, in 1503, Townshend’s son and successor agreed to relinquish it to them in return for just over £100, following arbitration between him and John Paston†.6 C.E. Moreton, Townshends, 91-95.

There is further evidence to support the suggestion of the previous biography that Wynter himself was a lawyer, albeit a far lesser one than the likes of William Paston and Roger Townshend. If so, he may have attended the Inner Temple, for ‘a man of the Temple called Wynter’ was lodging at Sir John Fastolf’s ‘housyng in the White Freres’, London in 1441.7 J.H. Baker, Men of Ct. (Selden Soc. supp. ser. xviii), ii. 1726; Paston Letters ed. Davis, ii. 13. It is also worth noting that he served on at least two commissions of gaol delivery, and that he may have provided counsel to the city of Norwich. The city’s records show that he was among those who met for breakfast at the house of its then mayor, Thomas Ingham*, on 21 July 1425, possibly to discuss a dispute between its citizens on the one hand and John Esmond and Miles Stapleton* on the other.8 Norf. RO, Norwich city recs., chamberlains’ accts., 1384-1448, NCR 18a, f. 146..

Doubtless any legal qualifications Wynter possessed were useful to him in his role as a general attorney of his patron, John Mowbray, 2nd duke of Norfolk. It was as such that he and two other Mowbray attorneys, Roger Hunt* and Robert Southwell, had dealings with William Ryman*, a servant of the late Thomas Fitzalan, earl of Arundel. One of Arundel’s coheirs, in 1425 Mowbray purchased the former Fitzalan manor of Kenninghall in Norfolk, which Ryman conveyed to him in return for £400. It was also agreed that Mowbray should have other lands in fee simple for a further 200 marks but by February 1431 these sums were still not fully paid. The duke of Norfolk therefore ordered that Ryman should have £244 6s. 8d. from the issues of his lordship of Bosham, Sussex, in settlement of what was owed, and in pursuit of this command Wynter, Hunt and Southwell wrote to the ducal officers and farmers at Bosham instructing them to pay Ryman that sum.9 W. Suss. RO, Bosham Manor Acc. 939/II/A17.

Not long afterwards, Wynter somehow fell out with his patron. He was not always on good terms with other members of the Mowbray affinity, either, for he had quarrelled with Gilbert Debenham I* in the later 1420s. The dispute was over Wynter’s wages as a knight of the shire in the Parliament of 1427, an assembly in which Debenham had also sat, as one of the MPs for Suffolk. Shortly after the Parliament opened, Debenham had been pricked as sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk, an office he had still held at its dissolution. Later, in Easter term 1429, Wynter had sued the by then former sheriff in the Exchequer, alleging that Debenham was withholding £10 of those wages from him. According to his bill, in April 1428 he had delivered to Debenham at Norwich a writ of expenses for wages of £25 8s. but the latter had paid him no more than £15 8s. and was refusing to pay the balance. The barons of the Exchequer responded to the bill by licensing the parties to interplead until the following Trinity term, and it is possible that the matter was settled out of court.10 E5/485.