In this pair of related 1494 cases, first Herbert Rowland sued Elizabeth Croft to claim her as his wife and then Margaret Hordley sued Herbert Rowland to claim that he had previously married her. A conspiracy-minded person (i.e. me) might suspect that the second suit was a set-up, an attempt to rescue Elizabeth Croft, a young woman of some means who had a house of her own, from entanglement with Rowland. As this case illustrates well, the making of marriage in fifteenth-century London often involved people other than the man and woman contemplating a marital union: family members, employers, guardians, and friends were frequently involved, giving or withholding their approval and, when necessary, orchestrating marital litigation.
In the first case, Herbert Rowland claimed Elizabeth Croft had made a contract of marriage with him, but she denied it when she appeared before the Consistory in late January 1494. She had always maintained, she said, that she would never marry without the consent of Master Bankis, perhaps her guardian. Croft’s socio-economic status is somewhat unclear: she was, on the one hand, evidently living independently and operating an alehouse or tavern from her own house, but, on the other, both she and witnesses emphasized her dependence on William Bankis, a grocer.
Following her own examination, around mid-February 1494, Elizabeth Croft was sequestered, as was common with female parties to marital litigation. Sequestration – a formal order made by the bishop’s official in the presence of those involved in the case – acted as protective custody of a woman defendant in a marriage case. Its purpose was to prevent the plaintiff or a third party from circumventing the legal processes by enticing or forcing the defendant into a binding marriage contract. While in sequestration, all involved in the case were ordered (enjoined) not to have contact with the woman on threat of excommunication; she, in turn, was not to leave the house in which she had been sequestered. In this case, unusually, Croft was sequestered in her own house. According to Bankis, Rowland egregiously violated the terms of the sequestration by entering Croft’s house and making himself at home, boasting that he, as her husband, was now the head of the household. After Rowland’s home invasion, Bankis said, he removed Croft to his own house. She was apparently then moved to the house of one of the Consistory court’s officers, Master William Imbroke, who may have been her own proctor or lawyer. Imbroke was evidently somewhat loose with the sequestration rules himself; several men implicated in the case, including Bankis, admitted in late April that they had dined with her at Imbroke’s house, again violating the terms of the sequestration and risking their own excommunication. Likely they were assigned penance for their confessed disobedience of the court’s orders.
In the meantime, in early March, two witnesses appeared for Herbert Rowland, testifying that they had heard Croft make a vow of marriage, the second in more ambiguous words than the first. Both also testified that such a marriage was opposed by her sister and by Master Bankis.
The case evidently remained undecided after this testimony for the next twelve weeks, perhaps because notice was given of further legal actions related to the case. In late May 1494, an apparent counter-offensive on Elizabeth Croft’s behalf began. First, a woman named Margaret Hordley sued Herbert Rowland, claiming a contract of marriage made in 1491 or 1492, prior to the one he claimed with Croft. This was not, according to the two witnesses, a respectable entry into wedded life: they deposed that they had heard Rowland claim Hordley as his wife when the two had been arrested for fornication. This was not a strong legal claim, as no one reported that they had actually heard Rowland and Hordley make a contract; perhaps this suit’s purpose was simply to impugn Rowland’s trustworthiness. Another similar tactic ensued: on Croft’s behalf deponents were brought forward to contest the credibility of one of Rowland’s original witnesses to the contract of marriage, thus challenging his testimony. Those deponents were likely to be especially reliable to the Consistory court judge, as they were his colleagues in the diocesan courts. Adrian Warmyngton, servant of the bishop’s registrar Master Richard Spencer, and Master Richard Blodywell, who had been presiding over the Commissary court on the day in question, testified that the witness had recently been convicted in the lower-level Commissary court of multiple adulteries. An interesting feature of this legal strategy is the clear implication that a man’s sexual profligacy was evidence for his general lack of integrity.
This case is rich in detail both about the legal processes of sequestration and manoeuvres in a marriage case, with implications of wagons circling to protect a young woman from a predatory suitor. Whether the wagon-circling succeeded is unknown. The original suit, Rowland’s claim to have made a contract with Croft, was weak to begin with, as the second witness was vague about the words of marriage exchanged. The testimony of witnesses for Croft’s defence was also somewhat off-target, though it shows a concerted effort to find ways to stop Herbert Rowland from marrying Elizabeth Croft. My guess is that the weight of social pressure combined with the insubstantiality of the original case militated towards a denial of Herbert Rowland’s claim to have married Elizabeth Croft.
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 181v-182r, 188r-189v, 195v-196r, 197r-198v, 199v, 202v-203r
Response of Elizabeth Croft, Defendant, 31 Jan. 1494
Responses personally made by Elizabeth Croft on the last day of January, in the chapel called Holmes Chapel, before the lord Official, in my, Richard Spencer’s, presence.
Elizabeth Croft sworn on the positions etc. To the first position, she admits that Herbert twice spoke to her and solicited her to contract marriage together, and she always responded that she did not intend nor would have him nor any other man without the consent of her friends. And such was the manner of discussion the first time he came to see this witness, that he threw at this witness 4 d. for his drink as he left, which, this witness not responding to him, he left behind; and when she told him that he had paid too much for his drink, he answered that he would return and drink up the rest of the value. On the second time he came he said that this witness was a debtor to him and that he had come to drink with her the remainder of the money he had left before. And after he had consumed the drink he left her a rial[1] and asked her to keep the rial because, as he said, he had just before lost a good deal of money. And for five or six days following, he came back to this witness in her house and said, for the first time suggesting marriage, that his mind was fixed on her person to have her as his wife. And this witness answered him that he had a foolish mind if he fixed it on her, whose feelings he did not know, and she added that she did not want him nor any other man as her husband unless Master Bankis consented to it, because she did not wish to marry anyone without the consent of the said Bankis. And after two or three days Herbert came back to this witness’s house with two men, associates of his, and there in the hall he told this witness that he had spoken with the said Bankis for his consent, who told him, as he said, that if the thing hung on his consent then it was finished, because he would never obtain his consent. And then this witness said to him, “you will never have my consent.” And then Herbert said that he never wished to have any other woman as his wife except this witness. And the men who came with him urged this witness to say those words to them, and this the witness refused to do, until finally, as they insistently urged her, holding this witness so that she could not leave them and saying that he would not leave her unless first some consolatory words were said to Herbert, this witness wishing in part to satisfy their insistence, said to them, “If that you can get my Master’s good will, ye shall have mine.” To the second position, she does not believe its contents. To the third and fourth, she does not believe them, nor that their contents are true. To the fifth position, she says as she said above, and she does not believe its other contents. To the sixth position, she believes it. To the seventh position, she admits that it is disputed but not legitimately. To the eighth position, she believes what is believed and does not believe what is not believed. To the ninth position, she denies the fame.
Testimony of John Bedyll, witness for plaintiff Herbert Rowland, 4 Mar. 1494
On behalf of Rowland c. Croft
4 March, by the lord Master Richard Draper, Official, in the church of St. Paul, and in my, Richard Grome’s, presence.
John Bedyll of the parish of St. Botulph without Aldgate, where he has lived for three years and a half, and before that in the parish of All Hallows Staining for two years, and before that in the parish of St. Botulph aforesaid for seven years, illiterate, fifty years old, as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Herbert Rowland for two years and more, and Elizabeth Crofte from the day about which he deposes below. To the first and second articles, he says that on the day of St. Vincent [22 Jan.] last past in Elizabeth Croft’s dwelling house in the parish of St. Laurence in Old Jewry, he was present together with William Tommys, Herbert Rowland, and Elizabeth Croft, where and when after many things spoken about between Herbert and Elizabeth about contracting marriage, Herbert took Elizabeth by her right hand and said to her in English these following words or others similar in effect, “I will have you to my wife, by my feith and my troth during my life.” And she answered, “I shall be shent.”[2] And then this witness asked her why, saying, “Mistress, have you made a contract with any other body?” And she answered, “Nay, by my faith, I may chose for all men in the world.” And she said, “I shall be shent of Master Bankis.” And afterwards she put her hand in Herbert’s and said, “I will have you to my husband by my faith and my troth during my life.” And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third and fourth articles, he says he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the fifth article, he says that Herbert conveyed to Elizabeth certain gifts for the sake of the contract made between them, that is a gold rial and a pair of gloves, which Elizabeth accepted, but whether for the sake of marriage or not he does not know. He knows this because at the time of the contract Elizabeth’s sister made a rumour about them and quarreled with Elizabeth, because she had contracted with Herbert and then Elizabeth because of this quarrel returned the gifts to Herbert. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth and seventh articles, he says that their contents are true. To the eighth and ninth articles, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the city of London. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above, and to its other contents he responds negatively. To the second interrogatory, he says as he said above, and he says that after the contract between Herbert and Elizabeth, Eilzabeth’s sister together with another man whose name he does not know came to the said house where this witness was and after much discussion, Elizabeth’s sister argued with her because she contracted marriage with Herbert, saying, “Sister, remembyr ye not the promise that ye made to my Master; if you will not fulfill that I will forsake you for my sister and he will for sake you for your Master.” And she said to her in English as he believes in his conscience, “Deliver him such tokens as he hath given you and then he hath done with you.” And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third interrogatory, he says as he said above, and he says that he happened to be present at the request of the said Herbert, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he does not favour one party over the other, and if it were in his power to confer victory then he would confer it on Herbert because he believes he has right in the case. And to its other contents he responds negatively.
Testimony of William Tommys, witness for plaintiff Herbert Rowland, 4 Mar. 1494
William Tommys, sherman of the parish of Whitechapel, London diocese, where he has lived for twenty-eight years, literate, of free condition, fifty years old. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Herbert Rowland for four or five years, and Elizabeth Croft for six years and more. To the first and second articles, he says that on the feast of St. Vincent last past, in Elizabeth’s house within the parish of St. Lawrence in the Jewry, this witness was present together with John Bedyll, Herbert Rowland, and Elizabeth Croft. Then and there after Herbert and Elizabeth had much discussion about contracting marriage between them, Herbert said to Elizabeth these words or others similar in effect: “Mistress, I will have you to my wife by my faith and my troth; I will have none other during my life.” And she answered, “I shall be shent,” and this witness said in English, “Why, mistress, have ye made any contract with any other?” And she answered, “I may choose for all the men alive.” And immediately Elizabeth put her hand in Herbert’s and said, “By my faith and troth, I will have you and none other as long as I live.” And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third and fourth articles, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth article, he says that Herbert gave to Elizabeth Croft certain gifts, that is a rial and a pair of gloves, which gifts Elizabeth received, as he believes, in the name of marriage. And this he knows because after the time of the contract between them, Elizabeth’s sister quarreled with her because she contracted marriage with Herbert, and because of this quarrel Elizabeth gave him those gifts. To the seventh[3] and eighth articles, he says that their 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 City of London. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that it happened that he took notice of Elizabeth at Herbert’s request. And otherwise he responds negatively to its contents. To the second and third interrogatory, he agrees with the first witness. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he does not favour one party more than the other, nor does he care about victory as long as justice is done. And he responds negatively to its other contents.
Response of William Bankis, third party, 28 Apr. 1494
Responses personally made by William Bankis, grocer, 28 April, in my, Richard Spencer’s, presence, in the place of the Consistory of London. To the first interrogatory, he admits that he heard about the pending suit last January as he recalls, and he was with her when she came to my, the scribe’s, house to undergo examination. To the second interrogatory, he says that in last Lent[4] Elizabeth told this witness that the Consistory judge sequestered her and designated her own house as the place of sequestration. To the third interrogatory, he admits that he heard the judge warn and enjoin as indicated in the said interrogatory, except that he did not hear about the punishment that was added. To its other contents, he responds negatively. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that since the time that he heard about those injunctions, Herbert went to Elizabeth’s house and there he boasted that he was and is the head of that household. And then this witness sent for Elizabeth to come to this witness’s house. And on the following day Elizabeth, at that time in this witness’s house, told this witness that Herbert was again in Elizabeth’s house, boasting as before. And then this witness, along with the constable and other men who were his associates, went to the house in order to arrest Herbert and take him to the Counter[5] if they found him there. And when they came to the house Herbert had already left. He says also that since […] he heard about those injunctions he spoke with Elizabeth and drank with her in Master Imbroke’s[6] house. And he often, that is six times or more, invited her to his house since he heard about the sequestration.
Response of John Flemmyng, third party, 28 Apr. 1494
Responses personally made by John Flemmyng. To the first interrogatory, he admits that this sequestration was made in this witness’s presence ten weeks ago. To the second interrogatory, he says that this sequestration was made in this witness’s presence, at what time he does not remember, but as he recalls it was during Lent just past. To the third interrogatory, he admits that he heard the judge enjoin as indicated in the said interrogatory, except that he did not hear of any penalty of excommunication added. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that from the time that he heard of this injunction, on Wednesday a week ago [16 Apr.], this witness was invited by Master Imbroke to dine in Master Imbroke’s house with him and Elizabeth. And he says, however, that he met up with Elizabeth by chance in that house and that he did not know that she was there before he went there, and thus by chance he dined in that house with Master Imbroke and the said Elizabeth. He says also that since the injunction Elizabeth has never come to this witness’s house, nor has this witness been to Elizabeth’s house, but he saw her in Bankis’s house and there talked and drank with her, although he did not go to that house principally because of her.
Response of Thomas Wodeborough, third party, 28 Apr. 1494
Responses personally made by Thomas Wodeborough. To the first interrogatory, he says that for the last ten weeks or thereabouts he knew about the pending suit between the aforesaid people. To the second interrogatory, he admits that Elizabeth was sequestered about a month ago, this witness being present and hearing it. To the third interrogatory, he admits its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that since this, this witness dined at the home of Master William Imbroke, Elizabeth being present there. And he talked with her since then in the house of rolls[7] before the Master there, and once he came to her since the injunction at Elizabeth’s own house.
Testimony of Robert Serle, witness for plaintiff Margaret Hordley, 26 May 1494
On behalf of Hordley c. Rowland
26 May, by the lord Official, in my, Richard Spencer’s, house, in this case
Robert Serle of the parish of St. Katherine Coleman of the city of London, where he has lived for seven years, and before that time in the parish of All Hallows Staining for sixteen years, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Margaret Hordley for three or four years, and Herbert Rowland for two years. To the first and second articles, he says that on a certain day falling between the feasts of the nativity of St. John the Baptist [24 June] and St. Michael the Archangel [29 Sept.] two years ago as he recalls, which day he cannot otherwise specify, this witness, at that time being the constable of that ward,[8] around ten o’clock caught Herbert and Margaret suspiciously alone together in Margaret’s house. And when he wanted to take them away to prison, Herbert claimed that he had previously contracted marriage with Margaret, and he added that if it would bring so much condemnation on him he would not ever marry her. And this witness heard that he had done this, but he was not certain of it, and then Herbert, in the presence of this witness and John Davy, said in English, “By my faith, she is my wife. I have made a contract with her a good while ago, and that I report me to herself.” When she was questioned she answered that she had previously contracted with him, and Herbert then and there immediately gave this witness 2d. to give to the holy water clerk of St. Katherine Coleman to issue banns, which this witness gave to the clerk for that purpose. And when the banns should have been issued the following Sunday, Herbert forbade their issue. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the seventh article, he says that what he said above is true and concerning fame he knows nothing to depose. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he says that he does not care which party has victory as long as justice is done. To the third interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the fourth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the fifth interrogatory, he says that having been summoned, he came to offer testimony to the truth. To the sixth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents.
Testimony of John Davy, witness for plaintiff Margaret Hordley, 28 May 1494
28 May by the lord Official in his dwelling house in the presence[9]
John Davy of the parish of St. Katherine Coleman, City of London, where he has lived for seven years, illiterate, of free condition, thirty-eight years old and more, as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Margaret Hordley for five years and Herbert Rowland for four or five years. To the first and second articles, he says that on a certain day falling between the feasts of Easter and Christmas two years ago, which day he cannot otherwise specify, this witness was present in Margaret Hordley’s house when Robert Serle, at that time being constable, caught Herbert and Margaret suspiciously alone together. And after many things were discussed, Herbert said to Robert Serle in English, “By my faith, she is my wife. I have made a contract with her a good while ago, and that I report me to herself.” She being questioned answered that she had previously contracted with him, and Herbert immediately then and there gave Robert Serle 2d. that he was to deliver to the holy water clerk for the issuing of banns. And when the banns should have been issued on the following Sunday, Herbert forbade their issue. To the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the seventh article, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the city of London. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he does not care who wins. To the third interrogatory, he says that he has been summoned many times to appear before the lord official, how many he does not know. To the fifth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that having been summoned he came to offer testimony to the truth. To the seventh interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents.
Response of John Flemmyng, 28 May 1494
Responses personally made by John Flemmyng
To the first interrogatory, he denies its contents.
Testimony of Adrian Warmyngton, Witness for defendant Elizabeth Croft, 11 Jun. 1494
11 June by the lord Official in my, Richard Grome’s, presence
On behalf of Croft c. Rowland, on the exceptions
Adrian Warmyngton, servant of Master Richard Spencer, of the parish of St. Martin Ludgate, with whom he has lived for two years or thereabouts, and before that time in Warwickshire for two years, and before that in Calais and in those parts from the time of his childhood, literate, of free condition, twenty-three years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he does not know Elizabeth, Herbert Rowland he has known for a quarter of a year, John Bedill he does not know, and William Tommys for half a year. To the first part of the exceptions, he says as he will say below. To the second and third parts of the exceptions, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the fourth and fifth parts, he says that on 27 September last past, William Tommys was detected to the office before Master Richard Blodywell, commissary of London at Paul’s Chain, concerning the crime of adultery with diverse women, and especially with a certain Joan his servant, whom he admitted he had impregnated. Over this confession the lord Commissary enjoined him public penance, that William on certain subsequent Sundays was to go in procession before the cross, with bare feet and head, holding a candle in his hand in the manner of a penitent etc., first in his parish church and the second and third time at St. Paul’s etc., and afterwards to [commute] this penance he made an agreement with the commissary.[10] And otherwise he knows nothing to depose. To the fifth part, he says that what he said above is true, but he doubts the fame except as it came to the ears of the judge.
Testimony of Master Richard Blodywell, Witness for defendant Elizabeth Croft, 11 Jun. 1494
Master Richard Blodywell, doctor of laws, of the parish of St. Faith the Virgin of the City of London, where he has lived for four years, of free condition, forty-two years old, as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he has known Elizabeth Croft for three years and more, and Herbert Rowland for half a year, John Bedill for a quarter of a year, and William Tommys for seven or eight months. To the first part, he says as he will say below. To the second and third parts, he says he knows nothing to depose. To the fourth and fifth parts, he says that William Tommys was detected before this witness at Paul’s Chain concerning the crime of adultery [or] fornication with several women, especially with Joan his servant, and afterwards, having been warned by this witness he appeared, on June[11] 27, and admitted the crime of adultery, and submitted himself and swore to undergo the penance enjoined on him, except as grace might be granted to him.[12] This witness enjoined on him salutary penance and afterwards William came to an agreement with the office and this witness relaxed his penance and dismissed him. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the sixth part, he says that what he said above is true and that he knows nothing to depose about the fame.
[1] A gold coin, first issued under Edward IV, worth 10s. OED, s.v.
[2] shent: disgraced.
[3] The sixth article is missing.
[4] Lent in 1494 lasted from February 12 until March 28.
[5] One of the sheriffs’ prisons.
[6] William Imbroke was a proctor associated with the Consistory court. Following these confusions regarding Elizabeth Croft’s sequestration, she may have been moved to Imbroke’s house.
[7] This likely means the place where records were kept in St. Paul’s cathedral.
[8] The parish of St. Katherine Coleman lay within Aldgate ward.
[9] breaks off
[10] An entry in the Commissary Court Act book for 27 Sept. 1493 corresponds exactly to what Warmyngton reports, that William Tommiez of the parish of St. Mary Matfelon (Whitechapel) was accused of committing adultery and impregnating his servant Joan. He admitted the charge, the penance was assigned, and it was commuted by payment of a fine (it was common for penitents, especially those of some means, to be allowed to pay a fine rather than perform public penance). LMA, DL/C/B/043/MS09064/005, fol. 142r. Warmyngton presumably consulted the Act Book before he was examined, explaining the precision with which he remembered the date. It was common for penitents, especially those of some means, to be allowed to pay a fine rather than perform public penance.
[11] Note that Warmyngton, the previous witness, says September. As above, Warmyngton’s testimony is borne out by the records of the Commissary court.
[12] I.e. that he might be given the chance to pay a fine instead of performing public penance.
Consistory 