VERNEY, Ralph

Verney was a member of a family with strong historical ties with the county of Buckinghamshire, where his ancestors held by the 1220s the manor of Fleet Marston, a property that was to remain the family’s principal residence in the county until the much later acquisition of Middle Claydon and the construction of the first Claydon House. VCH Bucks. iv. 74. It was, nevertheless, Ralph whose efforts laid the foundations of the wealth and prestige which led to the creation of a baronetcy for a later Sir Ralph† in 1661, and a shortlived earldom in 1742. For the later Verneys see Oxf. DNB; Verney Pprs. (Cam. Soc. lvi), 12-41; S.E. Whyman, Sociability and Power in Late Stuart Eng.: The Cultural Worlds of the Verneys 1660-1720. Little is known of the MP’s parents, but a later and generally reliable source gives the name of his father as Ralph Verney of London. Stowe 860, f. 56; Cal. Letter Bk. London, K, 12, 312. This elder Ralph had at some point in the early 15th century inherited Fleet Marston from his own father, Edward. VCH Bucks. iv. 74.

Verney’s parents were able to place him as an apprentice with a member of London’s leading company, the Mercers. He probably began his apprenticeship with Thomas Fauconer* in 1425, since he issued from it in 1435-6, presumably at the end of the customary ten-year term. Med. Acct. Bks. of the Mercers, 481, 483. He secured admission to the livery in 1439-40, and that same year he was fined for failing to ride with the new mayor, his fellow mercer Robert Large*. Over the course of his career he was to serve as a warden or master of his company on no fewer than six occasions and was to enrol at least 19 apprentices, two of whom he took on shortly before his death in 1478. Ibid. 537, 627, 669, 797, 801, 843; Sutton, 557. As an increasingly prominent member of the Company he became a feoffee of some of its quitrents in 1457, although like other liverymen he was occasionally fined for not coming to meetings of the court. Med. Acct. Bks. of the Mercers, 537; Acts. of Ct. Mercers’ Co. 1453-1527 ed. Lyell and Watney, 45, 48, 78, 96.

Verney’s mercantile activities were typical of those of other prominent London mercers. He was actively involved in the cloth trade, periodically taking shipments to the continent through the port of London. E.g. E122/73/20, mm. 15, 18d. Proceeds from his ventures were used to fund purchases of goods to be imported into England: in 1446-7 he brought in various types of linen and cloth, as well as canvas and paper, while two years later his shipments included quantities of hemp, bolting cloth and wire. He continued to import goods into both London and Southampton throughout his career: in May 1473 a galley docking in Southampton had on board £30 worth of buckram and other commodities belonging to him. E122/72/23, ff.15v, 16v, 19v; 142/8, f. 21; 203/3, ff. 8-9. Once such goods arrived in England they were sold on to middlemen in various parts of the country. In 1446 a York chapman died owing Verney and Hugh Wyche* £13 and 22s. respectively, debts which may well have been incurred in the purchase from the Londoners of the many different types of cloth which the provincial trader stocked. P. Nightingale, Med. Mercantile Community, 440; Test. Ebor. iii. (Surtees Soc. xlv), 101-5. Other debts owed to Verney also reflect the extent of his domestic trading activities, as do some of the ‘gifts’ of goods and chattels which were made to him and others, probably as part of credit agreements. These indicate business relationships across the south-east, in Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, as well as in his native Buckinghamshire. CPR, 1446-52, p. 16; 1452-61, p. 384; CCR, 1454-61, pp. 296-8; 1468-76, nos. 35, 932; Cal. P. and M. London, 1458-82, p. 53. In London Verney was naturally connected closely with the more important members of the Mercers’ Company, and his association with men such as Richard Needham*, Thomas Urswyk II* and John Young I* as recipents of deeds of gift suggests that he had financing or trading links with some of the capital’s leading citizens. Particularly close, it seems, were his ties with Geoffrey Boleyn*, who appointed him a feoffee of his estates, and later an executor of his will. He was also a trustee of property belonging to John Middleton*, although the relationship broke down at Middleton’s death, and shortly before his own death Verney and his co-feoffees were sued in Chancery by four of Middleton’s sons. PCC 1 Godyn (PROB 11/5, ff. 3v-6); Corp. London RO, hr 192/23; Cal. Letter Bk. London, L, 51; CCR, 1461-8, pp. 206-7; CPR, 1461-7, p. 141; C1/50/31-37. Verney’s contacts with members of other crafts were even more extensive, indicating that he was probably supplying a wide range of commodities, not just those typically sold by mercers. These links were especially pronounced from the end of the 1460s and into the early 1470s, when he had dealings with London shearmen, fishmongers, drapers, salters and skinners. CCR, 1441-7, p. 355; 1447-54, p. 363; 1454-61, pp. 48, 116; 1461-8, p. 143; 1468-76, nos. 190, 1373, 3175; 1476-85, nos. 112, 366, 369; Cal. P. and M. London, 1437-57, p. 185; 1458-82, pp. 154, 161-3, 165-6, 168.

Verney invested at least some of the profits from his business dealings in the acquisition of property. It seems likely that he owned a substantial residence in the parish of St. Martin Pomary, where he was living at the time of his death and early in his career he was one of three holders of a tenement in the parish of St. Michael Bassishaw. Cal. P. and M. London, 1437-57, p. 56. He also developed interests elsewhere. As early as May 1437 he had obtained a release of lands and tenements in New and Old Windsor in Berkshire, and in later years he added to the family holdings in Buckinghamshire. The manor of Grove in Ellesborough was one of his acquisitions, which was granted to him and Robert Whittingham II* in 1459 by a group of trustees, to the use of Verney and his heirs. CCR, 1435-41, pp. 120-1; VCH Bucks. ii. 335 and n. At his death Verney was said to hold property of the Crown in Buckinghamshire worth a total of £12 10s. p.a. This included the family manor of Fleet Marston, holdings in Aylesbury acquired by royal grant in 1467, and other estates at Burcot. C140/65/23. Not mentioned in his inqusition post mortem nor in his will is the manor of Middle Claydon, which seems to have come to the Verneys in about 1434 – in what circumstances, is unclear – and was certainly in Ralph’s possession by 1463, when he presented to the church. It is not known, however, whether it was Ralph or his son John who built the first Claydon House there. VCH Bucks. iv. 33; Verney Pprs. 22. By the early 1470s, despite his activities in London, Verney was sufficiently active in Buckinghamshire to be appointed to the county bench.

Verney’s career in London took time to develop, for despite being admitted to the livery of his company in 1439 or 1440, he was not appointed to any kind of office in the city until October 1452, when he was chosen to serve on a committee concerned with tithes. Jnl. 5, f. 88v. He served on several such committees over the next few years, and had almost certainly joined the common council by 1456. That autumn he was chosen as one of the two sheriffs of London and Middlesex, and shortly after completing his year in office made a bid for the vacant aldermanry of Bassishaw ward. He was unsuccessful, losing out to his friend Boleyn, but about a month later was chosen instead for the aldermanry of Castle Baynard, receiving ten votes from the aldermen compared to the five lodged for John Stocker. This does not seem to have satsfied him, for even in April 1458 he tried to translate his aldermanry to Vintry ward; he was not successful, gaining the support of just one of his fellow aldermen. Ibid. f. 105v; 6, ff. 28, 59, 118v, 132, 184v, 187, 195.

He had by now also been drawn into wider politics. In July 1453, probably under the impression of military disaster in Gascony, he and a fellow mercer Geoffrey Feldyng* had advanced a loan of £98 to the Crown. E401/831, m. 34; E403/793, m. 16. Verney’s failure to provide any other loan to Henry VI’s administration, either earlier or later, may be at least partly indicative of his political outlook, as was an incident in the spring of 1454, shortly after the duke of York was appointed Protector, when rioting broke out in the streets of the capital, directed against men of the Neville earls of Salisbury and Warwick, York’s chief supporters. Seven Londoners were said to have been hurt during the riots, and a number of Salisbury’s men were put in prison. Their release was secured only after Verney, John Harowe* and others had stood surety for them. Jnl. 5, f. 152. Yet to say that Verney was a supporter of York would be stretching the evidence too far. Indeed, it is probable that York’s Neville supporters blamed him for the escape of Thomas Percy, Lord Egremont, from Newgate prison, which had occurred in November 1456 during the early months of Verney’s shrievalty. Moreover, at this very period Verney also contracted a prestigious and profitable marriage for his eldest son to the daughter of a leading courtier, Robert Whittingham II, keeper of the wardrobe to Queen Margaret and receiver-general of Prince Edward. The marriage had evidently taken place by the summer of 1457 when Verney was enfeoffed by Whittingham of property in several London parishes. CPR, 1461-7, p. 521. Since Whittingham’s son had probably died by this point, Margaret stood to inherit substantial estates in Bucks. and Herts. Only on 20 Mar. 1458, five days before the conciliatory ‘Love-day’ at St. Paul’s, did the earl of Salisbury, Sir John and Sir Thomas Neville and the two former sheriffs of London (Verney and John Stiward) seal reciprocal acquittances settling their grievances. KB27/788, rots. 87, 89.

It is possible that Verney’s connexion with Whittingham played a part in his election to Parliament in 1459. The renewed discord between the supporters of Richard, duke of York, and Henry VI’s court found its outlet that autumn in open civil war. When Parliament assembled at Coventry in the aftermath of the rout of the Yorkists at Ludford Bridge and the flight of York and his Neville allies, the attainder of the exiles became its principal business. In subsequent months the Londoners also sought to capitalize on Verney’s links with the court. Thus, he was twice part of deputations to the King, the second of which, appointed in the wake of the Yorkist invasion in June 1460 and, as would transpire, on the eve of the decisive battle at Northampton, was charged with the delicate task of excusing the city from providing the monarch with material help in his moment of need. Jnl. 6, ff. 196v, 227.

The Londoners’ caution was well advised, since it took another year until the Yorkists were able to stabilize their rule. While Verney had ostensibly done nothing to cause Edward’s administration to be suspicious of him, he took the precaution of suing out a pardon from the new King in February 1462. C67/45, m.40. A few weeks earlier, Robert Whittingham had been attainted by Edward IV’s first Parliament, and his daughter’s prospects wiped out by the forfeiture of his lands. The bulk of the Whittingham estates were subsequently granted to Sir Thomas Montgomery†, although some were given to Richard, duke of Gloucester. Verney’s response to this ostensible setback was to cultivate links with the new regime. His first opportunity came with the death of Geoffrey Boleyn, which put him in a powerful position as one of the executors of his estate. In June 1463 he and the late mercer’s widow, Anne, delivered the sum of £733 6s. 8d. to the King. E403/830, mm. 1-2. For himself, Verney secured the aldermanry of Bassishaw, vacated by Boleyn, which he was to hold until his death. Over the next few years he further boosted his profile in the city by serving as one of the four auditors and acting by as an arbiter in a dispute between the widow and son of John Walden*. CCR, 1461-8, pp. 273, 307-8. In the autumn of 1465 Verney was chosen as mayor of the city, and it was during his mayoralty that he made his first attempt to gain possession of some of the Whittingham lands, even though Whittingham was still alive, albeit in exile. As a consquence, in the first instance Verney targeted the property in the capital which had been conveyed to him in the late 1450s, long before the attainder. In July and December 1466 two sets of royal commissioners were appointed to investigate Verney’s claim that the holdings should never have been seized by the Crown, as they had been in the hands of feoffees since long before Whittingham’s attainder. CPR, 1461-7, pp. 521, 553.

After completing his term as mayor, Verney continued to forge ties with the Yorkist administration. Even before he had reliquished the city mayoralty, he was chosen to succeed Geoffrey Feldyng as mayor of the Westminster staple, responsible for scrutinising and enforcing debt and credit arrangements made between merchants and their suppliers and customers, a post he would hold until his death, almost 12 years later. That Verney was now in favour with the new regime is clear from the grant made to him and his heirs in August 1467 of property in Buckinghamshire that had been forfeited by William Wandesford who, like Whittingham, had been attainted at Edward IV’s first Parliament. CPR, 467-77, p. 33; VCH Bucks. ii. 322. This was not altogether surprising, for he was now also repeatedly lending money to the administration. In the early summer of 1468 he played an important part in securing the funds required for the marriage of Edward IV’s sister, Margaret, to Charles, duke of Burgundy, by advancing in excess of £200. E403/840, m. 9; 842, m. 9; E405/48, rot. 1d; 50, rot. 3d; CPR, 1467-77, p. 394; E404/74/1/45; Gt. Chron. London ed. Thomas and Thornley, 429; C. Scofield, Edw. IV, i. 453.

The political crisis of 1469-71 initially presented no ostensible problems for Verney who was once again chosen to represent London in the Parliament summoned by the earl of Warwick in the captive King’s name to meet at York, but cancelled before it could assemble. The same was arguably not true a year later, when Warwick’s complete disaffection with his cousin’s rule caused him to make terms with Margaret of Anjou, drive Edward into exile and return Henry VI to the throne. In Robert Whittingham, who had remained resolutely loyal to King Henry, Verney might have found an advocate, but it is not clear whether and for how long Whittingham returned to the capital during the Readeption. In the final months of 1470 Verney may have lain low, but early in the new year, as rumours of Edward IV’s imminent return began to circulate, he threw in his lot with the Yorkist cause. The court of aldermen was split, and many leading Londoners prevaricated. In February 1471 the mayor, John Stokton, fell ill or, according to one account, feigned illness. Richard Lee* was chosen to replace him, but was himself forced to step aside when Thomas Cook II*, who had been reinstated to his aldermanry by the Lancastrians, secured enough support to be able to take over as mayor. Cook, in turn, fled on hearing of the imminent arrival of the Yorkist forces in early April, at which point Verney seems to have temporarily assumed the reins of power. He thus played a pivotal role in the defence of London against the assault by the Bastard of Fauconberg. On 21 May Edward IV re-entered London in triumph and knighted no fewer than 12 aldermen, including Verney. John Vale’s Bk. ed. Kekewich et al., 48, 85n, 93, 219; Nightingale, 536; Cal. Letter Bk. London, L, 98; Scofield, i. 575.

On Edward’s return, Verney once again became active as a provider of finance to the administration. He lent a fresh £200 in the autumn of 1471, and over the course of the following two years made at least ten further loans. The sums involved were not huge by the standards of those advanced by other Londoners in that period, none exceeding the £101 13s. 3½d. he lent in the spring of 1473. Yet the frequency of his lending, which continued until the autumn of that year, suggests that he was seen as a useful source of funds by the government. A further sign of the regard in which Verney was held by the Crown came when he, along with Sir John Fogg† and others, was nominated by Edward IV to take possession of the estates of Sir John Arundell of Lanherne. They were to hold the lands until Sir John paid a fine of 6,000 marks for opposing the King at the battle of Tewkesbury. E405/54, rot. 3l; 55, rot. 3; 56, rots. 1, 3; 57, rot. 3; CIPM Hen. VII, i. 30; CCR, 1468-76, no. 723.

The death of Robert Whittingham at Tewkesbury and Verney’s continuing good relations with the King, provided him with a fresh opportunity to seek to gain possession of his daughter-in-law’s inheritance, albeit with limited success. In February 1472 ‘for certain sums of money’ he and a kinsman by marriage, Richard Fowler†, were granted the reversion, in the event of Sir Thomas Montgomery’s death without male issue, of three manors in Buckinghamshire, holdings in several other locations in the county, and property in three parishes in London, to the use of Verney and his heirs. The following month a grant was made by the King ‘in consideration of the good and faithful service of Ralph Verney knight’, to John and Margaret Verney which effectively reversed Whittingham’s attainder by allowing her to inherit her father’s estates. Crucially, however, the grant specifically excluded the lands granted to Montgomery and the duke of Gloucester, although she was granted the manor of Pendley in Hertfordshire. CPR, 1467-77, pp. 309, 329; VCH Herts. ii. 284-5. Clearly, an act of Parliament was required to achieve anything further, and Verney may have actively sought election to the Commons in the autumn of 1472 to promote such a measure. When the Lords and Commons assembled, John and Margaret petitioned succesfully for the reversal of Whittingham’s attainder and for the return of her full inheritance. Later, the King agreed to exempt the earlier grant to Verney and Fowler from the Act of Resumption passed by the Parliament in 1473. RP, vi. 27, 90. Yet, while the Verneys’ parliamentary campaign had been successful, Montgomery dug his heels in and continued to occupy the lands granted to him by Edward IV until his death in 1489. RP, vi. 317; VCH Herts. ii. 248; VCH Bucks. ii. 274, 300, 307; iii. 50; Verney Pprs. 18-22.

Little is recorded of Verney’s last years, although he continued to serve as both an alderman in London and as mayor of the Westminster staple until his death. On 11 June 1478 he drew up a will in which he asked to be buried in a tomb between the choir and the Lady chapel of the parish church of St. Martin Pomary, where he established a chantry for a term of ten years. In line with London custom, he divided his goods into three parts, of which the first was assigned to his widow, the second to his sons John and Ralph, and the last to his executors to fund his charitable bequests. He noted in his will that his two daughters, Beatrice and Margaret, had both received their marriage portions after their respective marriages to Henry Danvers and Sir Edward Raleigh of Farnborough in Warwickshire. Verney’s Buckinghamshire roots found reflection in further bequests, including 66s. 8d. left to the friary at Aylesbury, 100s. for repairs to the church at Fleet Marston and ten marks for distribution among the poor of the same town. To his stepson and former apprentice, John Pykyng, Verney left 100 marks, half in satisfaction of goods that had once belonged to his father and half representing the ‘good will, love and favour’ that Verney bore towards him for his mother’s sake. Substantial bequests were left by Verney to his servants, and the overseeer of his will, the alderman John Broun, received a covered cup of silver gilt. He also asked his executors to give ten marks to the Friars Minor in Northampton to pray for the soul of an ‘aunt’ named Dame Alice Reygnes (probably Alice, widow of Thomas Reygnes* of Bedfordshire), now the wife of one John Christmas, and all ‘my good doers for a certayne season’. His executors were his widow, his two sons, John and Ralph, and Henry Danvers. Sir Ralph died on 16 June, and probate of his will was granted nine days later. PCC 1 Logge; CFR, xxi. 150; C140/65/23; C1/230/53. It was the yr. Ralph rather than, as has sometimes been supposed, his father who married Eleanor, da. of Geoffrey Pole of Ellesborough. Pole’s first wife Edith, Eleanor’s mother, was half-sis. to Margaret Beaufort, the mother of the future Hen. VII. His 2nd wife, Bona, was the sis. of Henry Danvers, Verney’s son-in-law and executor. Eleanor herself became sister-in-law of Margaret, countess of Salisbury, the daughter of the duke of Clarence. VCH Bucks. ii. 332; G. Lipscomb, Bucks. iii. 612; F.N. Macnamara, Mems. Danvers Fam. 190-2.

In the years after Verney’s death Henry Danvers emerged as an important figure in the administration of his estate. In October 1483 he made a gift of his goods and chattels to Verney’s sons and to John Broun, almost certainly relating to sums of money totalling £1,200 which Danvers had advanced to Emma Verney in order to help pay off certain debts, in addition to £330 9s. advanced by Danvers to John Verney. In an attempt to secure control of the Verney estates, Danvers also began litigation in Chancery, but the Verney brothers denied his title, pointing out that at his death their father had left goods, chattels, merchandise and good debts totalling over £4,000, and that Danvers had already received more than £2,500 worth of goods. CCR, 1476-85, no. 1195; C1/59/32; 230/53; C4/10/15. Having secured his tenure of his father’s estates, after the accession of Henry VII John Verney made a fresh bid to gain possession of Whittingham’s lands, this time opting to emphasize Whittingham’s constancy to Henry VI, rather than his father’s service to Edward IV. RP, vi. 345, 370; VCH Bucks. ii. 322; Verney Pprs. 18-22.