When John Rawlyn of the Essex town of Ulting died in 1493, he left a testament in which the name of one of the executors, “a certain Carr” of Chelmsford, was crossed out. This raised suspicions that the document had been tampered with, that the other executors had deleted Carr’s name after Rawlyn’s death. Though there is no explicit evidence that Carr himself was a party to this process at the Consistory court, both he and John Rawlyn’s widow Collecta had evidently raised enough controversy that both a local aristocrat, Baron Dynham, and the Consistory court were compelled to investigate the matter. Four witnesses appeared. Three had been present while Rawlyn lay on his deathbed and dictated his will to a scribe named John SentJest. As the witnesses contended, it was Rawlyn himself who had ordered Carr’s name to be crossed out, under pressure from his own brother, who refused to work with Carr; the men from Ulting and environs who testified don’t seem to have known Carr but he was connected to the widow Collecta Rawlyn in some way (perhaps a relative). They moreover alleged that Collecta and the scribe SentJest had been attempting to pressure and bribe witnesses to testify that Rawlyn had made another and subsequent testament that named Carr and Collecta as co-executors. As they gave their depositions about the circumstances of the making of Rawlyn’s testament, the witnesses offer fascinating evidence about the gathering of neighbours at a man’s deathbed to keep vigil with him until he died. It’s also notable how important and powerful the physical document itself was even though perhaps none of those involved apart from the scribe could read it: the witnesses – all of whom were identified as illiterate by the Consistory court scribe – nonetheless could swear that the document showed to them in court was the same piece of paper that SentJest had written next to Rawlyn’s bed as he lived his last hours. Rawlyn’s will appears not to survive, either in original form or registered copy.
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 173v-175r
Testimony of Richard Hunt, Witness for the defendants, 5 Dec. 1493
On behalf of Henry Baker and Thomas Pursot to probate the testament of John Rawlyn.
Richard Hunt of the parish of Ulting [Essex], London diocese, where he has lived for forty years, illiterate, of free condition, sixty years old and more as he says. Sworn etc., he says that he has known John Rawlyn for forty years before his death, Henry Baker and Thomas Pursot for twenty years. Questioned further, he says that on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday before the death of John Rawlyn, who died on Thursday in the morning, John Rawlyn, languishing in the house of John a Wode alias Tailour of Ulting,[1] was making his testament and having John SentJeste write many bequests. John for three days directed John to write the will, and on Tuesday William Rawlyn, John’s brother, came to visit him, [along with] Joan Tailour, William Stokbrig, Robert Pursot, and Sir Robert the curate of Ulting, and many others. In their presence John told them that he had made his testament and that he had named William Rawlyn, Henry Baker, Thomas Pursot, and a certain Carr from Chelmsford as his executors. And immediately then and there William Rawlyn told him that if he named the said Carr, William would in no way be involved with the said testament. John, as he lay languishing, deliberated about that for the next day, and on the Wednesday following he had Carr’s name deleted from his testament and would have the three others as executors. And he says he knows this from what he has heard from the said executors and also from SentJeste and others who were there at the time, and also because around eleven at night on Wednesday the said SentJest came to this witness’s house together with Thomas Pursot, William Rawlyn, John Tailour, and others. There SentJeste publicly read the paper which was shown to this witness at the time of his examination, which he recognizes well, in which the said William Rawlyn, John Baker, and Thomas Pursot were named as executors, and immediately after the reading of the testament SentJeste gave the paper to William Rawlyn and Thomas Pursot, and on the Thursday immediately following between the hours of eight and nine John left this world.
Testimony of John Tailour [Jr.], Witness for the defendants, 5 Dec. 1493
John Tailour of Ulting aforesaid, where he has lived for twenty years, three years excepted, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he knew John Rawlyn for thirty years before his death, and has known William Rawlyn, Henry Baker, and Thomas Pursot for twenty years. Questioned further, he says that on the Tuesday before John Rawlyn’s death, John having died on a certain Thursday in the last Lent, John Rawlyn announced in the presence of this witness, William Rawlyn, Thomas Pursot, Richard Hunt, John SeyntJest, John Tailour senior, and others, that he made a testament and had it written by the said SentJest, and in that testament he named as his executors William Rawlyn, Henry Baker, Thomas Pursot, and a certain Carr of Chelmsford. And then William Rawlyn asserted that he did not wish to be associated with the aforesaid Carr, but that if he wanted him to be one of his executors he would have to remove Carr’s name. And thus John deliberated about this until the following day, and about eight or nine in the morning of the following day, John Rawlyn, in the presence of this witness, William Rawlyn, Thomas Pursot, a certain man named Stokbrig, and the said SentJest, caused to be read aloud part of his testament, written on a paper, which the witness recognized well at the time of his examination, and he ordered Carr’s name to be deleted from it, and thus it was deleted by the aforesaid SentJest in the presence and sight of this witness. And around nine p.m. at night on that Wednesday, it was read before the dying man in the presence of Hunt, Rawlyn, Pursot, John Tailour senior, Stokbrig, and other of John’s people, and in it he bequeathed to his wife all his lands and tenements for the term of her life, his four best horses, sixteen of his better cows, forty sheep, two of his better oxen, and a certain quantity of his grain, other household goods, and other things as are contained in the said paper to which he refers, and the said William Rawlyn, Henry Baker, and Thomas were named as executors. And he said to his wife that he left her in a better state than if he had named her as executrix. This witness testifies to these things from his own sight and knowledge, because he was for the most part present in the night and the day together with the dying man in the house of John Tailour, his father, where the foregoing things happened from the said Tuesday until after John’s death. And he says on the strength of his oath that after the reading of the aforesaid testament around 9 p.m. on that Wednesday, John abstained from making any other testament, nor did he declare another, nor did he name other executors, but lay gravely ill until he reached death, and he died on the Thursday immediately following. And he knows this because from the reading in the evening he was continually present with John until his death.
Testimony of William Stokbrig, Witness for the defendants, 5 Dec. 1493
William Stokbrig of Hatfield Peverel [Essex], where he has lived for nine years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty years old and more as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he knew John Rawlyn for thirty years before his death, Henry Baker for eight, William Rawlyn for twenty years, and Thomas Pursot for the same time. Questioned further, he agrees with John Tailour junior examined above regarding the acts and deeds from Wednesday about nine a.m. through the afternoon and up until after the death of the aforesaid John Rawlyn, and he says this because he was present in the house with the dying man and the others on that Wednesday in the morning up until John’s death, which occurred on the Thursday of a week in the last Lent. And he says that after John’s death, Collecta his wife and SentJest many times urged this witness to testify that John had made another testament and that he named the said Carr and his wife as his executors, and they offered this witness if he would testify to this forty shillings and an ankle-length gown, but he says that he never [said] that John made another testament as he testified above, nor that he named Collecta and Carr as his executors. And afterwards this witness rode between Chelmsford and Brentwood on the vigil of the Lord’s Passion [4 Apr. 1493], to bring SentJest before the lord of Denham.[2] Denham examined the case because the deceased and his executors were his servants. He asked how they could have written another testament when they did not have a copy of the true testament, and he [SentJest?] said that he knew it well because he had almost all the contents of the testament by heart, and because later, when he was examined before the said lord, SentJest recognized the testament written on paper shown to him by the said lord, and he asserted that it was the true testament of the deceased, which this witness testifies from his own sight and hearing.[3]
Testimony of Robert Pursot, Witness for the defendants, 5 Dec. 1493
Robert Pursot of Hatfield aforesaid, where he has lived from the time of his birth and where he was born, illiterate, of free condition, fifty years old as he says. Sworn as a witness etc., he says that he knew John Rawlyn for forty years before his death, and has known William Rawlyn, Henry Baker, and Thomas Pursot for twenty years. Questioned further, he says that on the same day that John Rawlyn died, John SentJest came to this witness at the church of Hatfield, and walking with this witness in the churchyard he told this witness that John had made and had written a testament and in it he bequeathed £10 to the church of Hatfield and 6s 8d to the fraternity of the Holy Trinity there, and five pounds of wax and a cow for the support of the light there. And he made William Rawlyn, Henry Baker, and Thomas Pursot his executors, and that John had caused to be inserted with them in the testament Carr of Chelmsford, and afterwards ordered him to be deleted from the testament.
[1] From John Tailour Jr.’s later deposition this can be presumed to mean John Tailour Sr.
[2] This was John Dynham or Denham, Baron Dynham, a prominent aristocrat and administrator from the middle of the fifteenth century until his death in 1501. It seems that Lord Dynham was called upon here to act as a mediator in an informal arbitration over this testamentary dispute because, as Stokbrig indicates, Rawlyn and the executors were his servants. See Michael Hicks, “Dynham, John,” in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
[3] The grammar and sense of this passage is unclear, but the point seems to be that SentJest acknowledged before Lord Dynham the authenticity of the copy of the will with William Rawlyn, Baker, and Pursot as executors and Carr’s name deleted.
Consistory 