ROGER, John III

Although little is recorded about his family, the earliest references to Roger show him living at Headcorn in Kent. In October 1439, described as a ‘gentleman’ of that place, he was already of sufficient prominence in the county to stand surety for Sir John Styward the new keeper of Rochester castle. CFR, xvii. 108. Roger’s early career was focused on Kent, although the ways in which he made his mark did not necessarily endear him to the wider populace. Particularly significant were his links with the likes of Stephen Slegge*, whose reputation for corruption and the manipulation of justice made him among the principal targets of the Kentish rebels of 1450. Roger’s connexion with Slegge was a strong one: the two men were involved together in business and property transactions, such as in 1447 when they were among those who were jointly enfeoffed of the manor of Gatesden in Tenterden, and Slegge chose him as his under sheriff a year later. C241/233/10; CCR, 1441-7, pp. 484-5; C1/21/14. While the private dealings did not arouse much controversy, Roger’s actions while serving as an under sheriff during a period when the shrievalty was dominated by followers of James Fiennes*, Lord Saye and Sele, certainly did so. These were brought to light when, in the immediate aftermath of the Cade rebellion of 1450, presentments were made before justices of oyer and terminer investigating allegations of extortion and other offences committed by Crown officials in Kent, particularly members of Saye’s circle. One such inquisition, held at Rochester on 21 Aug., heard that John Roger and John Alphewe of Chiddingstone, while serving as under sheriffs to John Warner* in May 1442, had extorted 40s. ‘by colour of their office’ from a Rochester cordwainer; and while Slegge was sheriff six years later they allegedly obtained a similar sum from another local resident. The presentments referred to both Roger and Alphewe as common extortioners and oppressors of the King’s people. Further evidence of Roger’s misdeeds was presented to the justices at Maidstone in September, when it was alleged that he had forged a bond for the sum of 40s. which he then tried to recover through the courts from one John Swan. The latter was subsequently outlawed, which prompted Roger to try to extract 10s. from him in return for putting an end to his litigation. Virgoe, 223, 232.

The full extent of Roger’s involvement with the ‘extorcioners’ of Kent during the 1440s is unclear, but the evidence does suggest that he took an active role in many of the abuses that were the subject of bitter complaint in 1450. Moreover, his alleged treatment of John Swan suggests that he was not averse to using the same methods in his private dealings. He undoubtedly took advantage of the relative weakness of others: he was able to enlarge his estate at Headcorn by buying some land from a local widow who was forced to sell because of her ‘gret poverte necessite et penurie’. The refusal of her feoffees to release the property to Roger might be interpreted as an unwillingness to co-operate with a man with a reputation for ruthlessness. C1/16/639. There is no evidence that any further action was taken against Roger in respect of the charges laid in 1450, and this seems to have contributed to the bitterness that continued to be felt against his activities and those of other prominent Kent officials. This resentment surfaced two years later during the duke of York’s attempted coup d’état, for in September 1452 an inquisition held at Eltham heard evidence concerning a small-scale rising at Harrietsham, during which the rebels, led by one Henry Hamon of Headcorn, proposed to send letters to York or the earl of Devon expressing their support for the petitions of the commons of Kent. The rebels were said to have plotted to kill a number of individuals who had consistently laboured against the local people: Roger’s name headed this list of men whose actions during the 1440s had not been forgotten. KB9/279, m. 99.

Remarkably, Roger’s unpopularity at home had little or no impact upon his subsequent career. By July 1452 he had joined the royal household as a yeoman of the King’s chamber, and less than a year later, in March 1453, now a King’s serjeant, he received with Thomas West, one of the leading esquires of the Household, a grant in reversion of the office of keeper of the armoury in the Tower of London, to fall to them after the death of John Malpas (an event which happened two years later). E404/69/184; CPR, 1452-61, p. 67; E159/231, brevia Trin. rot. 10d. Also in 1453 he and Morgan Meredith were appointed as joint keepers of the King’s armoury in South Wales. CPR, 1452-61, p. 106. Meanwhile, Roger had received other Crown appointments as surveyor of two of the royal parks, while in May 1455 he was appointed constable of the distant castle of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and in November granted letters of protection as about to sail to Calais with the treasurer there, (Sir) Gervase Clifton*. DKR, xlviii. 409. This rapid accumulation of offices and assignments in far flung places meant that Roger found himself spending more time away from Kent. This had implications for his duties as a coroner in the county, to which he had been appointed at some point before the summer of 1449: in July 1453 the sheriff was ordered to find a replacement because he was too busy elsewhere to attend to his duties. Nevertheless, Roger received a number of grants focused on his home county: four months later he was granted at the Exchequer the keeping of confiscated lands at Boughton Malherbe (near Headcorn), and in June 1454 he and William Ludlow II*, a prominent royal servant, were rewarded with the marriage of Joan Eveas, the daughter and heir of a Kentish landowner. CFR, xix. 66, 89.

Roger’s competence as an administrator brought him to the attention of the King’s half-brothers, the earls of Richmond and Pembroke. In 1453 and 1454 he twice stood surety for them at the Exchequer, and on another occasion he testified on oath about the fate of letters patent issued to Earl Jasper concerning the disposal of the lands of Sir William Oldhall. CFR, xix. 30, 112; CPR, 1452-61, p. 198. It is likely that he had been appointed as receiver-general to both men shortly after they were elevated to the peerage early in 1453. Apart from a later pardon, which merely refers to him as former receiver-general, few details are recorded of Roger’s activities in respect of this office. His formal employment by Richmond ended with the latter’s death in November 1456, although he continued to sue the late earl’s debtors, probably to protect the interests of his widow. Pembroke treated him oppressively in 1459, by suing for enforcement of a bond for £80 which Roger had entered at the staple at Westminster: the bond, dated 8 Mar., required payment just eight days later, and the earl obtained a writ to the sheriff of Kent to pursue him on the 22nd. Nevertheless, Roger kept his office, and in May 1460 once more stood surety for Pembroke, who, following the attainder of the duke of York was granted custody of his lordship of Newbury in Berkshire. Later that same month he acted in a similar capacity for the earl’s father, Owen Tudor, assigned various manors and lordships in Kent, which had been forfeited by the traitorous Lord Clinton. C241/242/3; CFR, xix. 266-7.

The late 1450s proved to be fruitful for Roger, particularly in Kent where he moved his principal place of residence from Headcorn to Leeds, so that in January 1458 he could be described in a general pardon as ‘of London, alias of Leeds, and late of Headcorn’. C67/42, m. 30. He forged close links with the prior of Leeds, standing surety for him when he was granted the keeping of the lordship of Leeds in June 1459 and again in 1461, and it was in the priory church that he eventually chose to be buried. In the meantime he had been given a renewal of the Exchequer lease on lands at Boughton Malherbe. CFR, xix. 224, 231; xx. 12. Roger’s continuing prominence as a Crown servant during this phase of his career ensured his presence on commissions which assessed the lands and goods of the attainted Sir William Oldhall in February and March 1460.

The invasion of the Yorkist lords in the summer of 1460 and the eventual deposition of Henry VI marked the end of the careers of many staunch supporters of the King who, like Roger, had depended upon Lancastrian patronage for their success. Surprisingly, however, in Roger’s case the change of regime had little noticeable effect upon his fortunes. The reasons for his survival doubtless included his ability as an administrator, and his political acumen. He successfully played down his links with the earl of Pembroke, whose armed opposition in Wales was to cause Edward IV’s government serious problems during the 1460s. Of particular importance in enabling Roger to shift the focus of his allegiances was his attachment to another aristocratic family, the Staffords. This link may have been forged by the autumn of 1457 when Roger had been appointed to a commission to purvey arms and workmen for the defence of Dover, where Humphrey, duke of Buckingham, was constable of the castle, and he may have been the man who, in the spring of 1460, the duke employed as his attorney in the court of common pleas. CPR, 1452-61, p. 401; CP40/797, att. rot. 2. Perhaps the main advantage of a link with the Stafford affinity was that, although Buckingham’s loyalty to Henry VI led to his death fighting on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Northampton, the Staffords were connected with the new regime through the duke’s widow, Duchess Anne, who was sister to Richard Neville, earl of Salisbury. The continuity in Roger’s career can certainly be seen in his relations with the dowager for whom, in October 1460, April 1461 and February 1462, he stood surety when, together with Archbishop Bourgchier the duke’s half-brother, she was granted the keeping of her late husband’s estates during the minority of their grandson, the second duke. CFR, xix. 284-5; xx. 11, 62. He also received at the Exchequer reassignments for tallies issued to the late duke: E403/824, m. 6. Indeed, it may well have been at the instigation of the duchess that Roger was returned to his first Parliament, for the Stafford borough of Bletchingley in Surrey, for which a number of retainers and associates of Duke Humphrey had previously been selected. So, besides appearing on her behalf at the Exchequer (on the first occasion while that Parliament was in progress), he was on hand to carry out other business for the Staffords at Westminster in the autumn of 1460. Furthermore, he also served the late duke’s second son, Sir Henry Stafford, as his receiver-general, probably coming to his notice through his wife Margaret Beaufort, whose interests had concerned him following the death of her previous husband the earl of Richmond.

Although Roger appears to have been relieved of some of the Crown appointments he had acquired during the 1450s, the fact that he was not entirely excluded from positions of influence testifies to his success in putting his Lancastrian past behind him. In July 1461, shortly after Edward IV’s coronation, he was confirmed in office as sole keeper of the King’s armoury, a post that was unlikely to have been granted to someone whose loyalty could be called into question. Even so, although the appointment was technically his for life he was replaced just four months later. CPR, 1461-7, pp. 96, 121. The insecurity of Roger’s position is also suggested by his purchase of a pardon in February 1462, specifically in respect of his previous role as receiver-general to the earls of Pembroke and Richmond. C67/45, m. 33. Nevertheless, when he established further roots in both Kent and the capital during the 1460s it was once again with the assistance of the Crown, which granted him the keeping of property adjacent to his own holdings in Leeds and appointed him as collector of tunnage and poundage in the port of London in 1465. Three years later he secured a general pardon in respect of the latter office. His work clearly obliged him to become involved in affairs in the capital, but little of this involvement is recorded. He is, however, known to have owned property there, in the parish of St. Stephen Coleman Street. CPR, 1461-7, p. 287; 1467-77, p. 122; CFR, xx. 180, 185-6, 188-9, 203.

That Roger was chosen as MP for Bletchingley on two further occasions demonstrates the durability of his ties with the Staffords. The young Duke Henry might have had particular reason to value Roger’s presence in Parliament in 1467 and 1472, as by the time the first of these assemblies met our MP had taken yet another important step in his career, by securing appointment as ‘clerk’ to the treasurer of England, Richard Wydeville, Earl Rivers, the father-in-law to both the duke and the King. His duties at the Exchequer were effectively those of the treasurer’s deputy, and indeed during the fifteenth century the term ‘under treasurer’ came into more frequent usage, eventually superseding that of ‘clerk’. J.L. Kirby, ‘Rise of the Under-Treasurer’, EHR lxxi. 673-4. That it was not yet the official title for the job held by Roger is revealed in a statement from Rivers himself, made in response to letters of privy seal from the King requesting him to pay wages to whoever had been appointed as ‘under treasurer’. Rivers duly requested his officers to assign sufficient remuneration for this post ‘unto my servant John Rogger whom I have deputed and assigned for me to occupie the charge and occupacion of the said office how be it I calle hym not my undir tresorer’. E404/74/1/155; Kirby, 676. Roger’s appointment, which earned him wages of 5d. a day during Exchequer terms and 8d. in the vacations, is significant in revealing the increased ‘politicization’ of the office, traditionally held by men with long experience of work in the Exchequer itself. Roger’s concurrent appointment as a teller can be seen in a similar light: he was a man with considerable administrative experience outside the Exchequer who was now appointed to two important positions within this previously self-selecting department. It is likely that he completed his tasks diligently, for the rewards were substantial: in May 1469 he was paid as much as £120 for his labours during the vacation. E403/842, m. 6.

During his time as assistant to the treasurer Roger was responsible for receiving payments at the Exchequer on behalf of Earl Rivers and his wife, for the King’s sister Margaret, and for the King himself in the Chamber. E403/838, m. 4; 839, m. 1; 840, mm. 2, 11; 842, m. 2. One of the most important tasks discharged by him was the repayment of the Crown’s creditors, whether these were prominent individuals owed substantial sums for the loans they had made to Edward IV, or artisans and merchants who had supplied goods to the Household and royal wardrobe. The usual method of repayment often required Roger, Thomas Pound* (an Exchequer official of very long standing), and the London mercer William Kerver to settle the accounts themselves, after which they would in turn seek reimbursement from the Receipt. Consequently, some of the surviving evidence for Roger’s activities at the Exchequer comprises warrants issued by the King to the treasurer making arrangements to repay him for sums he had paid out to settle the Crown’s debts. In December 1467, for example, issues were authorized to Rivers, Roger and other officials in respect of the huge loan of almost £8,469, made by the Florentine merchant Gherado Caniziani. In February the following year they delivered £2,000 directly to the King’s chamber, and in April Roger and Kerver were reimbursed following the repayment of loans made by London merchants and the suppliers of large quantities of gun-metal, gunpowder, sheaves of arrows and bows to the master of the ordnance. E404/73/3/72; 74/1/8; E403/839, m. 12. For dealings with Caniziani, see also E403/840, mm. 16, 17. In the case of some loans other means of repayment had to be improvised: letters patent issued in August 1467 granted Rivers, Roger, Pound and Kerver revenues from the customs collected in London and a number of other ports on the south coast, as well as income from wardships and marriages pertaining to the Crown, in order to repay them £6,500 which they had ‘lent’ to the King; while four months later they received a similar grant which also included licences to export wool through the straits of Morroco free of customs duties. CPR, 1467-77, pp. 33, 59; CCR, 1461-8, pp. 427-8; E405/47, rot. 2. Further letters patent were enrolled in April, May and June 1468 permitting Roger to receive revenues from Crown lands in various counties, as well as further rights to ship wool and import merchandise from Italy. CPR, 1467-77, pp. 82, 85, 88, 92; E403/840, m. 8; 841, m. 3. The Crown was also able to exploit other sources of revenue: in July 1468, a warrant required the treasurer to repay Roger and Kerver £1,000 out of the hefty fines levied on Thomas Cook II* and his fellow conspirators, whose trials for treason had taken place earlier that month. E404/74/1/54; E403/840, m. 2; 842, m. 11.

Earl Rivers was killed in August 1469, and Roger was promptly replaced as clerk on the appointment of a new treasurer. Yet this was not the end of his involvement with the Exchequer. In March 1470 he and Kerver were licenced to export 1,000 pells free of customs; C76/154, m. 8.and he continued to be a beneficiary of warrants sent to future treasurers. Thus, in the autumn of 1471 tallies were issued to Roger for the repayment of separate sums of £200 and £340 owed to Venetian merchants. In settlement of the second of these debts he was to receive £20 p.a. from the profits of the town and port of Sandwich – revenues which he himself collected following his appointment as bailiff of the town in 1468. His fellow bailiff was a certain John Adam, described in several sources as ‘fratris suis’, although nothing else is recorded to clarify their relationship. E404/75/1/31, 33; CPR, 1467-77, pp. 108, 281-2; E364/106, rot. Cd. Roger’s authority at Sandwich was buttressed with the help of the Staffords, for in June 1471 he was chosen as deputy in the port to the newly-appointed chief butler of England, John Stafford, earl of Wiltshire. CPR, 1467-77, p. 262. At the same time he was reappointed as a customer in the port of London. He held both posts concurrently until the spring of 1473. CFR, xxi. no. 10.

During his time at the Exchequer Roger had received a number of other royal grants and appointments, all of which testify to his standing. In September 1468 he and his wife, Alice (of whom nothing is recorded before this date), were together granted two acres of estover and underwood in the King’s woods in Leeds, Langley and Sutton in Kent which they might use for fuel. Together, a few years later John and Alice sued Ralph Wolseley*, by then a demoted baron of the Exchequer, for the substantial sum of £200, but the background to this significant transaction has not been discovered. CPR, 1467-77, pp. 109, 577. Other of Roger’s dealings in the 1470s arose out of his association with the London mercer, William Kerver, and the latter’s kinsman, Edmund. At some point between 1467 and 1472 Roger and Edmund purchased a quantity of wine from one David Dewystokke who, despite being paid the agreed amount of £20, intended to be ‘double content’ of the sum, forcing Roger to petition Chancery for redress. He also sought the help of the chancellor in his dealings with Umfredo Gentile, a merchant of Lucca, which had gone sour. C1/10/185; 47/38; 51/291. In June 1476 Roger took out letters of protection for one year as joining the retinue of William, Lord Hastings, the lieutenant of Calais, presumably in an administrative rather than a military capacity. C76/160, m. 8. All this while he had been consolidating his reputation in his native county, and when in 1478 he was returned to Parliament for a fourth time, it was for the city of Rochester, the scene of the presentments made against him almost 30 years before. Clearly the memory of his activities in the 1440s had faded, replaced perhaps by respect for his prominence within the royal administration.

Roger long remained a creditor of the Crown. In April 1480 he was the subject of another warrant sent to the treasurer ordering that he be satisfied with payment of sums of money amounting to £357 11s. 7d.; and the same month further steps were taken to ensure that he was repaid £570 owing to him. The original letters patent granting him the joint bailiwick of Sandwich were cancelled and replaced with others naming him and his wife Alice as bailiffs. Not surprisingly, John Adam resented being removed from his position and in October he petitioned the King requesting the tenor of the earlier letters patent, which he claimed to have lost. His protests had little effect and John and Alice continued to hold the bailiwick until June 1485 when, the debt presumably having been settled, further letters patent were issued which appointed Roger and Richard III’s servant, Roger Duplache, to the office. Henry VII replaced the two men less than a year later, and shortly afterwards Roger, along with Alice, was pardoned as ‘former bailiff of Sandwich’. E404/77/1/5; CPR, 1476-85, pp. 189, 221, 471; 1485-94, p. 93; C67/53, m. 18.

Roger appears to have spent the remainder of his life in retirement in Leeds. In his will made on 31 Dec. 1489 he asked to be buried next to Alice (who was now dead), in Leeds priory church. He had recently married for a second time, and now named his new wife, Parnell, as his sole executrix. She was to take responsibility for collecting several debts owed to Roger by local gentry, including the sum of £53 6s. 8d. due from Thomas Hussey of Leveham and John Howlott, to whom he had recently sold property in Leeds. No record of probate survives, but it is likely that Roger died early in 1490. PCC 27 Milles (PROB11/8, f. 217). Parnell, who became a vowess, had to seek help from the chancellor in her attempts to secure the 90 marks she said was still owed by Hussey. C1/158/3-5.