The History of the Church and Manor of Wigan/Nicholas Towneley

by George Thomas Orlando Bridgeman

Nicholas Towneley, who, in 1528-9, as parson of Wigan and chaplain to the Cardinal, petitions the King (in his Court of the Duchy of Lancaster) concerning one Hugh Paige, who had been contumacious. The said Hugh had appeared in the parson's court on the Tuesday before Palm Sunday, 19 Hen. VIII. (31st March, 1528), to defend himself in an action for debt brought against him by one William Paige of Wigan, and on being asked what he had to say in his defence he refused to make any answer, whereupon the bailiff of the court proceeded to give judgment against him. But when the bailiff produced the records used for the purpose, the said Hugh, with "great violence," took them from him, thrust them into "hys hoys," and, taking a staff in his hand, "then standing in the said hous," said that "yf eny of them all came nere hym he shuld brayn them, and then the said Hugh departed." Since which time he has made no answer in the said action. Nicholas Towneley therefore prays the Court to command his appearance before the King's Council to answer the said charge.^[1]

This rector was a younger son of Nicholas Towneley (3rd son of John Towneley of Townley, in the county of Lancaster), and brother of Richard Towneley of Royle, in the county of Lancaster. He was chaplain to King Henry VIII.,^[2] clerk of the works at the building of Cardinal College, now Christ Church, Oxford,^[3] and chaplain to Cardinal Wolsey. He was appointed to the prebend of Dunnington in the cathedral church of York 29th December, 1531,^[4] and died in the following year, when his goods were administered by his nephew of the same name.

"Nicholas Towneley, administrator of the goods of Nicholas Towneley, late parson of the church and parish of Wigan (who died at Hampton Court on or about the 10th of November, 24 Hen. VIII., 1532,)" complains that certain corn and hay of the value of £30, lying in the barn at the parsonage at Wigan, the property of the said Nicholas Towneley, deceased, had been unlawfully seized by Geoffrey Sherington, William Hasteley, chaplain, curate of Wigan, and Robert Chatton, who with divers other riotous persons, "forcibly and in manner of warr with bowes, staves, clobbes, swerdes, daggers, and other wepens of warre, appareiled and araied, came, menassed, and thretenyd to bete and ill entreate" the said Nicholas, if he meddled with any of the said corn or hay, in consequence of which the said Nicholas, to avoid further strife and variance, was obliged to "forsak the further enterprise and meddlyng" to his "grete losse and hynderaunce." He therefore entreats that an order may be granted commanding the said riotous persons to answer the charges brought against them. On their appearance in court, the said Robert Chatton, Geoffrey Sherington, and William Hasteley, clerk, in answer to the said charges, declare the bill of complaint of Nicholas to be "insufficient in the lawe," inasmuch as the complainant does not allege any certain day when the supposed riot was committed. Robert Chatton denies all the charges, and Geoffrey Sherington and William Hasteley state that when the said complainant came to Wigan, they told him that they had orders from one Mr. Richard Smyth, clerk, parson of the church of Bury and official of the Bishop of Chester, that they should stay the said corn and hay, and, in peaceable manner, without any weapon, they desired the complainant to leave it in the barn until Mr. Smyth had been communicated with; William Hasteley at the same time giving a quart of wine to the complainant, whom they allege to have departed forthwith in "good manner." The said defendants also state that they were not aware at that time that the said administration had been committed to the complainant, and to their certain knowledge the said corn and hay were still in the parsonage barn.

Nicholas Towneley, in reply to these statements, avers that when he came to the barn, accompanied by Rauf Standisshe, Esquire,^[5] and Alexander his son, and some of his servants, he found the defendants ready with their weapons to maintain possession for the said Richard Smyth, and that he offered to be bound in £40 to Geoffrey Sherington to discharge them for the said corn and hay, if they would allow him peaceably to have the same. But this offer was refused, and Nicholas being enforced to leave, went to the said Smith and obtained a letter from him to William Hasteley, commanding him to let him (the said Nicholas) take possession of the said corn and hay. When, however, three of his servants were sent to the barn for that purpose they were resisted by the defendants, and were obliged to depart with their mission unaccomplished. The complainant therefore prays the court that the said corn and hay may be delivered into his hands forthwith.

In reply to which Robert Chatton, Geoffrey Sherington, and William Hasteley deny every charge brought against them, and declare themselves ready to prove the truth of their statement at the pleasure of the court.^[6]

In the Hilary Term 26 Hen. VIII. (1534-5) the same Nicholas Towneley prefers a suit in the same court concerning a parcel of tithe corn of the parish of Wigan, which was let by Nicholas Towneley, clerk, late parson of the parish church of Wigan, to Sir Roger Bradshawe, knight,^[7] Richard Molineux of Hawkeley, gent., and Gilbert Holden, gent., for the term of one year for a certain sum of money, to be paid to the said Nicholas Towneley, clerk, or his deputy. The said Nicholas Towneley, clerk, being dead, and Nicholas Towneley having been appointed administrator of his goods, the latter demanded payment of one year's rent of the said tithe from the said Roger, Richard, and Gilbert, and being unable to obtain it from them, prays the court that such may be enforced.^[8]

The said Nicholas Towneley, the younger, was the late rector's nephew, being the son and heir apparent of Richard Towneley (of Royle, in the county of Lancaster, jure uxoris), and a reader and Bencher of Gray's Inn.

Two years later, in 28 Hen. VIII. is a bill of complaint of (the same) Nicholas Towneley now described as of Gray's Inn. The bill recites that one Nicholas Towneley, clerk, late parson of Wigan, died at Hampton Court 20th November, 23 Hen. VIII.^[9] (1531), and that the first mentioned Nicholas was administrator of his goods and chattells, and of matters in controversy between the said Nicholas (deceased) and Sir Thomas Langton, knight, for sundry and divers riots; that whereas the said Sir Thomas hath wrongfully taken from him (complainant) some corn and hay remaining at the parsonage of Wigan, which amounted to the sum of £24 as well as £50 rent due to the said Nicholas (deceased) remaining in the hands of divers gentlemen within the parish of Wigan for their tithes; that the complainant and defendant had submitted themselves, on 16th December, 26 Hen. VIII. (1534), to the judgment of Robert Wroith, King's attorney, who judged that the said Sir Thomas should pay to the said Nicholas, in full satisfaction of all suits, the sum of £40 to be paid by instalments; but that after the death of the said attorney the said Sir Thomas refused to make any further payment; and the said Nicholas (complainant) desires that he may be compelled to pay the same, as well as £100, in which sum Sir Thomas bound himself to pay the amount awarded by the said attorney to the said Nicholas.^[10]

1. Duchy of Lancaster Pleadings, vol. iv. 20 Hen. VIII. T. No. 4.
2. Foster's Pedigrees of Lancashire Families; Whittaker's History of Whalley (ed. of J. G. Nichols and P. A. Lyons), vol. ii. p. 178.
3. Whittaker (Ibid. p. 418, or possibly his editors, for the words are in brackets) says that Nicholas Towneley was Vicar of Rochdale in 1510; and also that he was nephew of Dr. Bernard Towneley, whom he calls Rector of Wigan and Vicar of Felkirk, co. York (giving as a reference Lane. MSS. vol xxx. p. 26). There is a mistake here somewhere, for Dr. Bernard Towneley was not Rector of Wigan. Perhaps it was Nicholas that was Vicar of Felkirk as well as Rector of Wigan. And if the Vicar of Rochdale in 1510 was the same person he must have resigned Rochdale some years before he was admitted to Wigan, for Sir Gilbert Haydoke was Vicar of Rochdale in 1522. Whittaker rightly describes him as the nephew of Sir Bernard Towneley, LL.D., who was 5th son of John Towneley of Towneley, Esq., and brother of Sir Richard Towneley and of Nicholas the father of the Rector of Wigan.
4. Le Neve's Fasti.
5. Ralph Standish of Standish, Esq., had a general pardon from the Crown, I Hen. VII., 1485, and died 1538, aged 80. His son and successor, Alexander Standish, Esq., married Ann, daughter of Sir William Molyneux of Sefton, knight, in 1518, and carried on the line.
6. Duchy of Lancaster Pleadings, vol. vi. (No date) T. No. 7.
7. Sir Roger Bradshaigh, knight, of Haigh, died s.p. and was succeeded by his brother Sir Ralph.
8. Duchy of Lancaster Pleadings, 26 Hen. VIII. vol vii. T. No. 1. The arms of Towneley of Towneley are arg, a fesse sable, three mullets in chief of the second.
9. This date is erroneous. In a former bill of complaint the date of Nicholas Towneley's death is given as on or about the 10th of November, 24 Hen VIII. (1532), and this is evidently the right year of his death, because he was appointed to a prebend in York Minster on 29th December, 1531.
10. Duchy of Lancaster Pleadings, 28 Hen. VIII. vol viii. T. No. 2. In a second bill (of the same date) the same Nicholas Towneley shows that one Edward Molyneux, clerk, deceased, late parson of Sefton, in the county of Lancaster, was indebted to Nicholas Towneley, clerk, parson of Wigan, deceased, to the amount of £13 6s. 8d., also of £4 the arrears of an annuity which the said Edward granted to the said complainant On the death of the said Molyneux, Richard Smyth, clerk, parson of Bury, was appointed administrator to the goods of the said Molyneux, which were worth about 1000 marks; but when the debts were submitted the said Smyth declared the goods to be insufficient to pay them; this was found to be the case, but a certain portion of each debt was to be paid, and notwithstanding repeated promises on the part of the said Richard, the money owing to the said Nicholas still remains unpaid.