In November 1493, Richard Cordey sued Lettice Smyth to enforce a marriage contract he claimed to have made with her. He was unable, however, to produce witnesses who could claim unambiguously to have been present when the two said the requisite words of consent to one another (one heard only a one-sided exchange, Lettice remaining ambiguous; the other could only testify to second-hand assurances and rumours). Though this seems to be an example of a failed Consistory court suit – a party pursuing a case for which he could not produce witnesses to support his claims – the deponents nonetheless offer interesting evidence about relatives and friends pushing a couple to be definitive about their relationship and about everyday recreation in the woodlands and hills around Chigwell.
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 169r-170r
Testimony of Robert Cordey, Witness for the plaintiff, 17 Nov. 1493
On behalf of Cordey c. Smyth on the libel
17 November, by Master Edward Vaghn, in the Holmes Chapel,[1] in my, Richard Grome’s, presence.
Robert Cordey of the parish of Hornchurch, London diocese, where he has lived for three years and more, and before that in the parish of Chigwell for fourteen years and more, illiterate, of free condition, twenty-two years old as he says. Sworn as a witness, he says that he has known Richard Cordey since the time of his birth, and he knows this because he is his natural[1A] brother, and Lettice Smyth from the time of his boyhood. To the first and second articles, he says that on a certain day between the feasts of St. John the Baptist [24 June] and Christmas a year ago, which day he cannot further specify, this witness was present in a certain place called Chigwell Forest, also called Chigwell Rowe, together with Richard Cordey and Lettice Smyth, where and when, after many things discussed between John[2] and Lettice, this witness asked them whether they had made a marriage between them, and they answered that they had contracted marriage together. And immediately Richard took Lettice by her right hand, in the presence of this witness, saying in English the following words or others similar in effect, “I Richard take thee Lettice to my wife, thereto I plight thee my troth.” And she responded in English, “I will never [have] none without I have him as long as I live.” And otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third article, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents except from what he has heard from Lettice. To the fourth article, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth and sixth articles, he says that their contents are true. 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 parish of Chigwell and other neighbouring places and parishes. To the first and second interrogatories, he says as he said above. To the third interrogatory, he says that he loves Richard more than Lettice, because he is his natural brother, and he does not care which party has victory. And to its other contents he responds negatively. To the fourth and fifth interrogatories, he says as he said above and otherwise he knows nothing to depose about its contents.
Testimony of Alice Wilkynson, Witness for the plaintiff, 17 Nov. 1493
Alice Wilkynson of Chigwell, London diocese, where she has lived for seven years, illiterate, of free condition, twenty years old as she says. Sworn as a witness etc., she says that she has known Richard Cordey for seven years and Lettice Smyth for the same period of time. To the first and second articles, she says that on a certain day around the last feast of St. John the Baptist [24 June], in a place called Wymmyl Hill, this witness, after a good deal of discussion between this witness and Lettice, asked Lettice whether she had contracted with Richard Cordey or not, and Lettice responded that she had contracted marriage with him, and she says she knows that she often saw them familiar together many times in Richard’s mother’s house. And also afterwards many times this witness asked her whether she had contracted or not, and she always answered that she had contracted. And she says that public fame circulated and still circulates in the parish of Chigwell that Richard and Lettice contracted marriage together. To the third article, she says that she knows nothing to depose concerning its contents except by what Richard and Lettice told her. To the third[3] article, she knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth and fifth articles, she says that their contents are true. To the sixth article, she says that what she said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate in the town of Chigwell and in other neighbouring parishes and places. To the first and second interrogatories, she says as she said above. To the third interrogatory, she says that she does not love one party more than the other, and she does not care which party gains victory. To the other contents she responds negatively. To the fourth and fifth interrogatories, she says as she said above, and otherwise she knows nothing to depose concerning their contents.
[1] A chapel within St. Paul’s Cathedral. See “Secular canons: Cathedral of St. Paul,” in A History of the County of London, volume 1, ed. William Page, in British History Online, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=35353.
[1A] A “natural” child or sibling was what we would call a biological child or brother: that is, in this case, not a step- or half-brother but sharing both parents. The expression did not at this time connote illegitimacy.
[2] John: sic, presumably a scribal error for Ricardus.
[3] third: sic; the numbering of the articles is confused in this deposition.
Consistory 