In c.1576, Henry Howell, the father of Edward, was involved with a lawsuit regarding Westbury Manor (and additional property).[1] Fortunately, the details of the lawsuit have been preserved for posterity because of the case’s significance to English law. In the 16th century (as well as today—although, much has obviously been reformed), England operated under a common law system, which, in a word, means that the rulings of judges serve as precedents and helped to define the law in the absence of any written constitution or codified laws.[2] Because the rulings of past cases were integral to the common law system, specific cases were published in law books that those studying law, practicing lawyers, and judges consulted to inform their decision about their current cases. The lawsuit involving Henry Howell was one of those cases published in the law commentaries of Edmund Plowden, which remained relevant until at least the early-19th century.[3]
The lawsuit was useful to study and refer to because it dealt with a property dispute between a corporation and an individual. The “Mystery of Cooks”, or the Company of Cooks, was a kind of guild for cooks in London that received a formal charter from Edward IV in 1482 (although, its roots extend further back). The early modern “Mystery” was a corporate organization that not only regulated the various aspects of their craft, but also bought and sold property to generate more profits. It is worth noting that the second half of the 16th century and the early-17th century was a period of massive economic change in England (among other kinds of change), and the power and wealth of corporations was beginning to rise, which complicated the legal system because of the lack of precedents in corporate-related cases.[4] This made nearly every lawsuit involving a corporate body, including the one with Henry Howell, highly important.
During the reign of Henry VIII, the Mystery of Cooks sold Westbury Manor and some land to Robert Dormer, who soon after enfeoffed Westbury Manor and some of the property to William Howell (the grandfather of Edward).[5] There was a minor dispute between Dormer and one of the heirs of one of the Masters or Governors of the Mystery of Cooks who sold the property to Dormer, but a settlement was reached. All was seemingly quiet until around 1576 when the Mystery of Cooks seemed to have sold/leased (or possibly enfeoffed) Westbury Manor and the other land to Edmund Croft (who was also from Buckinghamshire). It is unclear what exactly occurred between Croft and Henry Howell, but when Croft came to Marsh Gibbon to claim his property (which included Westbury Manor and valuable grazing lands for sheep), Howell “ousted” Croft from the property “with Force and Arms” on September 14, 1576. Croft then sued Howell for ejectment and trespassing, hoping to lawfully claim Westbury Manor and the land.[6]
The court proceedings took place in both Buckinghamshire and Westminster and Howell was represented by the lawyer Robert Norton. It is not clear from the few pages describing the case if Howell was present at court in Westminster, but he likely would have attended the circuit court in Buckinghamshire. Unlike criminal trials, early modern English courts rarely documented many details for civil suits, so not much more is known about Howell’s thoughts or actions other than that he said “he is not guilty thereof, and of this he puts himself upon the Country….”[7] To put oneself upon the country is to appeal one’s case to a jury, which perhaps demonstrates Howell’s understanding of the importance of trial by jury, and that it was one of so-called rights or liberties of Englishmen that were so highly valued in early modern England (and English/British provinces).
Croft’s lawyer argued that the original document of sale between Dormer and the Mystery of Cooks was void because of trivial word placements and naming of the company. Additionally, Croft’s lawyer tried to argue that because Edward IV’s charter to the Company said that they could only sell property if two “Masters” that had been elected by the Company agreed, which rendered Dormer’s sale void because it listed four men representing the Company as the “Master and Wardens….” Croft’s lawyer pointed out that “Master” was singular, not plural, so it was possible that there were not two Masters present at the sale.[8] After much debate in both Westminster and Buckinghamshire, the sale/lease between Croft and the Company was deemed to be unlawful and Henry Howell was found not guilty. Meanwhile, Croft received no settlement, “but for his false Claim thereof be in Mercy….”[9]
This episode demonstrates how the litigious nature of Englishmen in early modern society allowed even seemingly established land claims to be contested. Howell very well could have lost Westbury Manor and the lands, but he was fortunate to not have some of Tudor and Stuart England’s notoriously corrupt judges who could have been bribed by the Mystery of Cooks. It is also possible that the relatively unstable nature of land ownership in England around this time was part of the larger reasons as to why Edward Howell later chose to leave everything behind and sail to New England. Although Edward’s religious beliefs were likely the main reason for his choice to cross the Atlantic, there was a much wider context that informed his decision. The increasing political tension in England between the crown and Parliament over the question of sovereignty also perhaps influenced Edward Howell’s decision. This essay offers another aspect of Edward Howell’s life in England that may have contributed to such a major decision.
Bibliography
“Cooks’ Company History,” The Worshipful Company of Cooks. https://www.cooks.org.uk/about/timeline.php.
Plowden, Edmund. The Commentaries, Or Reports of Edmund Plowden, of Middle Temple, esq; An Apprentice of the Common Law…. London: Catharine Lintot and Samuel Richardson, 1761. Internet Archive.
[1] Edmund Plowden, The Commentaries, Or Reports of Edmund Plowden, of Middle Temple, esq; An Apprentice of the Common Law…(London: Catharine Lintot and Samuel Richardson, 1761), Internet Archive, 530-31, 533.
[2] Even today, England does not have an official written constitution or codified laws. Often, especially in the 17th and 18th centuries, Englishmen (or provincials throughout the English/British empire) refer to the “constitution.” This is the generally recognized law of the land that was almost entirely based on precedent, statutes, and tradition. The only time England has ever had an official written constitution was the Instrument of Government during the Interregnum (the period between the execution of Charles I and the Restoration of Charles II).
[3] Another edition of Plowden’s Commentaries was published in 1792. Edmund Plowden was a significant lawyer and legal scholar of 16th-century England.
[4] “Cooks’ Company History,” The Worshipful Company of Cooks, https://www.cooks.org.uk/about/timeline.php.
[5] Plowden, 533–535. Enfeoffed means that Dormer granted William Howell those lands (or at least, had him act as a freeholder), in exchange for his loyalty to Dormer. It is similar to the practice of giving homage and fealty to a feudal lord in exchange for privileges and power.
[6] Plowden, 530–535, 537.
[7] Plowden, 531.
[8] Plowden, 536–537
[9] Plowden, 538. In this context, to be in mercy meant that Croft’s punishment was to be determined by the judge. However, what that punishment was remains unknown.
