WALTER, Thomas

In spite of his links with the Lancastrian establishment, it is unclear whether Walter should be identified with the Thomas Walter who took out letters of protection in February 1427, prior to crossing the Channel as a retainer of the King’s uncle, Humphrey, duke of Gloucester. DKR, xlviii. 246. The earliest certain reference to him is a deed of 1438, in which he features as a witness to a gift of goods and chattels that a mariner of Sandwich made to John Becket* of the royal household and the merchant, David Selby. A feature of his career, like that of William Say*, was a connexion with both Kent and Westminster. Yet it is unclear whether his origins lay in Kent or if, like a number of royal servants during this period, he owed the connexion to interests that he himself had acquired in that county. He seems to have taken up residence in Westminster by the early 1440s, and he was certainly living there in December 1442 when he made a gift of goods and chattels to Richard Duy and Walter Thornewerk. Two years later, as a recipient of a similar gift from a Kentish clergyman, Walter was described as a yeoman dwelling in Westminster. CCR, 1441-7, pp. 65, 127, 229. While the description almost certainly reflects his employment in the King’s service, he features (as a ‘valet of the chamber’) in just two of the extant Household accounts from Henry VI’s reign, those covering the accounting years 1450-2. E101/410/6, f. 41; 410/9, f. 44.

Walter’s first appearance in Parliament was for Bletchingley. He was one of several men connected with Kent returned for that Surrey borough in this period, a consequence of the strong ties between Kent and the Staffords, lords of Bletchingley. While there is no evidence of a connexion between him and Humphrey, earl of Stafford (later duke of Buckingham), it is possible that he was engaged in the service of the earl or, perhaps, that of a Stafford retainer like Thomas Hextall*. Two years later, Walter was returned to the Commons for Canterbury, and in this instance his connexions within the Household probably played a significant part. His election came at a sensitive time: interference in parliamentary elections in Kent was one of the complaints that Cade’s rebels would level in June 1450 against the ‘gret extorcioners’ in the county, a group headed by James Fiennes*, Lord Saye and Sele. These charges were aimed particularly at the shire elections, where all of those returned during the 1440s were associated with the Household circle of Lord Saye, a dominance reinforced by the likes of William Cromer* and Stephen Slegge* who used their shrievalties to further Saye’s interests. R.A. Griffiths, Hen. VI, 633-4. Yet urban elections were not immune from such allegations, and while the evidence for Household connexions is far less clear at Canterbury, it is worth noting the Chamber attachments of Walter and the likes of William Say, who sat for the city in 1442 and 1447. Spread over three sessions, the Parliament of February 1449 lasted for 107 days, but Walter was allowed wages for just 60 and his fellow MP, William Bolde*, for 65, each at a daily rate of 12d. Bolde did however receive a further 20s. for ‘divers things done in the name of the commonalty’. Canterbury Cath. Arch., Canterbury city recs., chamberlains’ accts. 1445-1506, CCA-CC-F/A/2, f. 27. Both Walter and Bolde were among those in Kent who felt it prudent to obtain general pardons in the immediate aftermath of the 1450 revolt, although soon afterwards Walter was actively resisting the rebels. On 26 Nov. that year, the Crown ordered the treasurer to pay him and nine others £10 for their efforts in arresting one Simon Scryven, alias Simon Thaccher, ‘the which ayenst oure peas arreised people in oure seid countee and stired thaim to insurreccion and rebellion’. In the following month, it appointed him to a commission in Kent charged with arresting all those who had participated in the rising. CPR, 1444-52, pp. 344, 354, 436; E404/67/94.

While Walter continued to serve in the Household during the 1450s, few (if any) royal grants came his way and the only indication of his standing is his appointment in 1452 to a commission in Berkshire, to arrest those alleged to have robbed Eton College, the King’s foundation, of goods and jewels. E101/410/6, f. 41v; 410/9, f. 44; CPR, 1446-52, pp. 584-5. Nevertheless, his position in Westminster and in Kent ensured that he was returned for Canterbury once again in 1453, to a Parliament whose Members included a relatively high proportion of men connected with the Household. Although in being for 55 weeks, this assembly sat for just 21 weeks and four days. The Canterbury chamberlains’ accounts neither reveal the rate at which Walter was paid or how many days he attended, although they do show that he was allowed a total of £10 6s. in wages, of which sum he certainly received 70s. The accounts do not, however, mention his fellow burgess, William Selowe*, meaning that it is unclear whether Selowe actually took up his seat. CCA-CC-F/A/2, ff. 41, 44v.

Even though the Parliament of 1453 was one of the most ‘royalist’ and compliant of Henry VI’s reign, there is evidence to suggest that Walter’s loyalties to the Lancastrian Crown were not as strong as his activities to date might suggest. By November 1454, when new ordinances were drawn up for the reform of the royal household, he had apparently been removed from his position in the Chamber, and he was certainly not among the yeomen granted the usual robes and wages a year later. PPC, vi. 223-7; E361/6, rot. 50. The probable reason for his dismissal was his participation in rebellions in Kent, indicating a remarkable conversion to the cause of those whom he had pursued so energetically in 1450. Matters came to a head in November 1457, when the Crown instituted a commission of oyer and terminer tasked with investigating Walter and others accused of treasons and insurrections in the county, possibly in connexion with the short-lived risings in support of the duke of York’s attempted coup d’etat of 1452. There is no record of any presentments against him, although there were further efforts to bring him to book. In August 1458 the Crown commanded the earl of Oxford to arrest him and bring him into Chancery, and a month later another commission of oyer and terminer was ordered to investigate the treasons and felonies committed by Thomas Walter, late of Canterbury, yeoman. Despite the serious nature of the charges, Walter appears to have escaped punishment in the years immediately preceding the deposition of Henry VI. In April 1459 he was able to obtain a pardon of the outlawry he had incurred for failing to answer suits for debts brought by several London merchants some years before. CPR, 1452-61, pp. 406, 443, 455, 488.

The deposition of Henry VI brought this turbulent period in Walter’s career to an end, and in January 1461 the government, then in control of the Yorkists, appointed him to a commission charged with arresting and imprisoning those guilty of illegal gatherings and congregations. Little else is recorded of him. In February 1462 he obtained a royal pardon from Edward IV in which he was described as ‘of Westminster, alias late of Canterbury alias formerly one of the yeomen of Crown’. CPR, 1452-61, p. 655; C67/45, m. 40. He was still alive in March 1464, when Richard Wynstone of Faversham, Kent, appointed him his executor. Archaeologia Cantiana, xi. 380.