This is one of the more complicated and interesting cases at the late fifteenth-century London consistory court. The basic case is straightforward: two women, Elizabeth Brown and Marion Lauson, each claim that they contracted marriage with Laurence Gilis. In the end, Gilis and Lauson circumvented the lengthy court procedures and went ahead and married; though the court chided them for ignoring the order they had been given not to do that, it still recognized the marriage, so Lauson won the case. What is of more interest is that most of the testimony in the case – fifteen of the twenty-three depositions, many of them lengthy and detailed – consisted first of attacks and then counterattacks on the credibility of the witnesses for each side, including allegations of corruption, whoredom, and bawdry. There is a great deal of evidence here about prostitution in late medieval London, flourishing on the outskirts of the City and across the river in Southwark, and about how people of lower social status negotiated their honour, reputation, and identity. Laurence Gilis and some of the witnesses were Dutch immigrants to the City and its environs, providing further evidence about the integration of strangers (as contemporaries termed immigrants) into London life. Further discussion of this fascinating case can be found in Shannon McSheffrey, “Liberties of London: Social Networks, Sexual Disorder, and Peculiar Jurisdictions in the Late Medieval English Metropolis,” in Crossing Borders, ed. Krista Kesselring and Sara Butler (Leiden, 2018).
This flowchart of the case may prove helpful in sorting out what was happening with the witnesses’ testimony below:
LMA, MS DL/C/A/001/MS09065, fols. 1r-3v, 85r-86v, 89r-93r, 99v-104r, 105v-107r, 110v-111r
Testimony of William Alston, 25 Oct. 1491
25 October, AD 1491, in the dwelling-house of Master John Millet, doctor of decretals, within the parish of St. Faith, London, in my, notary Henry Aprece’s, presence, etc.
William Alston, tailor, of Hospital of St. Katherine by the Tower, London, where he has lived for seven years and more, forty years old and more, of free condition. Produced, admitted, sworn, and diligently examined as a witness, first concerning his knowledge of persons, he says that he has known Elizabeth Brown for four years and Laurence Gilis for twelve years and more as he says. Questioned further and examined on the first article of the libel, this witness says that he heard it said by others several times that they had discussed and talked about contracting marriage between them, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the second article of the libel, questioned, this witness says that on a certain Sunday immediately preceding the feast of St. Laurence last past [i.e. 7 August 1491] this witness was present in the house of a certain John de Grave, beermaker, situated in the parish of St. Botulph without Aldgate, when he heard Elizabeth and Laurence contracting marriage together, as follows in English, Laurence first speaking to Elizabeth, “Elizabeth, [?doug…], may ye find in your heart to love me as your husband?” And she responded “Ye, by my faith.” Then Laurence said to her, “Give me your hand. I Laurence take you Elizabeth to my wedded wife, to have and to hold, and thereto I plight thee my troth,” and they unclasped their hands. Then Elizabeth similarly responded and said to Laurence, “I Elizabeth take thee Laurence to my husband, and thereto I plight thee my troth.” To the third, he responds and says that he has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth article, he says and answers that Laurence gave Elizabeth, as to his wife, a certain sum of money, what sum he cannot specify, and to its other contents he has nothing to depose […]. To the fifth article of the libel, he says that all the things that he has deposed are true, and concerning them public voice and fame circulated and circulate in the parish of St. Botulph without Aldgate and other neighbouring parishes and places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above concerning the libel. To the second interrogatory, he responds as he said above. Moreover, he says that ten years ago he lived in his own house in the parish of St. Peter by the Tower,[1] London. To the third interrogatory, he denies its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he has her in as much friendship as he has his other neighbours, and he denies its other contents. To the fifth interrogatory, he responds as he said above in the libel and he accounts for his knowledge regarding the time of the beginning and making of the contract because he was there, and he was asked by Elizabeth to bear witness. To the sixth interrogatory, he says that there was present at the time of the contract John Waldron, his fellow witness, and no one else besides the contracting parties. Moreover he says that Laurence first spoke the words of contract to Elizabeth. To the seventh interrogatory, he says as he said above in the sixth interrogatory, adding this, that he saw the contracting parties sitting together at a table in the house of John Grave, beermaker, within the parish of St. Botulph. To the eighth interrogatory, he says the contracting parties were wearing gowns, that is Laurence wore a russet gown and Elizabeth a gown of crimson. And he says also that the contracting parties were at the time of the contract sitting together and drinking. To the ninth interrogatory, he admits its contents are true. To the tenth interrogatory, he says and answers that its contents are true, and he says also that he often went with her to Master Nicholas Trap and John Hothersalle to get advice and there he informed Master Nicholas and John about the marriage made between the aforesaid contracting parties. To the eleventh interrogatory, he responds negatively to the contents of this interrogatory. To the twelfth interrogatory, he denies its contents. To the thirteenth interrogatory, he says that he does not care who loses or who has victory as long as justice is done. To the fourteenth interrogatory, he denies all its contents. To the fifteenth interrogatory, he says as he said in the thirteenth interrogatory, and also he says that he would not spend any money for Elizabeth and that he has not received any money or anything else from Elizabeth for victory in her case. To the sixteenth interrogatory, he says that he would not give victory more to one than to the other if it were in his power to confer, but to the party having the right.
Testimony of John Waldron, 25 Oct. 1491
John Waldron, sawyer, of the hospital of St. Katherine by the Tower, London, where he has lived for a year and more, and before that time in the town of Newbury [Berkshire], Salisbury diocese, thirty years old and more, of free condition. Produced, admitted, and diligently examined as a witness, first concerning his knowledge of persons, he says that he has known Elizabeth Brown for four years and Laurence Gilis for three years and more. Questioned further and examined on the first article of the libel, this witness says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the second article, he agrees in everything with William Alston, the previous witness. To the third article, he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth and fifth articles of the libel, he agrees with William Alston, the previous witness. To the first interrogatory, he answers as he answered above on the libel. To the second interrogatory, he says that he used to live ten years ago in his own house in the town of Newbury, and to the other contents of the interrogatory, he says as he said above in the libel. To the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh interrogatories, he agrees with William Alston, the previous witness. To the eighth interrogatory, he agrees with William Alston, the previous witness, except this, that Elizabeth wore a gown of Musterdevillers.[2] To the ninth interrogatory, he denies its contents. To the tenth interrogatory, he says that he went once with Elizabeth to Master Nicholas Trap but not for the sake of informing him about any contract made between the two parties. To the eleventh interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the twelfth interrogatory, he denies its contents. To the thirteenth interrogatory, he [agrees] with William Alston, the previous witness. To the fourteenth interrogatory, he responds negatively. To the fifteenth and sixteenth interrogatories, he agrees with William Alston, the previous witness.
Testimony of Margaret Smyth, 4 Nov. 1491
4 November by Master Millet and in my, Richard Woode’s, presence
Margaret Smyth, widow, living within the precinct of the nunnery of St. Helen Bishopsgate,[3] of the city of London, where she has lived for a half a year, and before that time in the town of Gravesend in the county of Kent for three years, and she was born in Wales, of free condition, thirty-two years old or thereabouts as she says. Inducted as a witness etc. on the libel etc., she says that she has known Elizabeth Brown for three years and more, and Laurence Gilis for two years and more. To the first and second articles of the libel, she says that she knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the third article, she says that on the Saturday following the last feast of St. Bartholomew [i.e. 27 Aug. 1491], Laurence came to this witness’s house. In the presence of this witness, a certain Margaret Chyrke, then living at Tower Hill in the city of London, but now in the Counter [the London sheriffs’ prison], publicly said to Laurence, “Master Laurence, when do you intend to be joined in marriage to Elizabeth Brown?” Laurence responded, “Elizabeth Brown and I are agreed, but my friends and my family are wholly against it, and so I believe that the contract between me and her will not take effect.” And otherwise she knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth article, she says that she heard from Elizabeth Brown and William Taylor that Laurence gave Elizabeth two shillings in the name of a gift for the upcoming nuptials. And otherwise she has nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fifth article, she says that what she said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it, and that Laurence and Elizabeth are husband and wife, in many places in the city of London, for instance in Fenchurch Street and in the precinct of St. Helen’s priory, and other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, she says as she said above. To the second interrogatory, she says that about ten years ago this witness lived with her husband at Sandwich [Kent]. To the third and fourth interrogatories, she says as she said above, and otherwise she has nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the fifth and sixth interrogatories, she says as she said above. And otherwise she has nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the seventh interrogatory, she responds negatively to all of its contents. To the eighth interrogatory, she says that she knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the ninth interrogatory, she responds negatively to all of its contents. To the tenth, she says that on the day she was produced [as a witness], this witness was asked by Elizabeth to go to Master Nicholas Trap so that he could produce her as a witness in the case, and not otherwise, and that Master Nicholas questioned her about what she knew to say in this case, and she told him what she knew about this case according to her conscience. And to its other contents she responds negatively. To the eleventh and twelfth interrogatories, she says that she came to offer testimony at the Elizabeth’s request in this case. And to its other contents she responds negatively. To the thirteenth interrogatory, she says that she would be well contented if Laurence lost, if in this case Laurence is not promoting justice, and not otherwise. To the fourteenth interrogatory, she responds negatively to all of its contents. To the fifteenth interrogatory, she says that the party promoting justice should obtain victory and she would not spend any of her own goods for Elizabeth, and she has received nothing nor hopes to receive anything from Elizabeth for her testimony offered on her behalf. To the sixteenth interrogatory, she says that she would confer victory on the party having right if it were in her power to confer it.
Testimony of John Asshford, 28 Nov. 1491
On behalf of the honest woman Marion Lauson against Laurence Gilys
28 November by Master M[illet?], in my, Spencer’s, house and presence.
John Asshford, of the parish of St. Andrew Undershaft, London, where he has lived for six years, literate, fifty years old as he says. He has known Marion Lauson for half a year or thereabouts, and Laurence Gilys for twenty years. To the first and second articles of the said libel, he says that on a certain day around the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist [18 Oct.] last past, and within four days before or after the feast, which day he cannot further specify, this witness was present in the house of the said Marion in the parish of St. Andrew Undershaft, together with Marion, Laurence, Sir William the parish chaplain of the said church, William Kyrkeham, Thomas Smyth, Godfrey Spering, and Richard Litil. There and then, Laurence, after discussing many things regarding marriage with Margaret [Marion?], said to her that he had not come there with the purpose of deceiving or tricking her, but with the intention of having her as his wife. And immediately Laurence took Marion by the right hand and, at the instruction of the said chaplain, he said to her, “I Laurence take thee Marion to my wife, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, till death us depart, and thereto I plight thee my troth.” They unclasped hands and then immediately Marion took Laurence by his right hand and said to him, “I Marion take thee Laurence to my husband, for better, for worse,” and so on, “and thereto I plight thee my troth.” This witness testifies to this from his own sight and hearing. To the third article, he says that its contents are true, and he says that after the foregoing, Laurence procured the issuing of banns between him and Marion in the parish church of St. Andrew twice in the hearing of this witness, and they were and are commonly said, held, and reputed as husband and wife in that parish. To the fifth article, he says that Laurence was and is of the parish of St. Botulph without Aldgate and in the jurisdiction of the bishop of London. To the sixth article, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulates concerning it in the parishes of St. Andrew and St. Botulph. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above, and to its other contents, he responds negatively. To the second interrogatory, he says that the said contract was begun and made in the hall of Marion’s house, that is in the northern part, in the afternoon as he recalls, but he does not remember the hour, and with the words as above, with Laurence wearing a russet gown, and he does not remember the colour of Marion’s clothes. To the third interrogatory, he says that he has heard that the said Elizabeth is prosecuting and claiming Laurence as her husband, and he would rather that Marion gained Laurence as her husband because Marion is an honest woman and according to his conscience she is bringing a just case, and the said Elizabeth as he has heard is a woman of dishonest and evil conversation with diverse men, as he has heard.
Testimony of Sir William Walker, 28 Nov. 1491
Sir William Walker, parish chaplain of the parish church of St. Andrew Undershaft of the city of London, where he has lived for two years, of free condition, twenty-nine years old. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known Marion Lauson for half a year, and Laurence Gilys he first saw on the day of the contract about which he will testify below. To the first and second articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above, adding that this contract was begun and made on the Saturday after the feast of St. Luke last past [i.e. 22 Oct. 1491], and that, sitting at a table in the afternoon about two o’clock, they contracted at this witness’s instruction, having sent for him first so that he could instruct them regarding the matrimonial words. And the contracting parties were wearing russet gowns. To the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the first interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the second interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the third interrogatory, he says that he would rather that the one having the right gain victory, and that he would give victory to the one with the right if it were in his power to confer.
Testimony of William Kyrkeham, 28 Nov. 1491
William Kyrkeham of the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, where he has lived for six years, illiterate, of free condition, thirty years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known Marion Lauson for half a year, and Laurence Gilis for seven years. To the first and second articles of the libel, he says that on the Saturday after the feast of St. Luke the Evangelist last past, between two and three o’clock, Marion and Laurence contracted marriage together by the words and in the presence of the people about whom the first witness testified, with whom this witness concurs regarding this. The contracting parties were wearing russet gowns. To the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above, and he responds negatively to its other contents. To the second interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise has nothing to depose. To the third interrogatory, he agrees with Sir William Walker examined above.
Testimony of Thomas Smyth, 28 Nov. 1491
Thomas Smyth of the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, the holy-water clerk of the same church, where he has lived for nine years, literate, of free condition, thirty-two years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known Marion Lauson for half a year, and Laurence Gilis for seven years. To the first and second articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above, adding this, that the contract was made on the Saturday following the feast of St. Luke last past, in the hall of Marion’s house, with her standing and Laurence sitting, and both were dressed at the time in russet gowns. To the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, he agrees with the first witness. To the first interrogatory, he responds negatively to all of its contents. To the second interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the third interrogatory, he says that he heard about the claim made by Elizabeth, but he does not care which of the parties gains victory, but in the case put forth in the interrogatory he would give victory to the one having right, and not otherwise.
Testimony of Godfrey Sperung, 28 Nov. 1491
Godfrey Sperung, of the parish of St. Andrew aforesaid, where he has lived for twenty years, illiterate, of free condition, sixty-three years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness, etc., he says that he has known Marion Lauson for almost a year, and Laurence Gilis for twenty years and more. To the first and second articles, he says that on the vigil of St. Luke last past [i.e. 17 Oct. 1491], Laurence and Marion talked about contracting marriage between them in this witness’s dwelling house, there being present at the time this witness, Michael Harrison, Arnold leBurd, Conrad, and others. At length Marion and Laurence, swearing their faith, promised that he would not take another woman as his wife and she would not take another man. And afterwards within four or five days after the said feast, Laurence and Marion […] contracted together in her house, with the words and in the presence of the witnesses about which the first witness testified above and with whom this witness agrees in this part. To the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth articles, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he responds negatively to its other contents. To the second interrogatory, he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the third interrogatory, he says that he would rather that Marion gained victory, if she has the right, because she is the woman of better opinion and fame.
Testimony of John Harries, 22 Dec. 1491
22December, A.D. 1491, by Master Thomas [Ia]n, Official, in [his] dwelling-house, in my, Richard Spenser’s, presence.
On behalf of Laurence Gilis c. Elizabeth Brown on the exceptions.
John Harries of the parish of St. Denis Fenchurch, beadle[4] of the ward of Langbourn, where he has lived for ten years and more, literate, forty years old or thereabouts, as he says. He says that he has known Laurence Gilis for twenty-one years, Elizabeth Brown he does not know, William Alston and Thomas Waldron he does not know, and Margaret Morgan alias Smyth for nine years. To the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth parts of the said exceptions, this witness, examined, says that he knows only that in the summer three years ago, Margaret Morgan alias Smyth lived with a certain John Han and his wife in the parish of Fenchurch and the ward of Langbourn, and was a tapster there, selling their ale. And at that time Margaret was of ill fame and was commonly held, said, and reputed in that parish as an adulteress and prostitute, and as such she was noted and detected to Master Brice,[5] alderman of the same ward. This the witness knows from his own hearing and because Master Brice ordered him, his beadle, to warn her on the alderman’s behalf to remove herself from the ward under the pain of imprisonment, which this witness did. At this warning and words Margaret took herself to the jurisdiction of the hospital of St. Katherine[6] and there she was married and stayed, fostering lechery and committing adultery, for almost three years. At length, that is a bit before the feast of St. Bartholomew [24 Aug.] last past, at which time the Master there, having an order from the lady queen[7] to expel from there many bawds and prostitutes, that is forty in number, expelled her along with other infamous people and prostitutes, in this witness’s sight and knowledge. Then Margaret returned to the ward and the parish of Fenchurch, and there she took a house and sold ale and had great recourse to suspect persons as before, and thus she was warned a second time as before. After being expelled she went to the home of Margery Hor, a bawd and woman of ill fame and as such commonly said, taken, and reputed, and there she committed adultery with diverse men as is commonly said. And a certain Thomas Driffeld told this witness that he saw a certain man committing the sexual act with Margaret in Margery Hor’s house, and thence within eight days or thereabouts at the order of Master Swan, alderman of that ward,[8] she was expelled and returned to Langbourn ward, and then after a fortnight or so by order of the said Master Brice she was expelled a third time. She then moved to Billingsgate ward, and from there she was similarly expelled because of her evil rule. And moreover he says that at the times that she again lived in the ward of Langbourn she would customarily sing as a prostitute, and sang scurrilous songs instigating others to lust and uncleanness against good customs, in this witness’s hearing and knowledge. And otherwise he knows nothing to testify about the contents of the said exceptions. To the eleventh part of the exceptions, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it in the said wards and other said places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that he will receive nothing for his testimony nor did anyone instruct him what to testify. To the second interrogatory, he says as he said above and otherwise knows nothing to testify concerning its contents.
Testimony of William Grene, 22 Dec. 1491
William Grene of the parish of St. Margaret, Southwark, constable for the lord king at the Stewside, where he has lived for the greater part of the last thirty years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty-four years old. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he first saw Laurence Gilis today, Elizabeth Broun he does not know, he has known John Waldron for 4 years, the other people named in the exceptions he does not know. To the first, first, fourth, fifth, and seventh parts of the exceptions, he says that for the greatest part of the last four years, John Waldron has been a man of great poverty and ill fame, and a common bawd, and this witness knows this because at Stewside during that time, John Waldron publicly held houses of prostitutes and bawds at the signs of the Rose, the Fleur de Lys, and the Bull, and in turn in those houses he kept public bawdry, living off prostitution and the shameful proceeds. And in these houses during that time he committed adultery with a certain woman named Joan, who both then and now is said to have another husband living, treating the said Joan as his wife. Because of this he was called before the Official of Surrey, and public penance was enjoined on Joan by the said Official in this witness’s hearing. As he recalls, around the feast of St. John the Baptist, John and Joan left the sign of the Fleur de Lys and moved to the hospital of St. Katherine, and there they still live, as he has heard, although he cannot testify as to the company they keep there. And he says that he knows that at Stewside the said John fostered public bawdry, as he deposed above, in the sight and knowledge of this witness, because this witness by virtue of his office was present every three weeks at the Court for bawds and prostitutes held at the Clink, in which court were called by name from a document all the bawds and prostitutes living there, and among the other bawds he called, made appear, and saw, John and Joan [….] them [……] knows [them] for bawds. And for the whole time that they lived there he knew John and Joan to be commonly said, taken, and reputed in this way. On the other exceptions up to but not including the twelfth exception, upon examination he says as he said above. To the twelfth exception, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it in the parish of St. Margaret and at Stewside and in other neighbouring places. To the first and second interrogatories, he says as he said above, and that nothing has either been given him or promised him for his testimony, nor has anyone instructed him regarding what or how to testify. And otherwise he has nothing to depose concerning its contents.
Testimony of Ralph Bothumley, 22 Dec. 1491
Ralph Bothumley, of the parish of the hospital of St. Katherine by the Tower, where he has lived for five years, illiterate, thirty years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says [that] he has known Laurence Gilis for five years and more, Elizabeth he does not know, William Alston for four or five years, John Waldron for two or three years, and Margaret Morgan alias Smyth for six or seven years. 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 for the last five years, William Alston has been much in company with prostitutes, bawds, vagabonds, and thieves in the district or precinct of the hospital of St. Katherine, in the sight of this witness, and he has been commonly said, held, and reputed there during that time as a man of ill fame, a vagabond, and an adulterer. During that time William left the company and cohabitation of his wife, who during that time lived in Pepper Alley [Southwark], making her living in a filthy way; he has also committed adultery with many women and especially with a certain Thomasina daughter of David Trap[.?] in the aforesaid hospital, as William and Thomasina admitted and recognized in the presence of this witness and other trustworthy men. To the fourth and fifth parts of the exceptions, he says that for the three years or thereabouts before this year, John Waldron publicly and commonly fostered at Stewside a house of bawdry and had many prostitutes in his house [doing] their evil and lustful business and he damnably acquired his living from these women’s filthy lucre. He knows this because he saw him there keeping his filthy hospitality, and he was commonly taken and reputed as one of the bawds. And he says that over the last half a year or thereabouts, John has for the most part frequented the hospital of St. Katherine, and there with a certain Margaret Dymmok, prostitute, he has cohabited as a man with his wife, and commonly he consorted with prostitutes and thieves, and he is commonly said, held and reputed as a vagabond and an adulterer and a thief, who easily and almost for nothing would […]. He says also that around the last feast of the nativity of St. John the Baptist [24 Aug.], which day he does not recall, this witness hired John Waldron to cart dung for several days, and at the time that he was working Waldron stole a shovel and a tawny-coloured gown from a certain Robert, an Irishman who was working with him. And he knows this because soon after that time this witness, seeing the said shovel in his hands, asked him about its theft, and he admitted that he had taken the shovel and the gown and he gave the shovel back to this witness, although not the gown. To the sixth part of the exceptions, he says as he said above. To the seventh part, he says as he said above regarding the content and the truth. To the eighth part, he says that he knows nothing to report about its contents except from what others have told him. To the ninth part, he says that the said Margaret was commonly held, had, and reputed as a bawd and a prostitute while she lived in the hospital of St. Katherine. To the tenth part of the exceptions, he says that John cohabited and cohabits within the said hospital with the aforesaid Dymmok, the prostitute, as if she were his wife, and was and is said, held, and reputed as a vagabond. To the eleventh part, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulates about it in the hospital and other neighbouring places. To the first and second interrogatories, he agrees with the first witness examined above and otherwise he has nothing to depose about them.
Testimony of William Forster, 22 Dec. 1491
William Forster, of the parish of St. Margaret in Southwark, where he has lived for sixteen years, illiterate, of free condition, thirty years old as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known Laurence Gilis for four days, Elizabeth Brown he does not know, John Waldron he has known for eight or nine years, and he does not know the other persons named in the exceptions. Questioned further on the contents of the exceptions, this witness says that he knows only that the said John Waldron, at intervals about which […] and for the greater part, lived for two years at Stewside, and there fostered a house of bawdry and was a public and common bawd. There he also lived in adultery with a certain Joan, the wife of another man, which this witness knew well. In this he agrees with Grene examined above, except that Greene was the constable there, and exercised that which pertained to that office by calling the names of the bawds and the prostitutes at the court there, but he was present at that court and saw and heard when John as a bawd launched actions for trespass and debts against both men and women who are prostitutes. And for those actions this witness arrested many people in his name. And he says that what he has said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulates concerning them in the said parish. To the first and second interrogatories, he agrees with the first witness examined above.
Testimony of John Travers, 22 Dec. 1491
John Travers, of the parish of St. Margaret in Southwark, where he has lived for nine years, illiterate, of free condition, thirty years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known Laurence Gilis for a year, Elizabeth Brown, William Alston, and Margaret Morgan alias Smyth he does not know, and he has known John Waldron for four years. Questioned further on the contents of the exceptions, he agrees with William Grene examined above, adding that this witness, while he served there as constable, [………] arrested him for many actions by suit of his prostitutes and others, and also for fines for bawdry, and he called him among the other bawds on his roll, as William testified above, and John was called, and Joan whom he held in adultery there, and […]they responded and appeared among the other bawds. And otherwise he has nothing to testify about the contents of those exceptions, except that he says that public voice and fame circulated and circulates concerning what he testified in the parish of St. Margaret. He adds this, that he says that John Waldron, at the time when he lived at Stewside fostering lechery, was greatly and commonly associated with the perjurious men in Westminster Hall, that is the knights of the post,[9] and for one of them, that is as a knight of the post, was at that time and still is commonly said, taken, and reputed. To the first and second interrogatories, he agrees with the first witness examined above.
Testimony of John Colyns, 22 Dec. 1491
John Colyns of the parish of St. Lawrence Old Jewry, where he has lived for the greater part from the time of his birth and where he was born, literate, of free condition, sixty years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known Laurence Gilis for about a fortnight, John Waldron for six years or thereabouts, the others he does not know. Questioned further concerning the contents of the exceptions, this witness says that he knows only that the said John was and is a false perjurer and a common bawd and adulterer, and he knows this because this witness is the landlord and possessor of the inns the Rose and the Bull at the Stews, and within the last four years John was this witness’s tenant in the inn at the sign of the Rose for a year and a quarter, and at the sign of the Bull for three-quarters of a year, and through that time he fostered bawdry and from evil means and carnal commerce he made his living, and he held a certain married woman as his concubine. Moreover he says that during that same time, John and the aforesaid woman were summoned concerning adultery and convicted before Master Ambrosio, and penance was enjoined on them. John swore on the holy gospels to abstain from the company and cohabitation of this woman by order of and before the said Official, in the presence of this witness and many others in the parish church of St. Olave in Southwark. And despite this oath, John cohabited with the same Joan at the sign of the Bull for three months or thereabouts, incurring perjury. And also he swore to this witness on [….] that he would not sell or carry away the bedding belonging to the inn and, despite this oath, he took them away and sold them. And afterwards he associated himself with the infamous and perjurious men called the knights of the post, and he became one of them, and as a perjurer, vagabond, bawd, and adulterer he was commonly said, taken, had, named, and reputed. And he says that John had another wife living, and Joan had another husband, and in the same court, this witness saw Joan’s husband coming forward and claiming Joan as his wife. And otherwise he has nothing to depose about the exceptions but he says that what he has said above is true, and that public voice and fame have long circulated and still circulate concerning it in the city of London and especially at Stewside. To the interrogatories, he agrees with the first witness examined above.
Testimony of Richard Keys, 22 Dec. 1491
Richard Keys, living in the precinct of St. Katherine’s Hospital, where he is the apparitor, illiterate, of free condition, sixty years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known Laurence Gilis for twenty years, Elizabeth Brown he does not know, William Alston for twelve years, John Waldron for two years, Margaret Morgan alias Smyth for four or five years. To the first, second, and third parts of the exceptions, he agrees with Ralph Bothumley examined above, adding that this witness called and cited him for adultery and incontinence at many courts held there before the Master of the Hospital and his Official, and John[10] very frequently admitted and recognized that he had committed adultery with the said Thomasina, and he was and is commonly said, held, and reputed as a man of ill fame, an adulterer, and a vagabond in this witness’s hearing and knowledge. To the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh parts of the exceptions, he agrees with Ralph, except that he did not know him to furtively steal the shovel or gown about which Ralph deposed above. To the eighth part, he says that he has nothing to depose about its contents. To the ninth part of the exceptions, he says that the aforesaid Morgan, through the whole time that she lived within the precinct of the hospital, that is for three years or thereabouts, was a common prostitute and as such she was commonly said, held, and reputed. And as such she was obprobriously ejected and expelled from the hospital around the feast of St. Bartholomew last past, as he recalls, by the Master and his men, together with the other prostitutes, in the sight and knowledge of this witness. To the tenth part, he says that John Waldron never had a household of his own within the hospital, but was and is a vagabond and had recourse to the house of a certain Elizabeth Dymmok, and he stayed the night with her committing adultery, concerning which there has long been common voice and fame. And he says that what he testified above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it in the said Hospital.
Testimony of Peter James, 22 Dec. 1491
Peter James of the hospital of St. Katherine aforesaid, where he has lived for thirty years, illiterate, of free condition, forty years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known Laurence Gilis for two or three years, Elizabeth Brown for one year, William Alston for five or six years, John Waldron for two years, Margaret Morgan alias Smyth for two years. To the first, second, and third part of the exceptions, he agrees with Ralph Bothumley examined above, except that he has not heard the said William agreeing that he had had a child by the said Thomasina nor that he committed adultery with her. Examined concerning the other exceptions relating to John Waldron, he says that John for the last year often frequented the company of many prostitutes and other dishonest women within the precinct of the hospital and consorted with them, and as a man of ill fame, a vagabond, and a bawd or promotor of illicit intercourse between men and women, vulgarly called an apple squire, he was and is said, taken, named, and reputed. To the ninth and tenth parts of the exceptions, he agrees with Richard Keys examined above, and also concerning fame and on the interrogatories he agrees with them.
Testimony of Reginald a Redemayn, 14 Mar. 1492
On behalf of Elizabeth Brown c. Laurence Gilis on the refutatory exceptions of the refuters, 14 March, in the year etc. [14]91, by Master Blodwell in my, Richard Spencer’s, house and presence.
Reginald a Redemayn of the parish of St. Mary Barking near the Tower, in which and in Southwark and in Petty Wales[11] he has lived for thirty years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty-seven years old or thereabouts as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known Elizabeth Brown for twenty years, Laurence Gilis for ten, Ralph Bothumley for sixteen, Richard Keys for twelve, Peter James for the same time, and William Alston for fourteen years, and the other people named in the exceptions he does not know. To the first part of the exceptions, he says as he will say below. And otherwise he has nothing to testify about its contents. To the second part of the exceptions, he says that knows nothing to testify about its contents. To the third part, he says that in the fifth year of the reign of our current illustrious lord king, on a certain day around the feast of the nativity of St. John the Baptist [24 June], this witness was present in the temporal court held within the precinct of the Hospital of St. Katherine before the steward there, when he heard William Whitby, then the bursar of the ship called the Carwell of Eli, publicly expounding and declaring to the twelve men sworn to inquire for the lord king into felonies said to have been committed by the said Ralph, that Ralph on a certain evening had met William near the aforesaid hospital and he had stolen a hat and a hood from him, and that, when he was struggling and raising the hue, another man came to his aid and Ralph fled with the hat and the hood. When these things were set forth, Ralph admitted these things to be true, and he said that he had believed at that time that the said William was a Spaniard, and he said that if indeed he were, by no means would he have taken from him his hat and hood, but his purse, and instead of that he would have given him a beating.[12] William and the other man who came to his aid, whose name he does not know, having sworn to this, the jury declared Ralph guilty of the felony, and so Ralph was indicted in the hearing of this witness. He says also that on another occasion, that is about a half a year ago, this witness was present at St. Katherine before the steward there making inquiries for the lord king, where he heard when Ralph was presented as guilty of bawdry by the twelve men charged and sworn, and as a bawd and a man of ill fame he has been for the last five or six years, and still is, commonly said, held, named, and reputed within the precinct of St. Katherine. To the fourth part of the exceptions, he says that for the last twenty years during which this witness has known John Waldron, this man has been and still is a man of good fame and honest conversation, and in no way defamed concerning bawdry or theft as far as this witness has ever known or heard. And for last two or three years past John has practised the craft of carpentry, from which he has lived and still lives honestly and within the precinct of the hospital he had and has a chamber for himself […] his […]. To the fifth part of the exceptions, he says that he knows nothing to testify concerning its contents. To the sixth part of the exceptions, he says that in the nineteenth year of the reign of Edward IV, this witness was present at Lewisham [Kent], in the court held there before Henry Kesten, when and where Richard Keys, sworn on the holy gospels that he would give no other information there to the jury charged regarding trespass between William Freman of Greenwich and John Totehil, said, on the strength of the oath he had sworn, that at the day and hour in which this trespass was said to have been committed by John Totehill at Greenwich, the said John Totehill was eating, talking and drinking with Richard at his house at St. Katherine. And the jury deliberated on this to the third court following, on which day William Freman and Alexander Jonson, together with others, asserted for truth on the strength of their oaths, that on that day, both before and after the commission of the trespass, John Totehill had been in Alexander’s house. John Totehill himself admitted this on the same day, and thus John Totehill was condemned. And Richard Keys was reputed as a perjurer by the steward and the jury, in the hearing of this witness. And he says that the said Richard Keys had on the vigil of Christmas last year a kilderkin of double beer[13] as remuneration for his testimony in this case, as he heard from one of the servants of the said Laurence Gilis. To the seventh part of the exceptions, he says that the said William Alston for almost seven years has been a householder within the hospital and he has lived and lives honestly from his craft as a tailor, and he is also a man of good fame and unblemished opinion, and as such is commonly said, held, had, named, and reputed throughout the whole time mentioned above as far as this witness has ever heard. To the seventh part of exceptions, he says that what he testified above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate about it within the precinct of St. Katherine and other neighbouring places. And he says that Peter James in the last year of the reign of Edward IV was chosen as the proctor of the guild of St. Anthony in the monastery of Graces,[14] and inducted and sworn that he would be true and faithful to God and to the brothers of the gild. Afterwards, however, he stole the mass chalice and other ornaments and goods belonging to the said fraternity, and took them with him overseas and there spent and dissipated them, because of which the fraternity was dissolved and brought to nothing, and thus remains to this day. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that he is of the craft of carpenters. To the third interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to testify about its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and he says that he knew John Waldron with Master Isbery near Wantage for five or six years before he came to the hospital of St. Katherine. And otherwise he responds negatively to its other contents. To the sixth interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that he was not present in the production, admission, or examination of Richard Keys other than as he testified before, and that Richard is the same person against whom he truthfully testified what he said above. And otherwise he knows nothing to testify about its contents. To the seventh and eighth interrogatories, he says that he does not care which part has victory as long as justice is done. And he responds negatively to its other contents. To the ninth interrogatory, he says that he would not confer other than what justice would permit. To the tenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the eleventh interrogatory, he says that he came voluntarily, unasked, to offer testimony of the truth. To the twelfth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents.
Testimony of William Barker, 14 Mar. 1492
William Barker of the parish of St. Margaret, Southwark, Winchester diocese, where he has lived for half a year, and before that at Tower Wharf for five years or thereabouts, illiterate, of free condition, thirty-four years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc. on the exceptions, etc., he says that he has known Elizabeth Brown for a quarter of a year, Laurence Gilis for four or five years, Ralph Bothumley for six, Peter James for six, Richard Keys for five, William Alston for five or six, and the other people in the exceptions he does not know. To the first part of the exceptions, he says as he will say below. And otherwise he knows nothing to testify regarding its contents. To the second part, he says that he has nothing to testify regarding its contents. To the third part, he agrees with Reginald a Redemayn examined above, and also regarding Ralph’s confession of theft and indictment. And he says that many times Ralph was presented as a bawd before the Commissary at St. Katherine. To the fourth and fifth parts, he agrees with Reginald. To the sixth part, he says that Richard Keys was and is said, held, had, [and] named as a public bawd for five years, and still is to the present day reputed among his neighbours, and moreover he has heard his neighbours, especially John White, calling Richard a bawd. And this witness says that he knows women, such as Beatrice Palyng, the wife of a certain [……………], prostitute, whom Richard, against the oath of office he has sworn at St. Katherine, will not cite, but he says that he does not know them. And moreover this witness says that Richard Keys is a man of ill fame and of light conscience, not greatly caring in what case or for which man he will swear, thus incurring an accusation of perjury as long as he will receive money or a reward. And moreover this witness says that on the vigil of Christmas last past Laurence Gilis gave Richard a kilderkin of double beer, likely on agreement and under condition that he would give testimony in his case. And moreover, this witness says that he has heard from many trustworthy men and especially from certain men, namely William Tailour and John Fyssher, that Richard was convicted in the court of Lewisham of perjury, and that the steward of the said court said in English, “I am glad I know where is a false shrew that will be perjured for little money.” To the seventh part, he agrees with the first witness examined above, as is clear in the eighth part. To the eighth part, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate regarding it in the precinct of St. Katherine. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above, and that he is of the craft of shearman. To the third interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he has nothing to testify about its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says that he knows that John Waldron was a tenant of a chamber within the precinct of St. Katherine, living honestly and working industriously to acquire his food, clothes, and other things necessary to him. And otherwise he knows nothing to testify. To the sixth interrogatory, he agrees with Reginald a Redemayn. To the seventh interrogatory, he agrees with Reginald Redemayn. To the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth interrogatories, he agrees with Reginald. To the eleventh and twelfth interrogatories, he says that he was asked by William Alston and John Waldron to come and give testimony of the truth. To the twelfth, he responds negatively, except that he was one of the twelve elected by the steward of the Tower to inquire about people of ill fame together with his neighbours, that is in the ward mote inquest. And otherwise he knows nothing to depose.
Testimony of John Shreve, 14 Mar. 1492
John Shreve, carpenter of the hospital of St. Katherine, where he has lived for two years, and before that in the parish of St. Olave in Southwark [Surrey] for fourteen or fifteen years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty-five years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known Elizabeth Brown for six weeks, Laurence Gilis he does not know personally but has heard of him from others, Richard Keys for seven years, Peter James for the same time, William Grene for four or five years, John Harries, Ralph Bothumley, John Foster, John Travers, and John Colyns he does not know. To the first part, he says as he will say below, and otherwise he has nothing to testify concerning its contents. To the second part, he says that William Grene is a man of ill fame and that he lived in the place of the brothels called Stewside where he fostered bawdry between many men and women and he did not care much what sort of people they were as long as they gave William money; and he knows this because this witness worked at his craft building a house for the bishop of Winchester at Saint Mary Overy[15] in the first year of the reign of Henry VII [1485-86], and William Grene held the manse or house at the sign of the Hart’s Horn at Stewside, where William had frequent and attentive access just as to a house of bawdry, residing there, and he was commonly said, taken, and reputed there as a bawd. To the third part, he knows nothing to testify about its contents. To the fourth part he agrees with the first witness examined above. To the fifth part, he knows nothing to testify regarding its contents. To the sixth part he agrees with Reginald Redemayn examined above, adding that it was on 6 July of the nineteenth year of the reign Edward IV [6 July 1479]. Immediately afterwards he was asked how he knew this and how he remembered the day and the other circumstances and, having been warned about the danger of perjury, he said on the strength of his oath that he was not present on that day and in that place in the aforesaid court, nor did he hear any of the things that Keys or the others said or did there, but he testified from had been told him by Fissher, who was there on that day and saw the aforesaid as he asserted to this witness and he told this witness that he could well testify that the aforesaid was and is true in conscience. And Fissher and the woman, that is Brown, told him that Gilis gave Richard Keys one barrel of beer for the feast of Christmas for his testimony. And otherwise he knows nothing to testify concerning its contents. To the seventh part he agrees with the first witness examined above, except that he testifies about the two years during which he has known William Alston. To the eighth part of the exceptions, he says that what he testified above is [true] and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate regarding it, except the information from Fisher. To the first interrogatory, he says what he said above. To the second and third interrogatories, he says what he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to testify about its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that John Waldron is a sawyer and he lives from his craft and has lived at St. Katherine for a year. And otherwise he knows nothing to testify about its contents. To the fifth and sixth interrogatories, he says as he said above, and otherwise he knows nothing to testify regarding its contents. To the seventh interrogatory, he says as he said above. And nothing has been given or promised for his testimony.
Testimony of Robert Harrison, 15 Mar. 1492
In the presence of Spencer
15 March by [Master] Blodwell
Robert Harrison of the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, where he has lived for three years, and before that in the parish of St. Olave in Southwark for thirteen years, illiterate, of free condition, tailor, forty years old and more as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known Elizabeth Brown for about a year for four days, Laurence Gilis he does not know well, William Grene for four years, William Forster and John Travers for three years, and he does not know the other people named in the said exceptions well. To the first part of the said exceptions, he says as he will say below. To the second part of the said exceptions, [he says] that around three or four years ago, William Grene took as his wife the bawd and landlady of a public bawdyhouse at the sign of the Hart’s Horn in Stewside, and for about the following year after the solemnization he lived with this wife in the aforesaid house, publicly fostering bawdry, and since that time he has moved to another small house near the said inn with his wife, and he lives there now. However he says that he continued to occupy and still occupies the inn through his servants, who are prostitutes, and he was and still is commonly said, held, had, named, and reputed as a bawd from the time that he lived in that inn. This deponent deposes these things from his own sight and knowledge because frequently within the aforesaid time he had access to the prostitutes and other people living there to fit and sew their clothes. To the third part, he says the he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the fourth part, he says that he agrees with the first witness, adding that he testifies regarding the sixteen years that he has known him, and with this excepted, that he says that John is a sawyer. To the fifth and sixth parts of the said exceptions, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning their contents. To the seventh part, he agrees with the first witness, adding this, that he has known him to be of good and honest conversation for the last twelve years. To the eight part, he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate concerning it in Stewside and the hospital of St. Katherine and other neighbouring places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that the said William Grene who was produced as a witness in this case is the party against whom he intended and intends to depose. To the third interrogatory, he says that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and to the other contents he responds negatively. To the fifth and sixth interrogatory, he responds that he knows nothing to depose concerning its contents. To the seventh and eighth interrogatories, he says as he said above, that he does not care about the victory, and to its other contents he responds negatively. To the ninth interrogatory, he says that he would confer victory on the party having right and not otherwise. To the tenth interrogatory, he says that he would spend nothing from his own goods for a victory for one party or the other. To the eleventh, he says that he was asked by William Alston and John Waldron to come and give testimony of the truth and not otherwise. To the twelfth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents, and he says that William Forster has been for those sixteen years and still is commonly said, held, and reputed as a common juror and perjurer in juries both at Westminster and in the Marshalsea and the Clink. And John Travers is a maintainer of thieves and robbers, and he knows this because at the time of King Richard certain goods were stolen from the house of the Greyfriars in London, which were worth up to four nobles, and they were found in John’s house at Stewside.
Testimony of Henry Bulman, 15 Mar. 1492
Henry Bulman of Shoreditch, where he has lived for twenty years, illiterate, of free condition, fifty-eight years old as he says, inducted as a witness etc., fustian shearer. He first saw E. Brown on the day she swore her oath in the Consistory of London, Laurence Gilis he has known for five years, John Harries for sixteen, William Grene for six, William Forster for twelve, John Travers, John Colyns for seven years, and he does not know the other people named in the exceptions. To the first and second parts, he agrees with Harrison, adding that the source of his knowledge is that he used to sell fustian there and there he saw him acting as he testified above. Questioned further regarding the contents in each of the other particulars of the exceptions, he says that he knows only that for the whole time that he has known John Waldron and William Alston, John and William have been and are men of good fame, unblemished opinion, and honest conversation, and one of them, that is Alston, from the tailor’s craft, and the other from the sawyer’s craft have lived honestly and still are commonly said, held, had, named, and reputed for such and as such, in this witness’s knowledge. And he says that what he said above is true, and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate regarding it in the aforesaid places. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that William Green the witness brought forth in this case is the same person against whom this witness has testified above. To the third interrogatory, he responds that he has nothing to depose about its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he has nothing to testify about its contents. To the fifth and sixth interrogatories, he has nothing to depose about their contents. To the eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth interrogatories, he says that he agrees with the first witness examined above.
Testimony of John Barton, 15 Mar. 1492
John Barton of the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, where he has lived for five years, tawyer, and before that time in the City of London for three years, illiterate, of free condition, thirty-six years old, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he has known E. Brown for two years, Laurence Gilis for seven years, John Harries for the same time, William Grene for four years, William Forster for six years, John Travers for seven years, John Colyns for nine or ten years, and other people named in the exceptions he does not know. Questioned further concerning the contents of the exceptions, he agrees with Henry Bulman examined above both against William Green and for Alston and Waldron and he says that the said Green against whom this witness intends to testify is named John Green and not William, and he married the bawd living at the Hart’s Horn in Stewside, adding that John Colyns, for the last six or seven years was a fosterer of sin and of filthy goods and money, and he knows this because John Colyns had certain tenements at Stewside and when he [left there] he used to search for prostitutes both in Westminster and other suspect places, and he put them in his houses and provided them with their means so that he was a partaker of filthy lucre, and as such he is commonly said, held, and reputed […]. And he saw him in those suspect places sitting, and heard him procuring and soliciting those prostitutes. Examined on the interrogatories, he agrees in everything with the previous witness examined above.
Testimony of William Butteler, 27 Mar. 1492
Further on behalf of Elizabeth Brown c. Laurence Gilis, on the exceptions refuting the refuters, 27[28?] March, A.D. 1492, by Master Richard Blodewell, commissary etc., in his dwelling house, in my, Richard Woode’s, presence.
William Butteler, sawyer of the parish of St. Mary Matfelon without Aldgate [Whitechapel], City of London, where he has lived for eight or nine years, and before that time within the precinct of St. Katherine by the Tower of London for seven or eight years, and also before that time in the town of Dartford in Kent and other places and towns in the same county from a young age, and he was born in the town of Barnstaple in the county of Devonshire, illiterate, of free condition, fifty years old and more, as he says. Inducted as a witness etc., he says that he first saw Elizabeth Brown on the day this witness was brought forth as a witness in this case, he has known Laurence Gilis for ten years, William Grene for six years, Ralph Bothumley for four or five years, William Foster, John Travers for five years or thereabouts, John Colyns for ten years, Richard Keys for twenty-five years, and Peter James for fifteen years and more, and John Harries he does not know. To the first part of the exceptions, he says as he will say below. To the second part of the exceptions, he says that for the last two years or thereabouts, William Grene lived at Stewside, at which sign he does not know, and William then was named there as a common bawd, fostering the crime of lust and adultery between persons of both sexes, and that William was and is [word missing?], and greatly delighted in speaking vituperative and joking words, and this witness knows this because he heard William many times speaking such words, and he was commonly said, taken, had, named, and reputed as such at Stewside. To the third part of the material, he says that a certain John Bowyer, living next to Tower Hill in the City of London, had Ralph Bothumley arrested and kept him imprisoned in the Bread Street Counter of the city for some time for theft and the stealing of a felt cap and a sarsenet hood, and that afterwards at Ralph’s request he was moved from the counter to the King’s Bench [prison] in Southwark by a royal writ, and he was transferred to the prison commonly called Newgate, in the city of London. And otherwise he has nothing to testify concerning its contents. To the fourth part, he says that he has know John Waldron well for two years as a man of good fame and honest disposition, and also was and is said, held, had, named, and reputed as true and faithful through that time within the precinct of St. Katherine in this witness’s knowledge, and he has never heard the contrary. To the fifth part, he says that he has nothing to testify concerning its contents, but he says that John Colyns has two tenements in Stewside in which common bawds and receivers of prostitutes live, and when those tenements come to be empty John, so as to get new tenants more quickly for the tenements, lends them bedclothes, linens, and other goods for the tenants’ use. To the sixth part, he says that Richard Keys is known both within the precinct of St. Katherine and in other neighbouring places as a perjurer, and that on a certain day nine years ago, which day he cannot otherwise specify, in the dwelling house of a certain Cheseman in the town of Lewisham in Rochester diocese, this witness was present when a certain John Totehyll was arrested by a certain chaplain of Greenwich for felony, and John excused himself by Richard Keys, saying that at the time that the felony or theft as [….] was committed, John Totehyll had been in the dwelling house of Richard Keys in the precinct of St. Katherine, Richard himself at that time affirming and swearing on a book that John Totehyll’s claims were true. Richard was afterwards proved false and perjurious by reason of the oath that he swore, as is clearly apparent in the rolls of that court. And he knows this because on that same day this witness attempted in that court an action against a certain William Sawyer, and the steward of the court brought Richard’s perjury and transgression to this witness’s notice by saying, “If I had need to have a meinie [retinue] [of?] false knaves, I wot [know] where to go to fetch them,” meaning Richard and the others. And otherwise he has nothing to testify concerning its contents. To the seventh part, he says that this witness has known William Alston for twenty years as a man of good fame and honest disposition, and that through that time he has never heard the contrary. To the eighth part, he says that what he said above is true and that public voice and fame circulated and circulate regarding it in the precinct of St. Katherine and neighbouring places. And he says that about twelve years ago, Peter James was elected as warden of the fraternity of St. Anthony founded in the New Abbey next to the Tower of London,[16] and that Peter took flight with a chalice and other ornaments and furnishings belonging to the fraternity, and that he never made restitution of them to the present day as far as this witness ever heard or knew, and thus through his infidelity the guild of St. Anthony remains at present destroyed. To the first interrogatory, he says as he said above. To the second interrogatory, he says as he said above, and otherwise he has nothing to testify about its contents. To the third interrogatory, he says that around three years ago, which day he cannot further specify, Ralph Bothumley was arrested in John Bowyer’s house at the instance of John Bowyer, as […] in the third part, and otherwise he has nothing to testify concerning its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he says as he said above, but he says that he heard that John […] women to the woman who is landlady at the sign of the Fleur de Lys at Stewside. And otherwise, he has nothing to testify other than what he testified above. To the fifth, he says that he has nothing to testify about its contents. To the sixth and seventh interrogatories, he says as he said above and he responds negatively to its other contents. To the eighth interrogatory, he says that he does not care about the victory as long as justice is done, and he responds negatively to its other contents. To the ninth interrogatory, he says that he would not confer victory otherwise than justice would permit. To the tenth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents. To the eleventh interrogatory, he says that he came voluntarily and not under compulsion to offer testimony of the truth. To the twelfth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents.
Response of Laurence Gilis, 21 May 1492
Responses made personally by Laurence Gilis, 21 May, in my, Richard Spencer’s, house, before Master Richard Blodewell, commissary.
Laurence Gilis, sworn etc. on the interrogatories etc. To the first, second, and third interrogatory, he admits its contents. To the fourth interrogatory, he admits that he was inhibited as in the contents of the interrogatory by master John Millet, acting as the presiding judge of the Consistory court of London. To the fifth interrogatory, he admits that after the aforesaid inhibition, he contracted marriage with Marion, and after this inhibition, he procured the solemnization of the marriage in the church of St. Giles in the Fields and since then this witness and Marion have lived together as husband and wife as is contained in the interrogatory. To the sixth interrogatory, he responds negatively to all its contents as regards his own person. To the seventh interrogatory, he says as he said above. And he says that because he wanted to finish this case, he procured solemnization of the marriage between him and Marion, with whom he had previously contracted and never with Elizabeth, at the advice of Master Ridon. And on the Monday before Septuagesima Sunday [i.e. 12 Feb. 1492] around ten o’clock marriage was solemnized by the chaplain of the said hospital,[17] whose name he does not know, there being present at the time Godrey Speryng recently of the parish of St. Andrew Undershaft, and no others to this witness’s knowledge besides those solemnizing and ministering, and this witness and his wife.
Response of Marion Lauson alias Gilis, 21 May 1492
21 [May]
Marion Lauson alias Gilis, sworn etc. on the interrogatories, etc. To the first, second, and third interrogatories, she admits their contents. To the fourth interrogatory, she denies its contents as regards her own person. To the fifth interrogatory, she admits that before the warning made to Laurence, as she heard, this witness and Laurence had contracted marriage together, and after the inhibition they procured its solemnization in the church of St. Giles in the Fields by the curate there on the Monday soon before the last feast of the Purification of the Blessed Mary [i.e. 30 Jan. 1492], and since the solemnization they have lived together as husband and wife in one house and one family as is contained in the interrogatory. To the sixth interrogatory, she says that after and since the suit was moved this witness said about Elizabeth to Arnold, servant to this witness and her husband, “Thou lodgest a strong whore in thine house.” And to the other contents she responds negatively. To the seventh interrogatory, she says as she said above. And that by advice of Master Ridon they solemnized marriage in the aforesaid place, and there were present at the solemnization Godfrey Speryng, and the landlord at the sign of the basket in Pater Noster Row, and others whom she does not at present recall.
[1] St. Peter ad Vincula (in Chains, or in the Bailey), within the Tower of London.
[2] Musterdevillers: a kind of mixed grey woollen cloth much used in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (OED, s.v.).
[3] A Benedictine nunnery; religious houses frequently rented dwellings in their precincts to laypeople, so this implies nothing about Margaret Smyth’s religious status.
[4] A law enforcement official for the ward.
[5] Hugh Bryce, goldsmith, alderman of Langbourn ward 1478-96. Beaven, Aldermen, 168.
[6] The Hospital of St. Katherine, just east of the Tower of London, an ecclesiastical liberty outside London’s jurisdiction.
[7] The Master of the Hospital was the governor of the hospital and the precinct. The queen (then Elizabeth, wife of Henry VII) was by custom the patroness of the Hospital.
[8] John Swan, tailor, was alderman of Tower ward, 1488-92. Beaven, Aldermen of London,199.
[9] A “knight of the post” was a witness for hire, a professional perjurer.
[10] This should be William for William Alston (in Bothumley’s deposition, above, it is William who commits adultery with Thomasina).
[11] A street to the west of the Tower.
[12] This sentence is unclear.
[13] A kilderkin was a cask of sixteen to eighteen gallons or sixty to sixty-eight liters; double beer was stronger than the watery single or small beer.
[14] The Cistercian Abbey of St. Mary Graces, also known as the New Abbey. See VCH London, 1:461-64.
[15] A priory of Augustinian canons in Southwark, Surrey.
[16] See above n.14.
[17] St. Giles in the Fields had a leper hospital.
Consistory 