DOYLY, Thomas

Doyly’s origins are obscure, but it seems likely that he was a local man. A Thomas Doyly, esquire, claimed exemption as a Portsman from the parliamentary subsidy in Bewsborough hundred in 1440 and this individual may have been our MP’s father.2 E179/225/24. When Doyly was first chosen as one of the jurats of Dover in September 1451 he was described as ‘Thomas Doyly, junior’.

Doyly owed his rapid advancement among the governing elite of Dover to his association with the leading Portsman, Ralph Toke, and marriage to his widow. Before 1450 the two men had acted together in land transactions, with Doyly acting as Toke’s feoffee in the purchase of the manor of Goodnestone and other property in Kent. Toke also appointed him executor of his will.3 C1/17/304a; 71/13. He was chosen as one of the jurats of Dover at the first opportunity following Toke’s death and quickly assumed a senior status within the Port. On 4 Nov. 1451 he attended his first meeting of the Brodhull as one of Dover’s representatives, a duty he performed again on 11 occasions until July 1459.4 White and Black Bks. of Cinque Ports (Kent Rec. Ser. xix), 29-40.

At some point Doyly also appears to have entered the King’s household. This may have occurred in the late 1440s through a connexion with the then warden of the Cinque Ports and Toke’s patron, (Sir) James Fiennes*, Lord Saye and Sele, although he is not listed as receiving fees and robes in the extant Household accounts, or as part of the revised establishment of November 1454. In December that year, however, he sued his fellow Household man, Thomas Tropham, in the marshalsea of the Household for stealing his horses at Southwark.5 KB27/779, rot. 76. Further evidence of his links with the Household is the fact that in 1453 he had been in dispute with Richard Joseph of Sandwich over a bond for £20 which Joseph owed to another royal retainer, William Say*. It nevertheless remains unproven that Doyly was a member of the Household when, in February 1453, he was chosen, alongside Ralph’s brother, John Toke*, as Dover’s baron for the Parliament called to assemble at Reading on 6 Mar. Both men left for Parliament on 3 Mar. and Doyly remained there for 28 days, one less than his colleague. He left Dover for the Parliament’s second session on 23 Apr., two days before the commencement of business, but remained at Westminster for only ten days, compared to the 48 days spent there by Toke.6 Add. 29615, f. 220. On his return home his dispute with Richard Joseph was put to arbitration by a meeting of the Brodhull in July (at which Doyly himself was one of Dover’s representatives).7 White and Blk. Bks. 31.

In September of that year, during the prorogation of the Parliament, Doyly was elected to his first of four consecutive terms as mayor of Dover. During his first mayoral year he continued to serve as a parliamentary baron, receiving £5 8s. for 54 days almost certainly spent at Westminster between February and the beginning of April 1454 (although he attended a meeting of the Brodhull on 9 Apr., nine days before the Parliament’s probable closure).8 Ibid. 32.Little evidence, besides that of his attendance at the meetings of the Brodhull, survives of his activities as mayor, but in December 1455, along with Thomas Gore*, he arbitrated in a dispute between two of the jurats.9 Egerton 2105, f. 52v. His relationship with Gore, who served as his deputy mayor, seems to have been close, and Doyly also continued an amicable relationship throughout his mayoralty with John Toke, who served him in a similar capacity on a number of occasions.10 White and Blk. Bks. 34-36; Egerton 2105, f. 52.

In September 1457 Doyly was replaced as mayor by Gore. He continued to serve as a jurat and in 1458 he was among the leading Portsmen who victualled Le Michael, a ship appointed to go to sea with the earl of Warwick.11 Add. 29810, f. 83v. He was again named among the jurats in September 1462, although it is almost certain that his service was continuous from 1457. It appears, however, that his involvement in the Port’s affairs may have lessened after the end of his mayoralty. He attended only three meetings of the Brodhull (in April 1458 and April and July the following year) after the end of his mayoralty and the Dover accounts make no mention of his employment on special business. It is possible that his dwindling participation in the affairs of the Port may have been due to a weight of litigation, arising from his marriage, which reached a climax in the late 1450s and early 1460s. This litigation may also point to some local resentment of Doyly’s wealth and position.

Doyly’s entanglement in the lawsuits concerning the affairs of Ralph Toke began even before his marriage. In Trinity term 1453 he was pursuing Toke’s debtors in the court of common pleas and in Chancery around the same time he sued Thomas Quylter of Goodnestone, a tenant of the manor which he and Toke had purchased together, for refusing to pay rent. On the latter occasion surety for Doyly was provided by Gervase Clifton*, the former lieutenant of Dover castle.12 CP40/770, rot. 302d; C1/71/13; C4/2/13. Further litigation arose from Toke’s purchase of property in Rodmersham from the executors and feoffees of William Egyngden. The sale had not been finalized during Toke’s lifetime and his executors could not gain possession of the property. Having failed to make progress at common law, Doyly appealed to the chancellor to call the feoffees before him and compel them to deliver seisin as they had promised.13 C1/19/343-4; CP40/760, rot. 73. The most complex lawsuit, however, arose after Elizabeth’s death some time in the late 1450s from the division of Toke’s estate between his three sons. One of them, William, alleged that in his father’s will certain properties scattered throughout east Kent had been settled on Elizabeth, with remainder to him. When she died William had requested Doyly to make seisin to him in accordance with his father’s bequest, but instead the property had been divided between all of Ralph’s sons in accordance with the custom of gavelkind. Doyly answered that during his lifetime Toke had bargained with the executors of William Brewes* and John Guston for some of the property, but at the time of his death the sale had not been finalized. Thus, for ‘the gret love he had unto the said heires’ of Ralph Toke, he had used his own money to buy the property, which he held in trust for Toke and his heirs and stated that he was quite willing to deliver these lands if satisfied of the sums he had paid out to purchase them. In December 1461, by writ of dedimus postetatem, the matter was passed to the abbot of St. Augustine’s and prior of Christ Church, Canterbury. On the following 4 Apr. examinations were made of the parties and witnesses concerning the value of Toke’s estate that had come to the possession of Doyly and whether or not he had sufficient to pay the sums outstanding on Ralph’s purchases of land. William claimed that on his father’s death an inventory had been made of his goods and chattels and debts owing to him which valued Toke’s estate at the extraordinary sum of £1,002 13s. 11d. He further claimed, however, that Doyly had fraudulently entered fictitious debts that Ralph owed to other men and had omitted certain debts owed to him. Therefore the goods were ‘not apprised therin to the halff value of the same’, thus considerably undervaluing Ralph’s estate at his death, presumably to enrich himself. The examinations are not complete, nor is the outcome of this case recorded, but the weight of evidence appears to have backed William against his stepfather.14 C1/27/302-4, 309.

Little other evidence survives of the last years of Doyly’s career. It is clear, however, that the connexions he had made through his membership of the King’s household remained important throughout the 1450s. In 1458 the Brodhull allowed a process of withernam in which he was involved with (Sir) Gervase Clifton,15 White and Blk. Bks. 39. and he had developed links with other important landowners in the county, leading to his presence at the parliamentary election for Kent held at Canterbury in September 1460.16 C219/16/6. In Hilary term 1461 he was among a group of feoffees, including William Haute* and Sir Thomas Kyriel*, from whom the archbishop of Canterbury recovered property in Nonington at common law.17 CP40/800, rot. 130d. Nevertheless, he maintained his links with his fellow Portsmen. During the mid 1450s, along with John Toke and 28 other Dover men, he had been accused of ‘a certain trespass and other enormous offences’ committed against the King. Their fate was still undecided in Hilary term 1458, although the nature of their crimes is unclear. The case was still in progress in Michaelmas term 1462, when the process of outlawry was begun against those still alive.18 KB27/787, rex rot. 5; 806, rex rot. 12. Meanwhile, on 10 Mar. 1462 Doyly had sued out his own pardon of all offences.19 C67/45, m. 23. On 11 June the following year, however, a pardon to ‘Geoffrey Doyle, late of Dover, gentleman’ was enrolled on the patent roll. It seems likely that the name ‘Geoffrey’ was an unfortunate error in the enrolment of a further pardon to our MP. Doyle, then a prisoner in the Marshalsea, pleaded this latter pardon, as ‘Geoffrey Doyle’ in King’s bench later that term for certain unspecified felonies,20 CPR, 1461-7, p. 267; KB27/809, rex rot. 3. but he was in fact to be identified with our MP is strengthened by the inclusion of ‘Geoffrey’ in the list of men (including Toke and others named in the earlier process) ordered to be before the King in the following Hilary term to settle the fine imposed upon them for this offence.21 KB27/809, rex rot. 12d. Thomas Doyly was last recorded as a jurat for Dover in September 1462. He was not mentioned in the next extant list of jurats for 1467-8 and was almost certainly dead by this date.22 Add. 29616, ff. 3, 15.