THE WASHINGTONS OF SULGRAVE. BY S. H. LEE WASHINGTON.
All who take an interest in George Washington's English forbears at
Sulgrave, in Northamptonshire, owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Isham Longden, Mr. Pape, and Mr. Clifford Smith. I feel, however, emboldened to attempt yet another word upon the subj ect (well worn though it be),
because, surprising though it may sound, I believe that I can present new evidences which will necessitate the story of the Washington connection with Sulgrave Manor being largely re-written.' Hitherto it has been accepted that Lawrence Washington (the founder of the Sulgrave branch) left his native Warton in Lancashire at an early age and went to London at the instigation of the opulent Tudor merchant, Sir Thomas Kyston, his maternal uncle, and that whilst there he studied for the Law at Gray's Inn. It is also stated that it was owing to the influence of Sir Thomas that he abandoned that profession for the wool-trade, and that he decided to settle in Northampton about the year 1530, due to the circumstance that his cousin-german, Catherine Kyston, had recently married an influential Northamptonshire landowner, Sir John Spencer of Althorp. In 1539 Lawrence purchased from the Crown one of the three manors in the parish of Sulgrave, Northants, which had formerly belonged to the dissolved Priory of St. Andrews;2 and all previous writers have added that, though this estate descended to his son, Robert Washington, the latter was unable to preserve it, but was forced, through failing fortunes, to alienate it to Lawrence Makepeace in 1610. The property was then said to have been inherited by Makepeace's son, Abel, who in 1659 sold it to Edward Plant, who, in turn, disposed of it fourteen years later to the Rev. Moses Hodges. Now, I propose to show that, with the sole exception of the well-known fact of Lawrence Washington's purchase of the St. Andrew's manor of Sulgrave in 1539, all of the above statements are erroneous, including those that relate to Lawrence's earlier life. Further, that the errors are not confined to the Washington manor alone, but that the accepted accounts of the descent of the other two manors in Sulgrave parish3 are equally at fault.
The first question to be considered is that of Lawrence Washington's career in London and at Gray's Inn. This can be disproved in toto. His connection with Gray's Inn has already been denied by Mr. Isham Longden.4 The Gray's Inn records were published in 1889 by Mr. Joseph Foster, and Lawrence's name does not occur there (despite an amazing statement to the contrary by the late Librarian of that Society in Notes and Queries). Evidently the error arose through the admission to Gray's Inn of his younger son Lawrence in 1571! The other assertion made by different writers (never yet contradicted) that Lawrence himself removed from London to Northamptonshire circa 1530 because of the marriage of his cousin Catherine Kyston to Sir John Spencer, is obviously incorrect
lAti announcement of these discoveries has recently appeared, or is appearing, in England in the Genealogists' Magazine, the Miscellanca Genealogica et Heraldica, and the Landmark Magazine (published by the
English Speaking Union).
2At this time the other two manors were in the hands of the families of Danvers and Leeson. But the St. Andrew's, or Washington, manor had paramount rights over the whole parish, and was the only one of the thr manors to possess the rights of Court Baron and Court Leet. 3i. e., those owned by the families of Leeson and Danvers.
4History of the Washington Family (1927), p. 4.
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.103 on Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:03:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY 515 because Catherine was not born until 1528 and her marriage did not take place until 1545.5 Finally, the theory that Lawrence lived most of his earlier life in London owing to his kinship to Sir Thomas Kyston is disproved by the following extracts, which show that he was still living at Warton as late as 1529:-
Duchy of Lancaster Pleadings, 21 Henry VIII., 1529 (D. of L. 3/24) Petition of Jane Washington of Warton, co. Lancs., widow, addressed "To the most reverent father in God, Thomas (Wolsey), Lord Legate and Cardynell, Archbishop of York and Chauncellor of England. . . . Jane, late the
wife of Antony Wasshyngton,6 son of Robert Wasshyngton, some time of
Warton, in the county of Lancaster, deceased. ... And so it is, good
and gracious lord, that one Margaret Wasshyngton, widow,7 and Laurence
Wasshyngton, her son, cossyns of the sd. Antony, having no rightfull title to the said farmehold [in Warton], of their wilfull and malicious dispossitions have now . . . entered into the said farmehold and the same, by the ayde of Sir William Parr, knyght, steward and chief ruler of alle the said country. And also, the said Laurence, being Baily of Warton aforesaid under the said Sir William, entend thereof utterly to expell and put out yr. said poor Aratrice, and will not suffer her to occupie and take her corn and grasses now being and growing upon the said farmehold. In consideration whereof, and for as much as the said Laurence and Margaret by reason of the said Sir William is greatly alyed and frendyd, and yr. said Oratrice is but a very poor woman, not able to sue for her remedy in the premisses by the course of King's lawes, it may please yr. good grace, of yr. most benigne goodness, pitie, and charitie," etc. The report of the proceedings adds that a special Commission had already been appointed to enquire into the matter during Anthony Washington's lifetime, but that "the afforsaid Antony Washyngton and Sir Mathewe [Washington, priest], brother of the said Antony, [being] then and there present, perseyvyng that many of the persons panelled upon the said enquest [i. e., the inquest of the Commissioners] was well as well kyndesmen to the said Laurence as also specially labored by the said Laurence, and for drede that they myght have no indifferent triall of the aforesaid farmehold, they refused and challenged the said enquest and in no wise wold gyf any evidence upon their behalf,"8 etc., etc.
The date of the report to Cardinal Wolsey is 26 July, 21 Henry VIII; and here we see Lawrence Washington, the future owner of Sulgrave, still living at his birthplace, Warton, in Lancashire, as late as 1529-only eight months before his first settlement in the county of Northampton.9 It has already been seen that this removal to Northamptonshire cannot have been in any way connected with the marriage of Lawrence's cousin to Sir John Spencer (which happened fifteen years afterwards) or with the abandonment of his legal studies at Gray's Inn (which never happened at all) ; and, moreover, Sir Thomas Kyston, his uncle, possessed no Northamptonshire interests. But may not the real reason for Lawrence's change of residence -a change which was to affect the whole future destiny of the family5Marriage settlement dated 12 August, 37 Henry VIII.
6Anthony Washington and his brother, Matthew (mentioned hereafter),
were Lawrence Washington's uncles of the half-blood (vide Visitation of Northants, ed. Metcalfe, p. 55). 7Nee Kyston.
8The document is long, and only the parts that apply here are quoted. 9His earliest recorded appearance there is March 24, 1529-30, (not 1530-31, as stated by Mr. Isham Longden), at which date he had recently married his first wife, Elizabeth Gough, who was the widow of a wealthy Northampton citizen.
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.103 on Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:03:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
516 WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY have been his close connection (hitherto unsuspected) with Sir William Parr? For although this Sir William came of a Lancashire house and is described in the above extract as "Steward and chief ruler of alle the said country" (he was then acting as Steward, or Receiver, of the barony of Kendal), yet his own interests were all of them centred not in Lancashire but in Northainptonshire,'o-of which county he had already twice served as High Sheriff. Moreover, the same extract shows a confidential relationship existing between him and Lawrence Washington, his protege: for not only had Sir William appointed Lawrence as Bailiff of the Crown manor of Warton and his official agent there, but we have further evidence that there was close personal intimacy between them and that Lawrence, "by reason of the said Sir William," had become "greatly alyed and frended."11 In the light of these facts, I would suggest that it was Sir William, and Sir
William's interests, which brought Lawrence Washington to Northamptonshire and ultimately to Sulgrave Manor: and it is of interest to note that King Henry VIII, only four years after issuing the grant of Sulgrave, found his sixth and final Queen in the person of Sir William's niece.
It is now necessary to pass on to Lawrence Washington's eldest son,
Robert Washington, and to the latter's alleged sale of the manor of Sulgrave in 1610. Why this sale was made, or where Robert went when it
had been completed, nobody has ever been able to determine. The favourite theory appears to have been that Robert and his eldest son, Lawrence (second of the name), retired to a certain cottage at Little Brington, where Robert's younger son and namesake is said to have been already established. This cottage is still the obj ect of enthusiastic pilgrimage on the part of thousands of people each year; but it can be proved not only that Robert Washington never lived there, but that it was never occupied by any Washington at any time.12 The other theory is that Robert stayed on at Sulgrave as a tenant of Lawrence Makepeace, the new lord of the manor. Such an hypothesis has certainly more to recommend it, but (as will be seen) is equally devoid of truth. The question, however, is of such importance that it requires careful consideration in detail, especially as it has been stated and believed, that several years before he parted with Sulgrave manor, Robert himself had been reduced to virtual poverty. No one has yet succeeded in giving more than a very fragmentary account of the career
of Robert Washington. The following extracts, derived from unpublished sources, provide some new information on the subject. On 13 June, 1598, the Queen appointed "Sir John Spencer, Kt., Richard Chetwode, Esq., Tobias Chauncey, Esq., and Robert Washington, Esq.," as royal Commissioners in Northants to investigate certain matters pending between William Morton and Thomas Kirton of Thorpe Mandeville.13 At the same period Robert Washington was a Justice of the Peace for the county; and he was clearly a landowner of influence and repute. During the following year (1599), his eldest son, Lawrence Washington,
'0He was raised to the peerage in 1543 as Lord Parr of Horton (Northants). "I am able to trace an actual blood relationship between Lawrence and Sir William Parr, the evidences of which, however, are being reserved for publication in, book form. 12The late Rev. Harold Cavalier, formerly Rector of Great Brington, made an exhaustive investigation of this subject. All of Mr. Cavalier's papers I now possess through the great kindness of Mrs. Cavalier, his widow. Unfortunately, it is not possible to enter into the question here. 13Close Roll, 40 Eliz. part 10. Robert Washington and two of the other Commissioners undertook the task, and their report was dated June 29 in the same year (Ibid.).
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.103 on Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:03:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY 517 went up to London and undertook a general resettlement of his personal affairs. Thus, on 11 May, 1599, "Lawrence Washington of Soulgrave in co. Northants., Gent.,"14 was given "a competent sum of money" by Thomas Leeson, Jr., of Sulgrave, Gent., for land called "Lambye," in Sulgrave parish (Close R., 41 Eliz., pt. 19). The same day, he himself undertook to give Leeson ?200 on 12 May of the following year, and entered into a recognizance of ?400 to perform the agreement. (This recognizance was officially cancelled 12 June, 1600, due to the money having then been paid.-
Close R., 41 Eliz., pt. 32). Two days later (13 May, 1599), William Mill, of Gray's Inn, Esq., and Lawrence Washington of Sulgrave, Gent., sold to
the same Thomas Leeson, for 100 marks paid to them by him, land in Sulgrave "called Parsonage Yarde, otherwise the berryeing yarde" (Close R., 41 Eliz., pt. 21). The parties to this transaction confirmed it in the King's Court at Westminster on May 23rd (ibid.)- and the same day Lawrence Washington of Sulgrave, Gent., James Culpeper of Moreton
(Pinkney), Northants., Gent., and John Culpeper of St. Giles in the Fields, Middlesex, Gent., acknowledged owing ?800 to William Mill (to be paid on the following 20th of November "at the now lodging chamber of the said William Mill in Gray's IJne"), and entered into a joint recognizance of ?1,600 (Close R., 41 Eliz., p. 32). The same day, also (23 May), Lawrence Washington entered into two separate recognizances of ?100 and ?900, in respect of an annual rent of ?80 due to Edward Kirton, Gent.presumably for some property of his which Lawrence had leased (Close R., 41 Eliz., pt. 32). Finally, about this time Lawrence purchased "3 messuages, 3 gardens, 3 orchards, 100 acres of land, 30 acres of meadow, and 50 acres of pasture," etc., in Sulgrave, for which he paid ?80 to Ambrose Butler, Gent., his wife's cousin. (Feet of Fines, Northants., Easter, 41 Eliz.)
In the course of the same year (1599), Lawrence's father, Robert Washington, the lord of Sulgrave, had acquired the lease of the manor of Sandy, in Bedfordshire, from his relatives, the Spencers of Althorp; and early in 1600 he made a further important addition to his estates by buying from his son-in-law, Alban Wakelyn, the manor of Nether Boddington, Northants. (near Sulgrave), together with "5 messuages, 2 cottages, 1 windmill, 6 gardens, 6 orchards, 200 acres of land, 50 acres of meadow, 100 acres of pasture, 40 acres of furze and heath, and 10 shillings' rent in Nether Boddington, alias Boddington Parva" (F. of F. Northants., Easter, 42 Eliz.). On 1st March, 1600-1, Robe-t Washington, Esq., received license to alienate a messuage, etc., in Woodford, Northants., to Robert Spencer of Althorp, as well as two messuages there to John Freeman (Pat. R.'s, 42 Eliz., pts. 6 and 10; cp. also F. of F., Northants, Trin., 1599, and idem, Easter, 1600) ; and two months afterwards (1 May, 1601), in conjunction with his son and heir Lawrence, he granted land in Sulgrave on a perpetual leave to his kinsman, Christopher Pargiter,-the latter paying him ?206 (original deed in possession of the Sulgrave Manor Board). The very next day (May 2nd), he received license to alienate the manor of Sulgrave to Robert Calcott and others (Pat. R.'s, 43 Eliz., pt. 10). But lest anyone should leap upon this record and assert that Robert himself was now selling his ancestral domain nine years before the alleged sale to Lawrence Makepeace I hasten to present another document, proving that Robert was merely reentailing the manor upon his heirs:-"1st May, 43 Eliz., indenture between Robte. Washington thelder of Sulgrave, in co. Northants., Esq., and Anne his wife, Laurence Washington, sonne and heire apparent of the said Robte., 14The full description is quoted because there is sometimes a risk of confusion with the contemporary Lawrence Washington, the Chancery
Registrar.
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.103 on Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:03:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
518 WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY and Margaret his wife, and Laurence Washington of Gray's Inne, London, Esq., brother of the said Robte.," versus Robert Calcott of Clemens Inn,
London, Gent., and George Woodward, late of Byfield, Northants., Gent. Robert and Lawrence Washington undertook, before the following Feast of St John the Baptist, to levy a fine in the Court of Common Pleas to the said Calcott and Woodward of all the manor of Sulgrave, etc., with 10 messuages, 8 cottages, 18 gardens, 18 orchards, 400 acres of land, 80 acres of meadow, 300 acres of pasture, 200 acres of wood, 20 acres of furze and heath, 20 shillings' rent, 1 lb. rent of cummin seed, and common of pasture, etc., in Sulgrave, Stuchbury, Woodford, Blakesley, Woodend, and Plumpton. It is expressly added that the said fine was to be levied "to the only proper use and behoof of them, the said Robte. Washington and Laurence Washington, the sonne, and of theire heires and assignes forever, and to
none other use, intent, or purpose.'5 The parties to the fine came into court and acknowledged their agreement on May 25th; and the "consideration" (paid to Calcott and Woodward) was ?300. (Close R., 43 Eliz., pt. 23; F.
of F. Northants., Easter, 1601). Clearly, the reason for this settlement was the fact that Robert Washington had recently had a son, Alban (born 1600), by his second wife, Anne Fisher; and the settlement itself was designed to protect the interests of Lawrence Washington, his eldest son by his previous marriage.16 Meanwhile, Lawrence had entered into a recognizance of ?600 with Ralph Bulkeley, of Clemens Inn, Gent.,17 that "Robert Washington, sonne
of the above Laurence Washington, when he shall come to his full age of
twenty-one years," should make a grant to Bulkeley of "the redd house in Sullgrave," now in the tenure of "one Braye and Coleman," with 4 yardlands
and 2 cottages thereto belonging (Close R., 43 Eliz., pt. 27). Obviously,
though no previous writer has taken cognizance of the fact, the young Robert Washington, above-named, must have been Lawrence's heir-apparent. We shall see, however, that he died before 1610, when Lawrence's heir was his second son, John (the future Sir John Washington of Trapston).18 On 1 April, 1602, Robert Washington, Esq. (Lawrence's father), had licence to alienate a messuage and land in Stuchbury to John Blencowe (Pat. R.'s, 44 Eliz., pt. 20); and on 20 June, the same John Blencowe and Lawrence Washington ("of Sulgrave, Gent.") jointly sold the rectory and parsonage of Sulgrave, with the advowson, patronage, etc., for ?540 to
15Robert Calcott and George Woodward (the trustees) had both witnessed the will of the elder Lawrence Washington in 1584. Calcott, who was of an Oxfordshire family, is described as of Byfield, Northants. in his will, dated February 18, 1603-4, proved May 18, 1604 (P. C. C. 53, Harte). He held no property in Sulgrave at his death (Inq. p. m., 2 James I, Chanc. Ser. 2, vol. 284, No. 85).
16To Elizabeth, daughter and sole heiress of Walter Light, of Rad-
way, Co. Warwick.
17This Ralph had just purchased the Danvers manor in Sulgrave (vide postea). "'The latter, as I shall demonstrate, is described as Lawrence's "son
and heir-apparent" in February, 1614-5. Sir William Washington, the husband of Elizabeth Villiers, was thus the third son, and not, as invariably stated, the eldest son, of Lawrence Washington and his wife, Margaret (Butler).
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.103 on Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:03:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WILLIAM AND MIARY QUARTERLY 519 Edward Yorke, Gent., of Warwick (Close R.'s, 44 Eliz.).19 Although it is known that the Washingtons were patrons of the rectory of Stuchbury, this is the first intimation that they possessed any rights in the patronage of the rectory of Sulgrave. The year 1602 also saw the termination of the disputes over the estate
of Walter Light, Lawrence's maternal grandfather. Walter had designated as his heir Lawrence's younger brother, Walter Washington (P. C. C. 33 Cobham), but the latter had died in 1597; and upon Walter Light's own death, 25 March, 1599-1600, the Light estates had been claimed by Robert and Lawrence Washington against Walter Washington's widow and infant son. In these claims Lawrence and Robert were finally successful; for when Walter Light's inquisition was taken in 44 Elizabeth (1602), Lawrence was found to be his "grandson and heir" (Inq. p. m., Chancery Ser. 2, vol. 267, no. 63). But in the end an arrangement was arrived at, by which Walter Washington's young son (John) got the Light estate of Radway Grange, and Lawrence and Robert retained the remaining Light property in the parish of Bishop's Itchington. On 1 December, 1602, Robert received licence to alienate land in Bishop's Itchington, Co. Warwick, to Thomas Temple of Stowe (Pat. R., 44 Eliz., pt. 6); and in the year 1604 he settled another messuage and lands there upon his son, Lawrence, and his issue (original deed, now in possession of Edward Gaston, Esq., of Buffalo, U. S. A.). On 20 August, 1605, "Robert Washington of Sulgrave, Esq., and Lawrence Washington, his son and heir-apparent," granted the reversion of certain (specified) leases in the parish of Sulgrave to Thomas Adkvls,
of Over Winchendon, Bucks., yeoman, for which the latter paid them ?500 (Close R., 3 James I., pt. 29) ; and on 28 November, Robert and Lawrence received licence to alienate a messuage and land in Woodford, Northants., to Richard Butler (Pat. A., 3 James I., pt. 24). In 1606 Robert Washington figured in an interesting exchequer case (William Barcocke, clerk, versus Robert Washington and two others: Bills and Answers, Northants., Easter, 4 James I.) ; but as an abstract of it was printed by Mr. Ernest G. Atkinson in The Times as long ago as 22 September, 1894, I need not enter into it here in detail. The gist of the complaint was that Robert Washington, the patron of the rectory of Stuchbury, together with his two cousins, Robert Pargiter and George Mole (who also had an interest in the advowson), had instituted no clergyman to the living "by the space of three score years or thereabouts." On the contrary, they had pulled down "not only the parsonage house . . . and all or the most part of the said town and parish houses of Stuttesbury aforesaid, but also the parish church itself," and had used the lands "for pasture for kine and sheep, to the great depopulation of the commonwealth and country thereabout." The document is not without its interest, from the point of view of the social historian, in connection with the passion of the landowners for effecting enclosures, at whatever cost to the unfortunate countryside.20 I now come to the crucial point in Robert Washington's life, viz., his alleged sale of the manor of Sulgrave in 1610 to Lawrence Makepeace. I should explain that the assertion as to this sale originated with the wellknown antiquary, Baker (History of Northamptonshire, vol. 1 (1822-30), 19The sale was made by Blencowe with Lawrence's consent. Edward Yorke had married the widow of Christopher Light, of Horley, Lawrence's (maternal) great-uncle.
2OAt this same period Sir William Spencer (a cousin of the Washingtons) was alleged to have depopulated the village of Yarnton for a similar purpose; and Edward Frere, an Oxfordshire neighbour of his, had apparently destroyed the whole town of Water Eaton.
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.103 on Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:03:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
520 WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY pp. 513-4), who was further responsible for stating that the manor descended to Abel Makepeace (Lawrence Makepeace's son), who disposed of it in 1659 to Edward Plant, of Kelmarsh. Baker's reference for all of these facts was simply to "the title deeds of Rev. M. H. Bartholomew," the then owner of Sulgrave Manor; and, unluckily, those documents have long ago disappeared. The Washington manor of Sulgrave was, however, held of the king in, capite; and in the case of any transfer of such property, an abstract of the original document was generally (if not invariably) preserved for future record in the Feet of Fines. Now, although the other Washington entries in those valuable documents have remained hitherto unknown, it so happens that the entry relating to the transaction (or at least, to a transaction) between Robert Washington and Lawrence Makepeace was found some years ago by Mr. Pape and Mr. Hoppin, and published by them in 193221 In brief, it records that in Trinity Term, 1610, Robert Washington, Esq., in conjunction with Lawrence Washington, Gent., his son and heir, and George Bettes, Gent., and Anne his wife, sold to Lawrence Makepeace, Gent., one messuage (with dovecot, orchard, and garden) and seven acres of pasture in Sulgrave-in return for which the said Lawrence Makepeace paid the sum of ?41 (F. of F., Northants., Trinity, 8 James I.). The question at once arises whether this sale represented the actual transfer of the manor itself. Mr. Hoppin suggests22 that the original deed of transfer (of which the above entry was believed to be an abstract) must have contained certain additional "reservations," to-wit, that Robert Washington agreed to alienate the manor to Makepeace for a mere song, as it were, on condition that he, in his turn, was permitted to live on at Sulgrave as Makepeace's tenant for the rest of his life. Since, however, it had previously been concluded on all hands that it was only on account of severe financial difficulties that Robert was induced to part with the manor at all, it hardly seems a tribute to Robert's intelligence to assume that he preferred incorporating these hypothetical "reservations" and receiving a bare ?41, when he could easily have realized forty times that amount by allowing Makepeace to purchase the estate outright! 23
Moreover, quite apart from the minute sum involved, the sale to Makepeace could not possibly have involved the transference of the manor of Sulgrave, because the property in question admittedly only comprised one messuage and seven acres-in addition to which there is no mention whatever of any manorial rights. Indeed, the strange readiness of all authorities to believe that this document did refer to the entire manor, can only be explained by a too implicit faith in the historian, Baker-whose reference to the "title deed of Rev. Mr. Bartholomew" (the then owner of Sulgrave) has never, from that day to this been called in doubt. If one now admits, however, that the abstract preserved in the Feet of Fines does not, and cannot, refer to the sale of the manor, is it still possible that there might have been a second and quite separate agreement, by which
the manor did become conveyed to Makepeace after all? To settle any misgivings on this point, let me say that I have not only searched through the Feet of Fines from 1600 to 1660, but through all the rest of the available sources as well. Nowhere does there appear any hint that Lawrence Makepeace ever acquired the Washington manor of Sulgrave, either in 1610 or 21The Washington Ancestry, etc., vol. 1, p. 82. 22Ibid.; and Tyler's Quarterly Magazine for April, 1934. 23Makepeace had already paid ?1,310 for the Leeson manor in Sulgrave
in 1607-an estate which was considerably inferior to the Washington manor, which was the "manor paramount." Robert Washington's son, Lawrence, as we shall see, sold the rectory to Stuchbury for ?2,100 in 1615.
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.103 on Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:03:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
WILLIAM1 AND MIARY QUARTERLY 521 at any other period; and as final evidence of this the following two records
will, I think, effectively set the matter at rest.
The first record consists of the royal licence to Robert Washington,
Lawrence Washington, George Bettes, and Anne, his wife, to alienate prop-
erty to Lawrence Makepeace, dated 1st March, 1609-10 (Pat. R., 7 James I., pt. 17). Here, if anywhere, manorial rights would have been mentioned (cf. Robert Washington's earlier licence, permitting him to settle the "manor of Sulgrave" on Robert Calcott, etc., in 1601): yet the present license merely specifies the one messuage and 7 acres "in Sulgrave"-an obvious reference to the same transaction as that described in the contemporary Feet
of Fines, quoted above.
The other record is the official inquest taken after the death of Law-
rence Makepeace in 1641 (Chancery Inq. p. m.'s, Series II., vol. 642, no. 4);
and its importance is such that I am giving a translation in full:Inquisition dated at Northampton, 22 September, -17 Charles I., before Thomas Knighton, Gent., Escheator, etc., afetr the death of Laurence Make-
peace, Esq., deceased, by the oaths of William Chapman of Old, Gent.,
etc., etc., who, sworn and charged upon their oath, say that the aforesaid Laurence Makepeace, on 1 October, 21 James I., was seised in his demesne as of fee of one messuage, one dovecot, and one close of pasture with the appurtenances in Sulgrave, comprising 8 acres. And the said Laurence
Makeepace, afterwards, in Michaelmas Term, 21 James I.-by a fine made
in the court of the said king at Westminsetr, in the Octave of St. Martin, between Richard Blason, Gent., querent, and the said Laurence Makepeace,
deforciant-granted the aforesaid messuage, dovecot, and close to the abovenamed Richard Blason, to have and to hold from the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel then last past for a term of 90 years; rendering yearly to the said Laurence Makepeace one grain of pepper, etc. And the Jurors aforesaid, upon their oath, say further that the aforesaid Laurence Makepeace died seised of the above premises at Sulgrave, on the 24th day of November last past before the taking of this inquisition; and that the aforesaid messuage, dovecote, and close are held of the King in chief, but by what fraction of the service of a knight's fee the aforesaid Jurors are wholly ignorant. The aforesaid messuage, dovecot, and close, etc., are worth clear annually, in atl issues beyond reprises during the term of the said 90 years, one grain of pepper, and afterwards 12d. And further, the said Jurors say that Abell Makepeace, Gent., is son and next heir of the aforesaid Laurence Makepeace; and he was aged twenty-one and upwards at the date this inquisition was taken. Elizabeth, widow of the aforesaid Laurence Makepeace, is now living in health at Sulgrave. And finally, they say that, at the time of his death, neither the said Laurence Makepeace, nor any other or others to his use, had or held in use, possession, reversion, or remainder any other messuages, lands, tenements, or hereditaments of the said Lord King in chief, or of any other person or persons, either in the county of Northamptonshire or elsewhere, etc.- Memorandum: -that the above inquisition was delivered into the Court [of Chancery], 15 November, 17 Charles I., by the
hands of Ambrose Holbech, Gent.24
Obviously, this "messuage, dovecot, and close of pasture at Sulgrave" which Lawrence Makepeace held at his decease, and which passed to his son Abel, was not the manor of Sulgrave, but that same small property which he himself had purchased from Robert Washington in 1610. Hence it is no longer possible to doubt:-(a) That Mr. Bartholomew's "title deed,"
24Lawrence Makepeace, as already stated, purchased the Leeson manor of Sulgrave in 1607; but I can show that he sold it in 1623 to Thomas Trist,
Esq., of Culworth.
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.103 on Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:03:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
522 WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY mentioned by Baker, was only the original record of an unimportant transaction, of which an abstract still exists both in the Feet of Fines and the Patent Rolls; and (b) that this transaction of 1610 (like the later transaction of 1659--concerning which Mr. Bartholomew's "title deeds" were likewise invoked25 ), merely related to a single messuage and 7 acres in Sulgrave (comprising 8 acres in all) which was in no way concerned with the manor or the manorial rights. On the contrary, Robert Washington
clearly never sold his inheritance to the Makepeaces in 1610; and neither
Lawrence Makepeace nor Abel, his son, ever acquired the title. Indeed, the contemporary Subsidy Roll, compiled in the spring of 1610, shows Robert Washington's name still heading the list under Sulgrave parish-just as it headed the lists in the previous subsidies of 1602, 1600, and 1596. Unfortunately, there are no pertinent Subsidy Rolls now existing between 1610 and 1627, so that one cannot draw upon their valuable testimony during the interval. But I am presenting independent evidence to demonstrate, not only that Robert never parted with Sulgrave in 1610, but that he continued to be lord of the manor to the day of his death! Upon his decease in 1620, the reversion descended to his grandson and heir, John Washington (the future Sir John Washington, of Thrapston) ; and as late as November, 1625, Anne Washington, Robert's widow, was living at Sulgrave-having apparently secured a life-interest in her husband's estate. It was not, in fact, until circa 1626 that the manor was eventually sold; and the purchaser of the property was not Lawrence Makepeace, nor was the sale itself made for any of the reasons hitherto given.
Meanwhile, I cannot return to my account of Robert Washington without trying to show how Baker-the man responsible for the whole story of the Sulgrave sale of 1610-ever came to commit such a gigantic mistake. The explanation seems to be:-(a) that Baker himself never actually saw the "title deeds" to which he refers, but relied on a description furnished him by their owner, Mr. Bartholomew (this is not absolutely certain, but seems probable from internal evidence) ; and (b) that he was, in any case, entirely ignorant of the fact that Lawrence Makepeace had bought the Leeson manor in the parish of Sulgrave from its owner, Thomas Leeson, in 1607. Consequently, when (as his History of Northamptonshire shows) he unearthed an official writ addressed to "Mr. Laurence Makepeace of Sulgrave" in 1619, Baker formed the inevitable hypothesis: for, combining this apparent evidence of 1619 with the fact that Lawrence Makepeace had already bought land in Sulgrave from Robert Washington in 1610, he naturally assumed that the former (who is described in the Northants. Visitation as
"son of Abel Makepeace [senior], of Chipping Wardon") must have become "of Sulgrave" through having purchased the Washington manor there. That Lawrence Makepeace was really the temporary owner, not of the Washington, but of the Leeson estate, was a fact which no one in Baker's day had yet suspected: and thus his original confusion (natural enough under the circumstances) has since proved the source of almost endless error, and for over a century has triumphantly withstood the passage of time. 25History of Northants, vol. 1, p. 514.
(To be concluded.)
This content downloaded from 128.239.99.103 on Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:03:46 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms