This defamation case from the Essex parishes south of Colchester tells us a number of interesting things both about local-level dispute resolution and about sexual chastity and an unmarried woman’s reputation. At least according to the witnesses called to testify on Alice Brigge’s behalf, William Markis of Essex publicly accused her in the parish church, before the vicar and several parishioners, of fornicating with him in her own father’s house. Before taking the case to London to the Consistory court (where obviously the case ended up), there was an attempt to deal with the matter using local mediators. This was a well-known way of resolving conflicts (see these other cases): the disputing parties, their own family and friends, and local men of influence would gather in someone’s home or sometimes a public space such as a churchyard. Usually four of the community leaders – in this case laymen of mature age and probably of relatively higher status in the parties’ respective parishes – would suggest a resolution to which each of the parties was to adhere. Notable here and in many such mediations is the leading and determinative role played by laymen rather than clerics, even in a case squarely in church court jurisdiction; their proposed resolution of the dispute nonetheless assumes the vicar of the parish would facilitate its implementation and of course that the Consistory court would be the next resort should that fail.
About a week and a half after his public accusation, Markis, Brigge, and a number of men met at the house of a widow in Salcott. There, according to the mediators representing Brigge who acted as witnesses for her case before the Consistory, Markis admitted that he had made the accusation against her out of anger for her refusal to accept his proposal of marriage. To solve the conflict, the mediators proposed that he should stand before the congregation in the parish of Tolleshunt, where he had first made the accusation, and confess publicly that he had lied. Though Markis had agreed to do this, he later refused – sparking this defamation suit.
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065 184r-185r, 187r
Testimony of John Clerk, witness for the plaintiff, 8 Feb. 1494
On behalf of Alice Brigge c. William Markis.
8 February in the church of St. Paul in London, by the lord Official, in my, Richard Spencer’s, presence.
John Clerk of the parish of Salcott Wigborough [Essex], London diocese, where he has lived from the time of his birth and where he was born, illiterate, of free condition, fifty-six years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Alice Brigge for twelve years and William Markis for ten years. To the first, second, and third articles, he says their contents are true. To the fourth and fifth articles, he says that on Tuesday a fortnight after the feast of Epiphany last past [21 Jan. 1494], this witness was present in the house of Joan Bisshop within the parish of Salcott, together with Geoffrey Darling, Richard Badcock, John Palmer, John Brigge, the said widow, a certain man named Stobbard, and others. Then and there this witness and John Palmer for Alice’s part, and Geoffrey Darling and Richard Badcock for William’s part, were named and chosen to hear and examine the matter of the marriage that William Markis claimed that he had contracted with Alice. And at length after some discussion, William said that he wanted to have Alice as his wife and that she did not want it. And then this witness, angrily towards the parties acting for William, asked him why thus he had previously defamed Alice for fornicating with him as he had said she had done, and he answered, “Because she would not have me, therefore I said I lay by her that she would be loath to any other man.” And then this witness and the other arbitrators judged that William should say in his answer in the church of Tolleshunt [Essex], “friends, I have said amiss, and I will not more,” which then afterwards he would not do. This witness testifies to these things from his own sight and hearing. To the sixth article, he says that on account of William’s speaking of those words a great rumor was had and circulated in the parish of Tolleshunt Darcy, and he believes in his conscience that the good fame of Alice, a woman suitable for marriage, has fallen and lessened on account of those words, because certain people do not believe it, others perhaps doubt it, and others believe it. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh article, he says that its contents are true as far as this witness ever knew or understood. To the eighth article, he says its contents are true. To the ninth article, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the parishes of Tolleshunt and Wigborough.
Testimony of Richard Wode, witness for the plaintiff, 8 Feb. 1494
Richard Wode of Tolleshunt aforesaid, where he has lived from the feast of Michaelmas [29 Sept.] a year ago, literate, of free condition, thirty years old or thereabouts as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Alice Briggis for two years, and William Markis for twenty years. To the first, second, and third articles of the libel, he says that their contents are true. To the fourth and fifth, he says that on the Friday immediately following the feast of Epiphany last past [10 Jan. 1494], this witness was present in the parish church of Tolleshunt, together with the vicar of the church, John Palmer, Richard Badcok, Alice’s father, Alice herself, and William, when and where William said publicly and affirmed that he had previously carnally known Alice, there present, in her father’s house, and William steadfastly affirmed these words to be true often and repeatedly, the said Alice swearing and attesting to the contrary. And this witness then asked him if he had ever given Alice any token for the sake of contracting marriage, and whether he had ever contracted marriage with her, and to both these questions he answered utterly negatively. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth article, he says that its contents are true and that he knows this because those words were publicized through the whole country and many spoke badly against Alice to this witness’s knowledge. To the seventh article, he says that its contents are true as far as this witness ever knew or understood. To the eighth and ninth articles, he says that their contents are true. To the tenth article, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate in the parish of Tolleshunt and in other neighbouring places.
Testimony of John Palmer, witness for the plaintiff, 8 Feb. 1494
John Palmer of Peldon, London diocese, where he has lived for ten years and more, illiterate, of free condition, fifty years old or thereabouts as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Alice Briggis for four years, and William Markis for eight years and more. To the first, second, and [third] articles, he says that their contents are true. To the fourth and fifth articles, he agrees with Richard Wode examined above. To the sixth article, he agrees with him. To the seventh article, he says that its contents are true as far as this witness ever knew or understood. To the eighth, ninth, and tenth articles, he agrees with Richard Wode, adding this, that this fame circulated and circulates also at Peldon.
Testimony of Richard Wode, witness for the plaintiff, 28 Feb. 1494
On behalf of Briggis c. Markis on the interrogatories.
On the last day of February, by the lord Official in Richard Spencer’s house, in my, Richard Grome’s, presence.
Richard Wode again on the interrogatories. To the first interrogatory, he says that he does not care about victory as long as justice is done, and to its other contents he responds negatively. To the second interrogatory, he says that he heard from William and not from anyone else that he had committed the crime of fornication with her and had carnally known her, as he deposed before. And to its other contents he responds negatively as far as this witness knowledge, hearing, or belief. To the third interrogatory, he says as he said above, and to its other contents he responds negatively. To the fourth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents.
Testimony of John Palmer, witness for the plaintiff, 28 Feb. 1494
John Palmer as above. To the first interrogatory, he says that he does not care about victory as long as justice is done, and to its other contents he responds negatively. To the second interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that he did not hear it from anyone other than William Markis, and to its other contents he responds negatively. To the third interrogatory, he says that he heard William saying just as is contained in the interrogatory, but he doubts in his conscience that it was committed between them, but he believes that if they did do this misdeed Alice’s parents are ignorant of the sin. To the fourth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents.
Consistory 