JOHN ISTED (d1557) –

FREEMAN, JURAT, BAILIFF & BURGESS OF HASTINGS -

A MAN OF INTERESTING TIMES

By Kevin Isted (June 2007)

INTRODUCTION 

1.         John ISTED (d1557) was a man who lived in interesting times, perhaps even in the sense of the well known apocryphal Chinese curse. The period in which he lived during the 16th century was a time of war, political intrigue, rebellion and religious upheaval in England. These events touched the lives of everyone, not least of all those actively engaged in politics such as John ISTED. However, while as a Burgess (Member of Parliament) for Hastings he may have rubbed shoulders with some of the great and the good (and the bad) of his day, he was not a great player on the political stage and we know little about him from the sparse surviving records. Nevertheless, it is possible to interpret and extrapolate the facts, in the context of the time, to build up a possible picture of him and his life.

2.         However, before attempting to do this it might first be useful to set out all the facts we know about John ISTED, from the various contemporary sources:

a.            His will and testament;

b.            Surviving extracts from the Old Record Book of the Cinque Port of Hastings;

c.            Records of the Confederation of the Cinque Ports – The White and the Black Books;

d.            Parliamentary Records;

e.            Other Records.

3.         And then as a backdrop for this to consider:

(1)          the interesting times in which he lived – the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Lady Jane Grey and Mary I; and

(2)          the Cinque Ports and their Charter, as they are a very important part, if not the defining part, of John ISTED’s life.

4.         You should be aware that documents were dated somewhat differently during the 16th century as the New Year was deemed to start on 25 March, until the switch from the Julian to the Gregorian Calendar (introduced 1582, but not adopted in England until 1752) which set New Years Day as 1 January. Also official documents were often dated from the date the monarch ascended the throne, e.g. 1 Henry VIII ran from 21 April 1509 to 20 April 1510. However, for ease of reference I will give the dates in the modern Gregorian Calendar form.

FACTS FROM HISTORICAL SOURCES 

5.         John ISTED’s will and testament (PROB: PCC 11/39 4 Wrastley)

a.            His will was made 8 January 1557 and proved 9 February 1557.

b.            He was survived by a wife named Anne.

c.            He had 7 surviving children: By Anne: 2 sons (Barnard and Richard) and 4 daughters (Mary, Bridget, Elizabeth and Ellen); and his base born son, Robert by an unnamed mother.)

d.            His wife Anne was to hold the bulk of the property in trust until his legitimate sons Barnard and Richard reached 22 years of age. Barnard was then to receive the dwelling house in St Clements, Hastings; all the lands at Framfield; and three little fish shops outside the Seagate at Hastings. Richard was to receive 2 cottages and gardens in the parish of St Clements, occupied by Thomas COWPER and John FREEMAN; lands called Halton, in St Clements (now a housing estate of the same name); and a new fish shop outside the Seagate at Hastings.

e.            There were separate bequests for his wife Anne, someone called Robert JAMES, his base born son Robert when he reached the age of 21, and to his daughters when they reached 18 years of age or were married.

f.             The overseers of the will were: Robert SHEPPARDE and John FRANKE.

g.            The will was witnessed by: Henry ALLARD, Thomas PORTWICH, Walter HENDLEY and Robert BAKER.

6.         Surviving extracts from the Record Book of the Cinque Port of Hastings. (ESRO: Extracts from Hastings Old Record Book 1509 to 1581, C/A/d) These extracts while old and extremely fragile do not appear to be from the Old Record Book, but copies of extracts made in the same hand, which look to me like 17th century secretary handwriting. I can only assume that the Old Record Book must have been damaged and a Town Clerk in the 17th century decided to make a transcript of the entries that had survived sufficiently well for him to read. 

a.            In 38 Henry VIII (1547), the following account is recorded:

Parliament - Is entered the charge of John Isted Jurat one of the late Burgesses to the Parliament as follows

First from the 13th Nov. unto 30 Dec. @ 2 a days -                  4 – 14 – 0

Item from 11 Jan.y unto 6 Feb.y 25 days -                                2 – 10 – 0

Item from the last day of Oct. to the 26 Dec -                           5 – 12 – 0

Item more given for reward to the Kings Atty

for draw g for the ports                                                             0 – 2 - 0

Item to the Sergt. Of the Parliament House                              0 – 2 – 0

                                                                                                   ------------

                                                                           Sum Tot           13 - 0 - 0 

b.            Record of a meeting of the assembly of the Commons of Hastings dated 22 June, 4 Edward VI (1551):

‘Also that pursuant to an Act made at the last Brotherhood Mr Bailiff, Edmond JACKLIN and John ISTED should [bide] to the assembly to be holden at Hythe for the making of a new Custumal concerning the whole Ports and they to have the Town Clerk, one of the Chamberlains and a House Page.’

c.            A copy of two letters from the Lord Warden, to all the Cinque Ports dated 16 January and 5 January are transcribed in the Record Book as follows:

‘7 Edwd. 6 (1553)

‘On this day are entered copies of two letters from my Ld Warden to the Lieutenant of Dover castle [unreadable word] to the electing or rather the appointing the members of the difft. Towns in the Ports which are as follows verbatim ------

To my well beloved servt. John MONYINGS my Lieutenant of Dover Castle and of the Cinque Ports, with speed

For as much as there will be Burgesses chosen for the Ports I would have ISTED my servt. for Hasting, for so he was the last time & I will appoint the other and Captn. SHUTE if he will or his brother to be one for Winchelsea & I will appoint the other; he dwells in Rye. And PADYAM my Man to be one for Romney & I will appoint the other and John KNIGHT my Man to be one for Hythe & I will appoint the other, and Mr HANNINGTON to be one for Dover & I will appoint the other & Mr PAGE for Sandwich & I will appoint the other ------- Divers honest & credible Men have told me that all my Predecessors have appointed the Burgesses & I am sure that all will do so at this day through all England. You the officer will I pray you send every Town a copy of this my Letter & if they will not be thus contented as all others are let them do the best they can for themselves for they get no help at my hand ------- from Shorland the 16th Jany.

Your Lovg. Master

Thos Cheney’

2nd letter

‘To the mayor Jurats and Commonalty of Dover 

& likewise to all the [can’t read word] of the towns of the Five 

Ports – with speed –

Your letter bearing date of the first of this Month I received this present day, whereby it plainly appears that you neither have or intend to accomplish my request nor by anything I can perceive as yet all the rest of the ports are of that opinion wherefore be you & they right for well assured that I will be [word crossed out] even with [word crossed out] all if I can – By any manner of means or else all my friends will fail me – And after such sort as - [peradventure?] you & they will wish you had better considered my desire which was none other but as all other men having the like rule have always had & as yet have the like [preliminaries?] referred unto them - From Shorland 5th of Jan

T Cheney’ 

(Note: The letters must have been entered into the Record Book on or after 29 January 1553 to be in 7 Edward VI, but were both apparently dated before the end of 6 Edward VI. However, errors appear to have been made during transcription – either by Dover, or the Hastings Town Clerks, as the reference to Rye is incomplete and the date of the second letter should probably be 5 February.)

d.            A note of unknown date records:

‘It is agreed that Mr ISTED one of the Jurats should go to my Lord Warden with [the] supplication with other of the Ports and in case the Ld. Warden take any great displeasure with the sd. supplication & the request of the Commons That then the Commons do by this assembly give him full power & authority to declare unto the sd. Ld. Warden that if it please him to nominate one of the Jurats and they to give him one other whom they shall chose by election to be Burgesses of the Parliament for this present time according to the request of [word crossed out] the sd. Ld. Warden as by his letter dated the last of August [plainly approving?]’ 

e.            A record of the assembly of the Commons of Hastings dated 11 March 1554 concerning the result of the election of Burgesses to Parliament records: 

‘11 March 1 Mary (i.e. 11 March 1554)

At this assembly the Commons there assembled having chosen Barons to the Parliament now [can’t read short word] to be held at Oxford John FRANKE & John ISTED’ 

(Note. Although this Parliament was originally summoned to meet at Oxford, it was changed and assembled at its usual venue - Westminster.)

7.         Records of the Confederation of Cinque Ports - The White and Black Books. 

a.            General Brotheryeld at Romney on Tuesday 22 July 1544: John ISTED is recorded amongst the Jurats representing Hastings.

b.            General Brotheryeld at Romney on Tuesday 21 July 1545: John ISTED, Bailiff of Hastings is recorded as heading the Hastings delegation.

c.            General Brotheryeld at Romney on 26 July 1547: John HYSTED (sic ISTED) recorded amongst the Jurats representing Hastings. It also records that:

‘John PARKER of Romney, bailiff elect to Yarmouth, is an aged man and not mete to execute that office, therefore John FOWLE is chosen to take his place and to act with John ISTED of Hastings.’ 

d.            General Brotheryeld at Romney on Tuesday 24 July 1548: John ISTED is amongst the Jurats representing Hastings.

e.            General Brotheryeld at Romney on Tuesday 22 July 1550: Master HISTED (sic ISTED), bailiff is recorded as heading the Hastings delegation. It also records that:

‘All mayors and bailiffs with two Jurats and the town clerks shall attend a general meeting at Hythe on 15 September to receive the new custumal in English and Latin from Messrs MENYS and LOWES and to accept it as the general and only custumal of the Ports and all the former custumals shall ‘be utterly frustrate, void and of none effecte.’ 

f.             General Brotheryeld at Romney on Tuesday 21 July 1551: John HISTED (sic ISTED) recorded amongst the Jurats representing Hastings.

g.            General Brotheryeld at Romney on 15 September 1550 (sic 1551): John HISTED (sic ISTED) is recorded amongst the Jurats representing Hastings. It is also recorded concerning the new general custumals that:

(1) ‘Mr HOLMES controller of Rye and Mr HISTED (sic ISTED) of Hastings shall be solicitors to carry the custumal to John RAMESEY that he may give his opinion thereon; the solicitors shall then show the Lord Warden, and have his advice and opinions; the book shall then be returned to the next Botherhood when it shall be distinctly red and declared and the mynders and opinions as well as the said Lord Warden, Mr RAMESEY and others… well to be understanden and known… the same booke … shall be forthwith ratified, confirmed and allowed; all other custumals shall be utterly frustrate…’

(2) ‘Paid Messrs HOLMES and HISTED (sic ISTED) for Mr RAMESEY 40s ….. The solicitors now appointed 20s. Total 40s.’

h.            General Brotheryeld held at Romney on Tuesday 24 July 1554: John ISTED recorded amongst the Jurats representing Hastings.

8.         Parliamentary Records.

a.            Burgesses for Hastings at Parliaments from 1545 to 1554.

(1)             Summoned Jan 1545 – Dissolved 31 Jan 1547:

Not Known

(2)             Summoned Nov 1547 – Dissolved 15 Apr 1552:

Sir William STAFFORD & John ISTED

(3)             Mar 1553:

John ISTED & (not known)

(4)             Summoned Oct 1553 – Dissolved Dec1553:

Thomas RODES & John PEYTON

(5) Summoned Apr 1554 – Dissolved May 1554:

John FRANKE & John ISTED.

b.            In the Journal of the House of Commons, dated 13 March 1553, John ISTED was recorded as having permission to be absent as Purveyor to the King (Edward VI).

9.         Other Records

a.            Benevolence Return of 36 Henry VIII (1544) for Hastings, Sussex shows that John ISTED gave £3 – the joint fourth highest contribution out of 48 on the list.

b.            The Privy Council (in 1545) when John ISTED was bailiff of Hastings, ordered John ISTED and his partners, one of which was Philip CHUTE, to restore to Antonio MACUELO goods taken out of a Spanish ship by the captain of a ship which they owned.

(Note: Philip CHUTE was a soldier; hero of the siege of Bolougne; Standard Bearer of the King; the Keeper of Camber Castle near the Cinque Ports of Rye and Winchelsea; and the kinsman of Sir Thomas CHEYNE the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports.)

c.            Correspondence (1556) shows that John ISTED carried a letter from Joseph BEVERLEY, clerk of Dover Castle and William CRISPE, Lieutenant of Dover Castle, to Sir Thomas CHEYNE, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, to tell him that they had been arrested by the Lord Chancellor’s sergeant.

INTERESTING TIMES – THE REIGNS OF HENRY VIII, EDWARD VI & MARY I 

10.       We know that John ISTED lived during the reigns of three English monarchs and was a Burgess at Parliaments of each of them (not including the 9 days of Lady Jane Grey):

a.            King Henry VIII (1509 – 1547)

b.            King Edward VI (1547 – 1553)

c.            Queen Mary I (Bloody Mary) (1553 – 1558). John ISTED died during the latter part of her reign.

These were times of great political, religious and social upheaval, accompanied by intrigue, rebellion and not a few executions at the block, stake and gallows.

King Henry VIII 

11.       In many people’s minds Henry VIII’s reign is dominated by his 6 wives, two of whom ended their lives on the block in the Tower of London (Anne BOLEYN and her cousin Catherine HOWARD); and his break from the Roman Catholic Church when he and Parliament proclaimed him the head of the Church in England. However, these were actually a means to an end of a far greater obsession in Henry’s mind – siring a male heir and securing the Tudor succession to the throne, which had a somewhat dubious basis. Up to this time no woman had ever ruled England. The only attempt at this, when Henry I had named his daughter Matilda as his successor, resulted in his nephew Stephen seizing the throne which plunged England into a bloody civil war.

12.       Henry had wished to have his marriage to the ageing Catherine of Aragon annulled so that he could marry the already pregnant Anne BOLEYN. When Cardinal WOLSEY failed to secure the annulment from the Pope, Henry declared himself the head of the Church in England and had the marriage annulled by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Ironically, Henry VIII had been destined for a career in the church before his elder brother Arthur had died without issue, leaving Henry the heir to the throne; at which point he married his brother’s widow who was some years older than him. It was a political marriage, to ally England with Spain and the Holy Roman Empire, although there is evidence that there was genuine affection between them. It was, however, the repeated failure to produce a live male heir that brought about the break with Rome. Henry had also earlier been an ardent supporter of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope’s authority over it, having written a rebuttal of the teachings of the Protestant reformer Martin LUTHER in his Assertio Septem Sacramentorum . As a result of this he had received the title Defender of the Faith from Pope Leo X in 1521; a title which English, and subsequently British monarchs, have claimed ever since.

13.       Henry’s reign was also a time of continuing poor relations with Scotland which periodically broke out into conflict, during which England achieved a notable victory at the Battle of Flodden in 1513, in which the Scottish King, Henry VIII’s brother-in-law, was killed. There were also rebellions at home, most notably the uprising in the North known as the ‘Pilgrimage of Grace’ in support of the Roman Catholic Church in 1536. This was resolved by a negotiated settlement in which Henry promised to let Parliament debate their demands. However, he failed to keep his promise and when a second uprising broke out the following year the ringleaders were convicted of treason and executed.

14.       The reign was also a time of shifting political alliances, with England playing fast and loose with the competing larger powers of the time - France and Spain. The most famous attempt at establishing an alliance with France was in 1520 at what became known as the ‘Field of the Cloth of Gold’ because of the ostentatious displays of wealth by both parties, when the English Court moved en masse to France. The English court established a camp near a similar French encampment in an area known as Trois Pays (three countries), because it was where English, French and Spanish lands met. During the 3 weeks these camps were in place there was great feasting, jousting and competing displays of wealth. No doubt ships from the Cinque Ports were involved in transporting the court to and from France. In addition merchants from the Ports, some of whom are known to have had business interests in Calais, were no doubt involved in supplying goods and services at the encampment. In any event, nothing much came of it in terms of establishing a lasting alliance, and when push came to shove England generally sided with Spain. Indeed, England invaded France in support of Spain in 1544 and captured Boulogne.

15.       However, one of the most profound changes during the reign of Henry VIII was in the development of a burgeoning, wealthy and powerful middle class, which arguably heralded greater changes in the following century with Parliament vying for supremacy with the monarch. This advancement was aided by wealth released from the dissolution of the monasteries when their assets were seized by the Crown; and Henry VIII appointing able people from outside of the aristocracy into the highest positions of power in the Kingdom, some of whom benefited from a redistribution of some monastery lands. Perhaps the cause of this limited meritocracy under the Tudors may have had its roots in the Tudor dynasties relatively humble paternal origins - from a Welsh clerk of the Dowager Queen’s wardrobe who married his employer, to ascending the throne by conquest within two generations. In any event, chief amongst those advanced by Henry VIII were: Thomas WOLSEY, a butcher’s son, who became a Cardinal and Chancellor of England; Sir Thomas MOORE, the philosopher and author of Utopia who was WOLSEY’s successor as Chancellor; and Thomas CROMWELL (later created Earl of ESSEX shortly before his execution) who succeeded MOORE; and Thomas CRANMER, who became Archbishop of Canterbury. It was CROMWELL and CRANMER who were arguably the main architects of the Reformation in England. Ultimately, all of these men fell from favour with their monarch; WOLSEY, MOORE and CROMWELL in matters relating to the King’s marriages. MOORE and CROMWELL met their end on the block and WOLSEY having been stripped of political office and much of his wealth probably only managed to escape the same fate by dying of natural causes on his way to the Tower of London. CRANMER retained favour with Henry and his son Edward VI, only to be burnt at the stake for heresy by the revisionist Roman Catholic Queen Mary in 1556.

16.       Another of the most powerful men in the country who rose to prominence under King Henry, and with whom John ISTED was linked, was Sir Thomas CHEYNE, who became a member of the Council of England. He had also been made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, in 1536, a title which King Henry had held himself as a child. Ironically, it was also King Henry who set in motion the decline of the Cinque Ports by establishing the Royal Navy, probably in response to his brother-in-law, King James IV of Scotland, building his own fleet of ships. During his reign Henry established a fleet of 53 ships and the Royal Dockyards at Portsmouth and Chatham. Up until then, it had been almost the exclusive responsibility of the Cinque Ports to provide ships to the Crown, for which they were well rewarded with privileges and immunities. Sir Thomas CHEYNE and John ISTED were, therefore, associated with the Cinque Ports during the start of their decline. And, although Henry’s daughter Elizabeth still had to raise a fleet of largely converted merchant ships to repel the Spanish Armada in 1588, few were provided by the Cinque Ports and only one of which was provided by Hastings. Following this, Hastings was issued with a new Charter by the Queen, which downgraded the role of the Bailiff to that of a Mayor. Immediately following this, Richard ISTED, the son of John ISTED, resigned his position as Jurat. However, it is not known whether all or any of these events were linked in any way.

17.       King Henry died in January 1547 still concerned, if not obsessed, with the succession. In his will, he named his successors in order of precedence: his only son Edward and his male heirs; his daughter Mary and her male heirs; Elizabeth and her male heirs; and finally Frances Grey, his sister Mary’s daughter and her male heirs. Interestingly, Henry made no mention of the descendants of his elder sister Margaret - Mary Queen of Scots, although he had wanted Edward to marry her and at one time invaded Scotland to press the case. Ironically, Henry’s youngest daughter, Elizabeth I, had Mary Queen of Scots executed as she saw her as a threat; and yet it was Mary’s son James who secured the Scottish succession to the throne of England in 1603, apparently with Elizabeth’s blessing.

Edward VI 

18.       When Edward VI assumed the throne, he was 8 years old. Henry VIII had taken the precaution of establishing a Council of Regency to govern until Edward came of age. However, the Council was persuaded to appoint Edward SEYMOUR (Edward’s maternal uncle) as the Lord Protector of the Realm and Governor of the King’s Person. He was also created the Duke of SOMERSET. SOMERST grasped the opportunity and used it, and Edwards own Protestant inclinations and upbringing in the care of Catherine PARR, to further Protestant interests. Up to this point, there had been very little difference between Roman Catholicism and the Church in England, as Henry had only made a very few changes in the liturgy to reflect his sovereignty over the Church. However, in 1549, a number of changes were approved by Parliament, of which John ISTED was a member, which effectively made the Church in England a distinctly Protestant Church. The most important of these changes were: the introduction of the Book of Common Prayer, eloquently drafted by Thomas CRANMER, the Archbishop of Canterbury: and the right of priests to marry. However, the changes were not universally welcome and uprisings, notably in Cornwall and the north had to be crushed.

19.       Tensions persisted with Scotland largely over the rebuttal of the proposal that Edward should marry his cousin Mary Queen of Scots and so unite the two kingdoms. As a result SOMERSET invaded Scotland where he won a notable victory at Pinkie Cleugh. Unfortunately, he failed to secure the marriage or a satisfactory peace settlement. And when Mary went on to marry the Dauphin of France, establishing a closer French Scottish alliance, what was known as the ‘War of the Rough Wooing’ came to an unsatisfactory close. Thomas SEYMOUR - Baron SUDBURY, the Lord High Admiral - conspired against his own brother, SOMERSET, over his misrule. The conspiracy was uncovered and SUDBURY suffered the fate of failed traitors in 1549, despite him having been the King’s favourite uncle.

20.       There were also constant problems with the economy and SOMERSET failed to deal effectively with the economic inspired Ketts rebellion in Norfolk against land enclosure. Unfortunately, unlike Bill CLINTON, he didn’t have someone to remind him ‘It’s the economy, stupid’ and it was this that arguably left SOMERSET isolated in the Council. He was eventually overthrown and effectively replaced by John DUDLEY, the Earl of Warwick, in 1551, who shortly afterwards was created the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND. After a short imprisonment SOMERSET was set free and readmitted to the Council. However, he was arrested for plotting to murder NORTHUMBERLAND, although this may have been a trumped up charge to get him out of the way for good. He was subsequently executed in 1552.

21.       Although NORTHUMBERLAND never assumed the title of Protector and even persuaded Edward to declare he had reached his majority at the age of 12, it was he who pulled the strings during the last couple of years of Edward’s reign. NORHUMBERLAND appeared no more competent than SOMERSET, giving up captured Scottish territory and Boulogne without any compensation. He appears to have used his position for the benefit of his family and friends, but most of all himself. The highlights, or perhaps the lowlights, of NORTHUMBERLAND’s influence were Parliament passing the Act of Uniformity, by which the Book of Common Prayer was made compulsory and any unauthorised worship was made an act of treason; and having the sickly Edward’s will changed, in contravention of the Act of Succession (1543), as amended by Henry VIII’s will. This removed Princesses Mary and Elizabeth from the line of succession and leaving the Crown to Lady Jane Grey, the granddaughter of Edward’s paternal aunt Mary, who had conveniently been married off to NORTHUMBERLAND’s younger son Guilford DUDLEY. However, Edward was not an unwilling party in this, as he wished to exclude his Roman Catholic elder sister Mary from the throne to secure the Protestant Reformation in England. Edward died on 6 July 1553, at 15 years of age, either from tuberculosis, arsenic poisoning, or congenital syphilis inherited from his infected father Henry VIII. His last words as he lay dying are reputed to have been, "Oh my Lord God, defend this realm from papistry and maintain their true religion."

Lady Jane Grey – the Nine Days Queen 

22.       Edward’s death was kept secret for a few days while preparations were made for the accession of the 15 year old Lady Jane GREY, who was not proclaimed Queen until 10 July after the Council, including Sir Thomas CHEYNE the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, had privately sworn their allegiance to her. However, no doubt to NORTHUMBERLAND’s annoyance, the new Queen Jane appears to have been her own woman, as she refused to name her husband as King by letters patent, but offered to make him a Duke instead. Nevertheless, most people supported Mary’s claim to the throne. And on 19 July, Mary rode triumphantly into London and Jane was forced to give up the Crown.

Mary I 

23.       Mary’s reign started off with a remarkable degree of clemency compared with how her father Henry would have acted, which belied her later soubriquet of ‘Bloody Mary’. While she had NORTHUMBERLAND executed for high treason, the very minimum any self respecting monarch could have done, Lady Jane GREY, her husband (Guildford DUDLEY) and her father (the Duke of SUFFOLK) were spared. However, Jane and her husband DUDLEY remained in the Tower of London where they had previously established their residence. The members of the Council, like Sir Thomas CHEYNE who had sworn allegiance to Jane, were forgiven and largely kept their positions of authority once they had sworn their allegiance to Mary. Of course, it was helped by them saying they had supported Jane under duress from NORTHUMBERLAND, which I suspect was true, at least in part.

24.       Mary also released prominent Roman Catholics who had been imprisoned under Edward VI, such as: Thomas HOWARD, the Duke of NORFOLK; and Stephen GARDINER who she made the Bishop of Winchester and Lord Chancellor. She also sent Sir Thomas CHEYNE on a good will embassy to her cousin King Charles V of Spain and Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. It might have been during this mission that the first suggestion arose that Mary should marry Charles’s son, Prince Philip of Spain, later Philip II of Spain who was to send the Armada against England in 1588. In any event, shortly afterwards, Mary rejected the proposal of marrying Edward COURTNEY, the Earl of DEVONSHIRE.

25.       In her first Parliament Mary had her parent’s marriage retrospectively declared legal making her legitimate, repealed the treason laws enacted during her father and brother’s reigns, repealed the church reforms of her brother and passed new laws regarding rebellion. She also had a Bill of Attainder passed condemning without trial NORTHUMBERLAND and those most intimately involved in placing Lady Jane GREY on the throne. During this Parliament GARDINER and the House of Commons petitioned Mary to marry an Englishman, but she insisted on her marriage to Philip of Spain. Many were vehemently opposed to this marriage which they feared would lead to bringing England under the rule of Spain, the reintroduction of the authority of the Pope and religious persecution of Protestants. As a result, a number of courtiers conspired to remove Mary from the throne and replace her with her moderate Protestant sister Elizabeth, with the plan that she should be married to the spurned DEVONSHIRE. There were supposed to have been coordinated uprisings on 25 January 1554 in various parts of the country, including DEVONSHIRE raising the West Country, SUFFOLK and his brothers raising the midlands, and Sir Thomas WYATT raising Kent. However, the rebellion was advanced at short notice, and through a combination of cowardice and incompetence WYATT and the Men of Kent were the only ones to rise up with any real conviction and success. WYATT had a number of military successes on his way to London, notably in taking Rochester and Cooling Castles. And, when being confronted by the Duke of Norfolk and his army, many of the White Jackets, a London Regiment, immediately came over to WYATT’s side with shouts of ‘A Wyatt, A Wyatt, we are all Englishmen’, at which NORFOLK and those left loyal to him fled to the relative safety of Gravesend.

26.       For a time London seemed to be there for the taking, but WYATT delayed at Blackheath when Mary sent a message asking for his terms. However, this may have only been a delaying tactic while she tried to raise support in London. She made a passionate speech at the Guidhall to the assembled masses. As a result of this, and probably the fear of the city being sacked by the rebels from Kent, as had happened during the Peasant’s Revolt, the citizens united to defend the capital. The bridges across the Thames were cut and many of WYATT’s supporters fearing the game was up started to drift away. Nevertheless, WYATT pressed on, crossing the river at Kingston. WYATT with a small advanced contingent of his army marched on through Westminster and onto the city at Ludgate, but all the time barricades were being erected behind him to block the main part of his army and his retreat. WYATT arrived at Ludgate at the appointed time, when it was supposed to have been open to him and the other rebels. However, he found it manned by the Queen’s men who refused him entry and there was no sight or sound of the expected uprising in the city, nor any of the other rebel forces. Indeed, DEVONSHIRE the supposed figurehead of the rebellion was with the Queen, as were some of their fellow rebels who had changed sides. WYATT and his men decided to fall back on Charing Cross but were engaged by a powerful force at Temple Bar where fierce fighting took place for an hour. WYATT was then persuaded to surrender when the Norry Herald shouted, "Perchance ye may yet find the Queen merciful, the rather if ye stint so the loss of so great a bloodshed as is like to be". WYATT may have taken this as an offer of a pardon, but it was not to be.

27.   WYATT was taken to the Tower of London where he was shortly joined by many other rebels, including the weak and vacillating DEVONSHIRE and some of the other defectors. On 10 February 1554, 42 Men of Kent were condemned to be hung drawn and quartered. WYATT was beheaded on Tower Hill, on 11th February, still maintaining on the scaffold that Princess Elizabeth, DEVONSHIRE and others were innocent of any part in the uprising. However, by the end of that day there were up to 100 bodies swinging at the gates of the city. Lady Jane GREY and her husband Guildford DUDLEY who had been spared when they had usurped the throne 7 months earlier were beheaded on 12 February. The slaughter continued unabated for days to come, with WYATT’s young half brother, who was no more than a boy, being hung drawn and quartered on the 15th February, after having been tortured at the instigation of Bishop GARDINER to see if Princess Elizabeth could be implicated in the plot. Elizabeth was imprisoned in the Tower for awhile, but following correspondence with her sister in which she professed her loyalty, she was spared the block. SUFFOLK was beheaded on 19th February. Many more rebels were taken back into Kent where they were executed at Rochester, Maidstone and Sevenoaks.

28.       The persecutions that followed the WYATT rebellion and the legislation brought forward in later Parliaments of Mary I seemed to demonstrate a move towards a more extreme and harsher rule that the conspirators feared. However, how much this was a correct assumption on their part or how much their actions had created a self fulfilling prophesy is a matter of debate. In any event, following the legislation concerning heresy and Lolardy; the Queen’s marriage, which took place at Westminster Cathedral on 25 July 1554; and the Union with the Church in Rome etc, numerous Protestant leaders were arrested and put to death under what became known as the Marian Persecutions. The first of these executions started at the beginning of 1555, and in the following three and a half years to the end of her reign some 283 had met their death at the stake. This was twice as many as had suffered the same fate in the previous century and a half in England and at a greater rate than during the contemporary Spanish Inquisition.

29.       Mary’s reign was also blighted by false pregnancies and the question of the succession, where at one time her husband Phillip was appointed to be Regent of a child from a false pregnancy. The economy was also in poor shape despite the best efforts of Sir Thomas GRESHAM, who held an estate in Mayfield where he may have been associated with the ISTED Ironmasters and their relatives. England also joined Spain in a war against France in contravention of the marriage settlement. This ended disastrously with the loss of Calais, the last English possession in France. Mary died on 17 November 1558 lamenting that when she died, the words Phillip and Calais would be found inscribed on her heart. Elizabeth I succeeded to the throne, who Mary’s widowed husband then tried to woo unsuccessfully.

THE CINQUE PORTS & THEIR CHARTER 

30.       It is not clear how or when the Confederation of Cinque Ports (Hastings, Romney, Hythe, Dover and Sandwich) started. However, it may have had its genesis prior to the Norman Conquest from them bounding together out of common interest in making their way up the coast to fish off Norfolk during the herring season, which was not too popular with the local Norfolk fishermen. It may well have been from this association forged out of their strong defence of their common interests, coupled with their location on the English Channel that made them the natural choice for the supply of ships and men to the Crown, in the absence of a Royal Navy.

31.       It is believed that it may have been Edward the Confessor who first allowed the Cinque Ports certain privileges in return for ship service. However, the first reference to the Cinque Ports is in a charter of Henry II of c1155. The rights and privileges they were given for agreeing to provide 57 ships, each manned with 21 men and a boy, for 15 days per year when required by the Crown, was as follows (the explanation of the arcane terms are in brackets, in red):

Exemption from tax and tallage (exemption from taxes) , Right of soc and sac (local self government) , tol (right to levy tolls) and team (authority to compel holders of stolen goods to divulge their source) , blodwit and fledwit (authority to punish shedders of blood and seize those who fled from justice) , pillory and tumbrel (punishment of a wide range of offences) , infrangentheof and outfrangentheof (power to detain and execute felons both inside and outside the Ports jurisdiction) , mundbryce ( authority to try breeches of the King's Peace) , waives and strays (right to take lost or unclaimed goods after one year and one day) , flotsam and jetsam and ligan (power to claim floating wreckage on the shore or goods thrown overboard) den and strond (to land at Great Yarmouth - a fishing port on the east coast - dry and mend nets and to sell fish) .

32.       The Cinque Ports also had the privilege of providing 16 men to bear a canopy above the monarch on their way to the coronation and to sit by the monarch in the place of honour at the banquet afterwards. Although this privilege does not appear to have been incorporated in any Charter until 1278, we know that it was in place at least by 1236, as it appears in a contemporary description of the Coronation of Henry III and Queen Eleanor:

‘The Barons of the Cinque Ports carried over the King wherever he went the silken cloth four square, purple, supported by four silver spears with four little silver-gilt bells, four Barons being assigned to each spear, according to the diversity of the Ports, lest Port should be seen to be preferred to Port.

Likewise the same bore a silken cloth over the Queen coming after the King, which said cloth they claim as their right, and they obtained them at Court and moreover the Barons of the Cinque Ports claimed as their right of sitting at the King’s table, the same day, on the right hand of Our Lord King. And so they did sit.’

It is not known whether John ISTED ever represented Hastings in supporting the canopy at either of the two coronation during his time (Edward VI in 1547 and Mary I in 1553), or sat at the monarchs table at the subsequent banquet. However, as the sitting Burgess for Hastings at the Parliaments at the time, he might have expected the honour on at least one of these occasions. Interestingly, the Lord Warden and the Cinque Port Brotherhood meetings had to make requests that the Ports would choose representatives who had suitable suits of clothes for the occasion, which I assume would also have counted in John ISTED’s favour given his long standing representation at Parliament and his comparative wealth indicated by the Benevolence return. The Cinque Ports’ privileges at the coronation of monarchs ceased following the coronation of James II in 1686.

33.       You will have noticed from the above description of the coronation that the freemen of the Cinque Ports were referred to as Barons. It is unclear why this should have been. It certainly had nothing to do with them being members of the aristocracy or awarded a noble title. I suspect it had more to do with the feudal term baron which merely meant large landholder/tenant-in-chief. And, although the Barons of the Cinque Ports were not necessarily large landholders, they collectively had military obligations equivalent to or greater than most feudal barons, and individually greater privileges in law than any of them. However, in terms of their representation in Parliament, they were allowed to elect and be elected as representatives of their respective Ports in the House of Commons. The normal qualification of which was to hold land for the payment of a Knight’s fee. Again, this was not in a sense of them being Knighted and being entitled to call themselves Sir John etc, but from a feudal term relating to a fee and obligations owed to the King for holding a variable amount of land.

34.       The Cinque Ports drove a hard bargain for their services, but they were regarded as being “the gates that open and shut to the peril or safety of the Kingdom” much the same as the Royal Navy later became known as ‘the wooden walls of England’. Nevertheless, their loyalty to the Crown could not always be relied upon. In 1216 they sided with the French against King John, as did many of the King’s other barons. However, the following year the King gave them a sufficient bribe to attack their erstwhile French friends which resulted in a great English naval victory off Sandwich. They also occasionally had to be given additional inducements to fulfil their duties. In 1242 they were allowed one fifth of the profits (pillage and ransom) derived from an attack on the French coast.

35.       The Ports also pushed their powers and privileges to the limit and often used them to engage in what would otherwise have been regarded as crimes of piracy and smuggling. This often brought them into conflict with the Crown. It was probably a combination of this and the Cinque Ports having sided with the French in 1216 that led to the appointment of a Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, by Henry III, to have dual responsibility to protect the interests of both the Crown and the members of the Cinque Ports. It was also at this time that the Ports started to more closely consult together at meetings known as Brotherhoods, held at Romney, with less important business being dealt with at Guestlings which were called and attended according to need. They also sent deputations to hear the Lord Warden swear to uphold their liberties at his ‘solemn serement’ at the Court of Shepway; a ceremony which still continues.

36.       It was also during the reign of Henry III, in 1229, that the supply of the 57 ships to the Crown was recorded as follows: Hastings 21, Romney 5, Hythe 5, Dover 21 and Sandwich 5. This became a heavy burden for some of the ports, particularly Hastings which had lost some of its early natural advantages as a harbour. As a result they were allowed to have members, known as limbs. Letters patent issued by Edward III in 1359 show that Hastings had 6 limbs, two of which were in Kent, and two which provided more ships than it did from its own port: Rye (5 ships) and Winchelsea (10 ships). Rye and Winchelsea had been recognised as limbs of Hastings since 1191. However, in view of their growing importance, usurping that of Hastings and all the other Ports except Dover, they were added to the Confederation in their own right, as ‘Ancient Towns’ by the end of the 14th century.

37.       The importance of the Cinque Ports started to decline with the founding of the Royal Navy by Henry VIII, which arose out of the needs of a changing world, ambition, competition and probably in no small part as a response to Henry’s brother-in-law King James IV of Scotland having first built a navy of his own. Nevertheless, the Cinque Ports continued to play an important role for awhile, and long after they had ceased to be of much use to the Crown continued to defend their ancient liberties.

INTERPRETING THE LIFE OF JOHN ISTED 

DATE AND PLACE OF BIRTH AND MARRIAGE 

38.       We do not know when or where John ISTED was born/baptised, married or buried as Parish Registers of baptisms, marriages and burials were only introduced in 1538 by edict of Thomas Cromwell, Chancellor to Henry VIII. Indeed, the earliest surviving Parish Register for St Clements, Hastings where John lived, commenced in 1558, one tantalising year after his death. Neither is there any trace of a tomb or a monumental inscription at St Clement, nor in the Parish Church of Framfield where John also held lands, which might have yielded this information. IGI does, however, have a reference to John being born in 1505, but there is no known documentary evidence to support this claim and must, therefore, be treated with some scepticism.

39.       We can, however, narrow down John’s year of birth by looking at some of the facts we know about him. The first records we have of John ISTED are: the Benevolence Return for Hastings of 1544, which indicates that he was financially well established in Hastings by then; and a record of him attending the Brotheryeld at Hythe in July 1544 as a Jurat. However, there is no surviving record of him first being selected as a Jurat, which was an annual selection process; nor him becoming a member of the Commonality of Hastings, i.e. one of the 37 Freemen who were members of the franchise that was the Cinque Port of Hastings. However, the assumption is that John was made a Freeman at least a year before he became a Jurat, and to have done so he would have had to have reached his majority – 21 years of age. This means that John ISTED would have had to have been born in or before 1522 and been 34 years of age or older when he died in January or February 1557.

40.       It is, of course, quite possible that John ISTED may have been a Jurat before 1544 and a freeman of Hastings for some years before being selected to be one of the 12 Jurats that helped the Bailiff in the Administration of Hastings. All we actually know is that John attended his first Brotheryeld in July 1544 as a Jurat and was one of only two out of 12 Jurats to attend that particular meeting. He could, therefore, have been a Jurat long before 1544 and amongst the majority of Jurats who did not attend the annual Brotheryelds.

41.       We know that in 1545 John was elected Bailiff for which the qualification was that he had to have previously been a Jurat. We also know from the account entered in the Hastings Record Book that he was elected the Burgess for Hastings in the same year for which the requirement was to have held some local position of responsibility. We know that he had qualified for these posts by 1544. The natural assumption is that he would not have been chosen a Jurat nor elected Bailiff or Burgess without being a person of some ability and probably some greater experience at the qualifying level or in life in general. Balanced against this is the circumstantial evidence that suggests being Bailiff was not a popular post to have, as it was more or less a full time job and had some restrictions which may have stood in the way of business and maximising profits, which is what being a member of a Cinque Port franchise was all about. We also have other indications that there was a reluctance to be the Bailiff, most notably the strange and severe penalty for refusing or seeking to avoid the position. In the event that someone refused election as Bailiff, the Commonality would go around to the person’s chief dwelling house and demolish it. There was also a rule that someone would only be elected to serve as Bailiff for one term – one year. But this rule seems to have been observed more in the breach, as John ISTED served as Bailiff for a second term in 1550 and a few others also served on more than one occasion. In any event, it is possible that a new member of the Commonality might have been chosen as a Jurat with the express intent of electing him to serve as Bailiff at the earliest opportunity. However, I suspect this would not have happened unless the person concerned had also some demonstrable experience and/or ability.

42.       There is also little in John’s will to give a better indication of his date of birth or marriage. However, we do know that all his sons were under 22 years of age and that his daughters were unmarried and under 18 years of age at the time his will was written. This would indicate that the earliest that any of them could have been born was 1535. But equally they could all have been born on or after 1544, when John’s name first appears in surviving written records, and have all been under 12 years of age at his death. However, examining the earliest known dates of his children’s marriages – Mary married in 1565 and Barnard married in 1570 – in an age when people, particularly females, generally married somewhat earlier than they do now, seems to indicate that the eldest children were likely to have been born closer to 1544 than to 1535. I, therefore, suspect John and Anne were married not long before the time he first appears in records relating to Hastings, in 1544.

HOW DID JOHN ISTED BECOME A FREEMAN OF THE CINQUE PORT OF HASTINGS? 

43.       As well as not knowing when John ISTED became a member of the Commonality of Hastings (also known as the Freedom, Franchise and Liberty), we also do not know how he qualified for the position. There were only three ways that this could have happened:

a.            Inheriting it by being the first son and heir of a Freeman, if he was born after the father’s admittance to the Freedom;

b.            Being appointed to a vacant position by the Lord Warden; or

c.            Buying his way into a vacant position, or buying someone out, after living in Hastings for a year or more and seeking the agreement of the Commonality at their assembly held each year on the first Sunday after Hock Day.

44.       There is no evidence to suggest that John ISTED was a son and heir of an earlier Freeman of Hastings, although this cannot be entirely ruled out as records are incomplete. However, we assume that John came from Framfield, where he is known from his will to have held lands, and where other ISTEDs of that time and earlier had lived. It is also probable that he was a relative of Richard ISTED who, although is commonly referred to as an Ironmaster of Mayfield, held most of his land in Framfield, as shown on the 1524/5 Sussex Subsidy Roll. It is also possible that Richard and John ISTED may have been brothers and the sons of John ISTED and grandsons of Laurence ISTED of Framfield. Coincidentally, John ISTED first appears in records shortly after Richard ISTED died, in 1542, following an alleged threat on his life and that of his partner John MONE, by William NYSELL of Mayfield, over which there was a trial in Star Chamber. While these events are unlikely to be connected, I suspect an interesting conspiracy theory could be made linking them.

45.       It is more likely that John ISTED became a member of the Commonality of Hastings either by appointment of the Lord Warden or buying his way in. The question is how an assumed younger son of a Framfield landholder would get into a position where this might have happened.

46.       I do not know of any connection between John ISTED and Sir Thomas CHEYNE, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, before John was known to have been a Jurat in 1544. However, it is known that a CHENEY family (an alternative spelling of CHEYNE) were involved in the Wealden iron industry in the 16th century and that Pelham CHENEY owned a furnace and forge in Warbleton and an iron mill in Badhurst Manor. This CHENEY family would, therefore, have been well known to the ISTED family who were similarly engaged in the Wealden iron industry at the same time. However, I have not been able to conclusively determine whether there was any family connection between these CHENEYs and Sir Thomas CHEYNE, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. Nevertheless, it is possible that John ISTED may have come to the Lord Warden’s attention through some family connection. We have no idea of the maiden name of John ISTED’s wife. Although I can find no positive evidence of this, could it be that Anne was a CHENEY and a relative of Sir Thomas CHEYNE? If so it could be that the Lord Warden appointed John as an act of nepotism, or a favour to a relative. This sort of thing would have been commonplace in those days. John ISTED’s shipping partner – Philip CHUTE – was related by marriage to the CHEYNEs and it is possible that they may have struck up this relationship through mutual family connections. There is also an indication of a closer dependency between John ISTED and Sir Thomas CHEYNE in the way in which CHEYNE refers to John, as ‘my servant’ in his letter to the Ports dated 16 January 1554, in which he refers to the other members of the Ports as ‘my man’. It might also help to explain CHEYNE’s eagerness to see John ISTED elected to the second Parliament of Edward VI, where CHEYNE would probably have sought to use the representatives of the Cinque Ports as a power bloc, both for the benefit of the Cinque Ports and his own political ambitions.

47.       Of course, none of this explains how John ISTED acquired the wealth necessary to fulfil the obligations of a member of the Commonality of Hastings and be able to make best use of the opportunities and privileges that went with it. We know from the Benevolence Return of 1544 that John ISTED was one of the wealthiest men in Hastings, given that he made the fourth highest contribution out of 48. We also know, from a Privy Council Order of 1545, that John ISTED was a ship owner. So how did an assumed younger son of a Framfield landholder accrue this sort of wealth, position and status?

48.       It is possible that the ISTEDs may have been a wealthier and more prominent family than is generally believed, accruing greater wealth from the burgeoning Wealden iron industry. John may, therefore, have inherited wealth and enhanced this through his own efforts, or perhaps the ISTED family had funded him for some reason or purpose. It is also possible that those more widely involved in the burgeoning Wealden iron industry may have thought it worthwhile to set up someone in authority in the Cinque Port of Hastings and that John ISTED may have been considered the best suited from Ironmaster families. A possible reason for this is that someone in authority in Hastings with the privileges and immunities that went with the position may have been very useful to them, especially to those involved in the alleged illegal export of cannon. This is, of course, pure speculation.

49.       The most likely explanation of John’s apparent rise in fortune is that he married into money with a connection to the Cinque Port of Hastings. It was not unusual in those days for clever, able and probably charming and good looking young men to seek to advance themselves through marriage. Indeed, while single women and widows could own property, once a woman was married all her property became her husband’s. This situation continued in England until the Married Woman’s Property Act (1882) came into force. Until then, marrying a daughter of a rich family without a male heir, or marrying a rich, often elderly, widow was a popular sport throughout all strata of society. Often in the case of single daughters, they had little or no say in the matter. There was little or no priority given to the modern norm of mutual choice guided by things like mutual physical attraction, having interests in common and having similar aspirations. Dynastic considerations, money and even whether the proposed spouse represented good breeding stock were more important. An example of this is the case of Robert SOUTHWELL (later Sir Robert), who features as the Master of the Rolls in the Privy Council order referred to in paragraphs [ paragraphs 9b and 73 ]. He competed for and won the hand of the 15 year old NEVILLE heiress, after negotiations broke down for her to marry the son of Thomas CROMWELL. Perhaps CROMWELL was not prepared to pay the price of the girl’s guardian. In any event, Robert SOUTWELL got a very young bride who was 21 years his junior and in doing so acquired her wealth. This immediately qualified him to become a Member of Parliament in 1542 and obtain other public appointments, including becoming the Sheriff of Kent where the vast Neville estate he acquired through marriage was based. Incidentally, there was no minimum legal age of marriage in Tudor England and girls were often married off once they reached puberty, or sometimes earlier. This may have contributed to the high incidence of infant mortality and the death of relatively young girls in childbirth.

50.       Another example at the very top of the shop was the case of Robert DUDLEY, Earl of Leicester, who was a younger son of the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND who was beheaded following the attempt to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne in 1553. As a younger son, DUDLEY was to inherit very little from his father, but had good looks, a title and status to offer. He, therefore, had an arranged marriage to Amy Robsart a Norfolk heiress, in 1550, which financed his life at court. He later became a favourite and suspected lover of Queen Elizabeth I. The luckless Amy was then found dead at the bottom of the stairs and rumour spread that DUDLEY and the Queen had her murdered so that they could marry, which would have resulted in DUDLEY becoming King. These rumours may not have been true, but it was sufficient to scupper any possibility of the marriage.

51.       It is, therefore, possible that John ISTED may have acquired his wealth and his membership of the Freedom of the Cinque Port of Hastings through a convenient marriage. As it was not uncommon to appoint relatives or in-laws to oversee wills, it may be that Anne ISTED had been either a SHEPHARDE or a FRANKE before her marriage to John. Indeed, there is a possible link between John ISTED and John FRANKE. In addition to them being members of the Freedom of Hastings and Burgesses to Parliament, they were also both Purveyors to the Crown. It is possible that they may have been business partners linked by marriage and that John ISTED’s introduction to the Cinque Port of Hastings was through the FRANKEs who were already an established Hastings family.

52.       Alternatively, John may have been married before he married Anne, possibly to an older wealthy widow. Again this was far from unheard of in those days, as a way for young ambitious men to enhance their wealth and prospects by marrying widows, who may have been relatively elderly and unable to have children. In such cases, some men would take mistresses and recognise children from these liaisons. It is known from his will that John had a base born son Robert and it is possible that he may have been produced from such a liaison and recognised for such a reason. It is, therefore, possible that John may have gained some of his wealth, connections and position from such a marriage and then on the death of his wife married a younger woman – Anne – who subsequently became the mother of his legitimate children. An example of someone acquiring wealth through marrying an older widowed woman was William STAFFORD (later Sir William) who was John ISTED’s fellow Burgess of Hastings during the first Parliament of Edward VI. He was a relatively poor young soldier of a good family that had fallen on hard times. However, he made his fortune by marrying Sir William CAREY’s widow - the former Mary BOLEYN, the wife of Henry VIII’s Queen, Anne BOLEYN. Mary had also been the former mistress of King Henry and her eldest son was rumoured to have been the King’s bastard and not the natural son of Sir William CAREY. Unfortunately, Mary was disowned by the BOLEYNs and Queen Anne for marrying STAFFORD, because he was so far beneath her station. Nevertheless, in addition to the Carey money the STAFFORDs inherited much of the BOLEYN fortune following the execution of Mary’s sister Anne and her brother on a trumped up charge of incest. STAFFORD also subsequently gained some important appointments as a result of his marriage to Mary and the wealth which came with it. Also, Philip CHUTE (later Standard Bearer to the King, Keeper of Camber Castle, Jurat and Burgess for Winchelsea, shipping partner of John ISTED and kinsman of Sir Thomas Cheyney) who had also been a relatively poor soldier from a family that had allegedly fallen on hard times, may have enhanced his prospects by marrying a widow. He had taken as his first wife the daughter of a fellow member of the Winchelsea franchise (Thomas ENSING), who was a widow who had inherited property from her first husband (Peter MASTER). On their marriage this property automatically became Philip CHUTE’s, for which he had to defend a court case against two claimants. Of course, both STAFFORD and CHUTE may have married for love and the wealth that went with their marriages may have been purely coincidental and fortunate.

JOHN ISTED: FREEMAN, JURAT AND BAILIFF OF HASTINGS

Election as Freeman

53.       The Commonality (i.e. the 37 Freemen) of Hastings assembled in full at the Hundred Place (in the open air at what is now Winding Street at the lower end of the Bourne) every first Sunday after Hock Days (i.e. the second Monday and Tuesday after Easter). There they elected one of their company to serve as Bailiff until the following year and to admit new members to the Communality.

54.       On one such occasion, possibly Sunday 16 April 1543, or in an earlier year, John ISTED would have presented himself at the Hundred Court ‘praying for the franchise’ after having ‘inhabiteth in Hastings using some honest craft and being of good conversation for a year and one day’. (Being of good conversation was important to the Cinque Port of Hastings for some reason, as it features in a number of qualifications for things contained in the Charter.) The Bailiff and the Jurats would have then decided whether he should be admitted to the franchise and how much he should pay the Commonality of Hastings for the privilege. Following agreement John ISTED would then have taken the oath, as follows:

‘I will bear faith and loyalty to the King of England and the Commonality of Hastings from this day forward; and the estate of the franchise, to my power I will maintain; and I will bear scott and lot (local taxes) of my goods and chattels, so help me God.’

Then on kissing the Bailiff on his right cheek and receiving a copy of the Charter of Freedom under the seal of Hastings, which listed his privileges, John became a Freeman of Hastings.

Selection as Jurat 

55.       The following year John ISTED would have been eligible for selection as a Jurat (from Latin: jurare, to swear) a sort of alderman who assisted the Bailiff in the administration of Hastings. This was not an elected position, but was by appointment of the newly elected Bailiff who, according to the Custumal, chose ‘twelve Jurats of the most wise of the town’ who were collectively referred to as ‘the brethren’. However, I suspect in practice the Bailiff selected a combination of the most able and his friends. Refusal of appointment as a Jurat led to a fine of 40 shillings and the loss of the offender’s upper garment. It is not known whether anyone ever refused the honour and paid the fine.

55.       We know from the record of attendance at the Brotherhelds of the Cinque Ports at Romney, contained in the White and Black Books, that John ISTED served as a Jurat in 1544-45, 1547-48, 1548-49, 1551-52 and 1554-55. The elected Bailiff must, therefore, have chosen him to be one of his twelve Jurats at Assemblies at the Hundred Place, on: 8 April 1544, 24 April 1547, 15 April 1548, 12 April 1551 and 8 April 1554. However, John ISTED was most probably chosen as a Jurat on other occasions, but was not one of the two or three Jurats to attend the Brotherhelds in other years. Indeed, it is quite likely that he was a Jurat during most, if not all the intervening years, except when he was elected Bailiff in 1545 and 1550. And, as he, also, played a prominent role following the arrest of the Clerk and Lieutenant of Dover Castle, in 1556, it is also probable that he continued to serve as a Jurat possibly up to his death at the beginning of 1557.

Election as Bailiff 

57.       We also know that John ISTED was Bailiff of Hastings on two occasions 1545-46 and 1550-51. So on 19 April 1545 at the meeting of the Communality at the Hundred Place, John ISTED was elected Bailiff for the first time. He would then have been sworn in by taking the following oath:

‘I will bear faith to our sovereign the King of England and the communality of Hastings, and the franchise and the usages of the same rightfully will maintain and the common profit will keep, and to rich and poor will do right so far as I can, so help me God and the saints.’

And following this he would have selected his 12 Jurats and his own sergeant, who swore loyalty to him and the Commonality. I assume that in most cases the election and selection were merely formalities and the outcome was of no surprise, if not already fully determined beforehand. 

58.       What happened in 1550 is somewhat less clear, as John ISTED appears as the second of two Bailiffs on the list held by Hastings Corporation. It could be that the first on the list had been elected on the due date (Sunday 20 April 1550) but had died in office sometime before Tuesday 22 July 1550 when John ISTED attended the Brotherheld at Romney as the Bailiff of Hastings. If so, when the Bailiff died in office, the following procedure would have taken place, resulting in the election of John ISTED:

‘the Sargeant of ye mace, by command of the eldest Jurat, and the other Jurats, by command of the sound of the Brazen horne called the Freemen of the Town and Port to elect a new Bailiff for the residue of the year.’

If this were the case, it may have been a more genuine decision making meeting with John ISTED being appointed by emerging consensus or a vote. In any event, it would seem that John ISTED ended up serving as the Bailiff for the majority of the 1550-51 term of office.

59.       Being Bailiff had its disadvantages, as no Bailiff was allowed to retail any manner of victual during his time in office, as he was in charge of the assize of bread, ale and other things. It is, therefore, likely not to have been too popular with all those who made their living in trade. This is probably why the rule for anyone refusing to accept the appointment was to have their main tenement knocked down. We know that John ISTED was engaged in trade as he owned a number of fish shops, was a ship owner and was a purveyor to the King. It is unclear what happened to his business interests while he was Bailiff. However, it appears that this rule was not always strictly applied, as there was another rule for dealing with disputes or alleged crimes involving the Bailiff if he continued trading during his time in office.

Member of the Assembly 

60.       The Assembly of the Communality of Hastings (37 Freeman) also met periodically, at the Hundred Place, under the Chairmanship of the Bailiff, to take major decisions. There are very few records that survive of these meetings during John ISTED’s time. However, it appears that they met no more than four times per year. I suspect the meetings did not usually last very long and were largely held to ratify recommendations or decisions of the Bailiff and Jurats. The notes were short and to the point. However, the meetings seemed to get longer and more detailed later, in the 17th century, when they started to be held inside rather than in the open air. (There is probably something to be said for making public officers as uncomfortable as possible as an incentive towards efficiency.)

61.       The sort of major things dealt with during John ISTED’s known membership of the Assembly, involved the selection of Burgesses to Parliament, the repair and maintenance of the pier, the production of new Custumals for all the ports and sundry other issues, such as how much the brewers were to be paid for double and single beer. Few people are referred to by name in the Record Book of that time, with John ISTED being mentioned more than most in connection with: the election of Burgesses to Parliament, and his role in the production of the new Custumals (more on both of these later). He was, however, likely to have been involved in most of the decisions as much as any, by virtue of his position as Bailiff and Jurat.

John ISTED as Jurat

62.       We know very little of John ISTED’s work as a Jurat, apart from knowing he would have assisted the Bailiff in the administration of Hastings and had a judicial role at the regular Court sessions. We also know that he represented Hastings at a number of Brotherhelds where the Cinque Ports met to discuss and take decisions on matters of common interest. (See references at paragraph 7.) From the records of these meetings we know that he represented the Cinque Ports in two specific functions – as a Bailiff at Yarmouth and in the production of new Custumals for all the Ports.

63.       The record of the meeting of the Brotherheld, at Romney, on 26 July 1547 mentions that:

‘John Fowle is chosen to take his place and act with John Isted of Hastings’ (full reference at para. 7.c.)

The Cinque Port Charter gave the ports the right to land at Yarmouth to repair their nets and sell fish, which gave them equal status with the local fishermen during the profitable Herring fishing season which occurred off the Norfolk coast during the autumn. Two representatives taken by rota from the Cinque Ports, went to Yarmouth to act as Bailiffs for overseeing these activities and keeping the peace. It does not appear to have been a very popular appointment, as the rights of the Cinque Port fishermen were resented by the local fishermen and this sometimes broke out into violence. However, it was no doubt in John ISTED’s interest to take the Hastings turn in this as he owned a number of fish shops and no doubt derived profit from this annual event. It is not known how John ISTED and his fellow Bailiff at Yarmouth travelled to and from Yarmouth, but I assume they most probably made their way up the coast with the fishing fleet. This made the latter part of 1547 a busy year for John ISTED, requiring him to be absent from home for a long period, as following hot on the heels of the Yarmouth herring season was his attendance at Parliament from 4 November to 24 December.

64.       The records regarding the Custumals are a little confusing. The first relevant record is the Brotherheld at Romney, on Tuesday 22 July 1550, (see paragraph 7.e.) which John ISTED attended as Bailiff. The White and Black Book records a decision that all the Mayors and Bailiff, with two Jurats and the Town Clerks would meet at Hythe on 15 September to receive the new Custumal. Hastings defaulted and did not attend this meeting at Hythe. It is not known why Hastings did not attend the meeting, but no fine appears to have been imposed upon them, as would normally have been the case for defaulting. At this meeting - a Gestling - the only decision taken was that:

‘Winchealsea should send the book [Custumal] to Romney to be copied and sent onto Hythe for copying and so forth until it reaches Sandwich’

It appears it was being sent from west to east from Winchelsea to each of the Ports in turn. However, this doesn’t account for Hastings and Rye. Although it does not say so, it could be that Hastings and Rye were the first to have copies of the Custumals and had taken the lead in their production given the later recorded role of these Ports and John ISTED in particular in coordinating comments (paragraph 7.g. and paragraph 66 below refer.)

65.       The next mention of the Custumals is at a Brotheryeld held at Romney, dated 15 September 1550. However, it is assumed that this is an error and that the date should have been 15 September 1551. The reasons for this assumption are:

66.       At the Brotherheld of 15 September 1551, John ISTED was given (or continued) a prominent role in seeking the comments of John RAMESAY and the Lord Warden (full reference at paragraph 7.g.) In this context it says they ‘shall be solicitors’. I initially thought that this meant that John ISTED was also a lawyer, not least of all as some of his descendants had distinguished careers in the law in the 17th and 18th centuries, and I thought they may have merely been continuing the family business. I also thought it might have explained to some extent how he, as an outsider, became a Freeman of Hastings and that he may have been an early example of the current trend of generally failed lawyers becoming Members of Parliament. However, I suspect all this meant was that he was to solicit the views of RAMESAY and the Lord Warden on the draft Custumals. There appears to be no record of the views that John ISTED solicited from RAMESAY and the Lord Warden, or of the formal adoption of the new Custumals.

John ISTED as Bailiff of Hastings 

67.       Unlike the other Cinque Ports, Hastings was headed by a Bailiff, rather than a Mayor, who was both the King’s representative in the Port and the head of the local administration. This involved some heavy responsibilities. In addition to his Port and civic duties, the Bailiff was also the Coroner; and head of the judiciary for the Port, with powers of arrest, detention and trial that went nationwide. Indeed, the only cases that could not be tried before the Bailiff and Jurats were: counterfeiting coinage and the King’s seal, and treason against the King and Queen.

68.       As Bailiff John ISTED and his Jurats had the full range of punishments at their disposal:

Sanctuary and Benefit of Clergy 

69.       There were, however, ways of evading this harsh justice. Anyone could seek sanctuary in the Church where no officer of the law was able to apprehend a suspected felon. This did, however, severely restrict the suspect’s freedom of movement and required the co-operation of the local priest.

70.       Another way of evading justice, once apprehended and brought before the court, was to plead ‘benefit of clergy’. This was introduced as a part of the Compromise of Avanches, by Henry I as penance for the murder of Thomas a’Becket in 1170. In this he decreed that the purely secular courts he introduced (the Assize of Clarendon), which had been part of the dispute between him and Becket, would no longer have jurisdiction over the clergy, except in cases of high treason, highway robbery and arson. Instead, offending clergy were tried in an ecclesiastical court. This led to the loophole of male non clerics claiming benefit of clergy, which came to be an accepted practice. The test of this applied by the Court was to be able to read a passage from the Bible which traditionally, and perhaps appropriately, became the reading of Psalm 51 Miserere mei, Deus, secundum misericordiam tuam . (O God, have mercy upon me, according to thine heartfelt mercifulness). So anyone able to read, or able to memorise Psalm 51 could evade secular justice and be handed over to the Church for trial, where the punishment was usually much more lenient. Indeed, at an ecclesiastical court, a successful defence could often be mounted by compurgation, whereby the defendant could take an oath that he was innocent and find 12 compurgators who would also swear likewise. Of course, the ecclesiastical courts could defrock the proclaimed clergy and send them back to the secular courts, but this did not happen very often. So, Psalm 51 quickly became known as the ‘neck verse’, as knowing it could save anyone from a possible hanging. The loophole was partially closed by Henry VIII who made it law that non-clergymen could only use this defence once and were then to be branded on their left thumb with the letter ‘T’ as a sign of this. However, the relatively rich and powerful often managed to get this ritualistically performed with a cold iron that left no mark. Henry VIII also increased the unclericable offences to include murder, rape, poisoning, petty treason, sacrilege, witchcraft, burglary, theft from churches and pick pocketing. Benefit of clergy underwent many later reforms, including extending it to women in the 17th century, but it was not finally abolished until 1827.

71.       The Custumals of Hastings included a secular variation of the practice of an ecclesiastical court obtained by benefit of clergy, whereby the accused liable to the death penalty could ‘Appeal of Life and Member’ before the full Assembly at the Hundred Place instead of the Court. There they would plead their innocence. The Bailiff would then call out the names of each of the other 36 in turn. If any failed to answer, the accused was found guilty and given up for execution. But if all answered to their name, the Bailiff would appoint 12 to swear an oath with the appellant that he was innocent of the charge, following which the successful appellant was set free.

John ISTED’s conduct of the Court as Bailiff 

72.       There is no record of how John ISTED might have dispensed justice while he was Bailiff. However, there is no reason to believe he would have done any differently from others in accordance with the mores of his day, which might seem harsh and partial, if not corrupt by modern standards.

The Old Court House, Hastings built c1450

The case of Antonio MACUELO’s goods 

73.       However, we do know of one criminal case, which involved John ISTED, Philip CHUTE, their two shipping partners and the captain of a ship they owned, during the time that John ISTED was Bailiff. Unfortunately, the only records of this are three Privy Council records dated 15, 28 and 29 October 1545, as follows:

a.            Record of a letter requesting Ph CHEWTE ( Philip CHUTE) and 3 others (one of whom was John ISTED) to appear before the Council

Privy Council Business of xv day of Octobre

“A letter of appearance to Ph. Chewte and 3 others (one of which was John ISTED) to answer for a robbery by Wm. Woller, captain of a ship of theirs.”

b.            Record of the decision of the Privy Council

“Attending Wyndesour (Windsor) the xviijth day of Octobre (28th October; 18th recorded in error on original) being then present, -

Duke of Norfolk (The hereditary Premier Duke and Marshall of England), Earl of Hertford (Edward SEYMOUR, later created Duke of Somerset, the brother of Jane SEYMOUR and uncle of Edward VI), Sir Thomas Cheyne (Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports), Sir Anthony Wingfelde (Chancellor and Chamberlain), Sir Raufe Sadlair (Master of the Great Wardrobe), Sir William Pagett (Secretary of State), Sir William Petre (Secretary of State), Sir Richard Ryche (First Chancellor, later Baron Rich, whose evidence at the trial of Sir Thomas Moore condemned Moore to death for treason.) 

An order was taken that Phillipe Chewte and John Istedde, baylif of Hastinges, with ii of Hastinges, being owners of a certeyne shippe whereof was captayne one William Woller, sholde restore unto Antonio Macuelo all suche gooddes being lately taken out of a Spanisshe [ship] by the sayde William Woller as were come unto theyre handes, and to make as good a searche as they cowlde for the rest to be delivered accordingly. And towching Woller to do the best they cowlde for the taking of him and the committing unto wardde, and in the meane season to cawse all his gooddes to be arrested to be furthercomming for thanswering of the sayde robry accordingly.

c.            Record of the letter of the Council to the Master of the Rolls 

Attending Wyndesour, the xxixth day of Octobre, being then present, -

Sir Thomas Cheyney, Sir Anthony Browne (Master of the Horse), Sir Anthony Wingefelde, Sir William Pagett, Sir William Petre, Sir Raufe Sadlair, Sir Richard Ryche.

A letter to the Master of the Rowles to discharge certeyne bandes entered before him by Antonio Macuelo and Antony Gueras towching a certeyne Spanisshe shippe at Plymmowth, for the whiche the sayde Anthony Macuelo and Antony Gueras wer thowrowly agreed with all parties, as by the copye of the sayde agreement sent with the sayde letters more largely might appere.”

(The Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England referred to was, Sir Robert SOUTHWELL, a neighbour of Sir Thomas CHEYNE, by virtue of the land he acquired by marrying the 15 year old NEVILLE heiress. He later became the Sheriff of Kent and as such opposed Wyatt’s rebellion in 1554, for which he subsequently received some of Wyatt’s confiscated property)

74.       Although it is not totally clear from this how the offence occurred, how this came before the Privy Council, and how the Privy Council arrived at its decision, it is possible to extrapolate the facts in context of the time and arrive at a probable conclusion.

75.       First of all, we can assume that the ship owned by John ISTED, Philip CHUTE and the two other unnamed partners was a merchant vessel typical of the type of the day which men of the Cinque Ports owned, often in partnership, to fulfil their obligation to provide ship service to the Crown – 57 ships for 15 days per year, each manned with 21 men and a boy. The ship may have, therefore, been permanently armed with cannon and manned with a crew trained to use them in warfare. The ship would also have no doubt been manned with sailors trained in archery, possibly musketry, and close quarter combat with the cutlass. No doubt that flying the easily recognisable Cinque Port colours would also have heralded a certain reputation.

76.       We do not know whether the ship was supposedly performing ship service to the Crown when the incident took place, or operating under letters of marque, or under separate orders from ISTED, CHUTE and partners. We do, however, know that it was an alleged act of piracy, as it was referred to as ‘robery’ in the record of the meeting and a side note to the record states that the goods were ‘taken on the sea’. And, the definition of piracy is: ‘an act of robbery of ships at sea’. We also know that from time to time Cinque Port ships engaged in piracy, to which a blind eye was probably turned when it involved merchant men of countries that England was not on good terms with. Indeed, as early as the 14th century, the Crown was known to have sold or issued ‘letters of marque’ authorising private ships to attack foreign merchant vessels - a practise commonly known as privateering. This was something which became more common and better known during the later reign of Elizabeth I. However, on occasions acts of piracy brought the Crown and the Cinque Ports into conflict. The act described in the Privy Council Order appears to have been one of those occasions, or potentially one of those occasions.

77.       It is probable that this act of piracy occurred somewhere in the English Channel, at least a couple of weeks before the Privy Council record of 15 October 1545. The Spanish ship was probably in transit from Flanders, which was part of the Holy Roman Empire and whose Emperor at the time was the Flemish born King Charles of Spain. Following this incident, the Spanish ship appears to have put into Plymouth where Antonio MACUELO, the owner of the goods taken; and Antony GUERAS, possibly the ships Captain, made an official complaint to the authorities. Under the Cinque Port Charter the usual authorities had no jurisdiction over Freemen of the Cinque Ports who owned the ship, unless warrants for their arrest and subsequent trial were endorsed by the Lord Warden, or issued by the Cinque Ports themselves. As a result, the Plymouth judicial authorities probably pushed the matter up their chain of command to the Master of the Rolls (Sir Robert SOUTHWELL) who then, as now, was a senior judge. The Master of the Rolls may have raised the matter with the Lord Warden, who may have refused the writ and referred the matter to the Council. Alternatively, SOUTHWELL may have referred the matter directly to the Privy Council, as this was no doubt a politically embarrassing matter as the Spanish were England’s allies in a war against France. Indeed, it was during this war that Philip CHUTE, one of the partners in the ship in question, had only recently distinguished himself at the Siege of Boulogne, at which King Henry had rewarded him with a jewel from his own ring. Indeed, it is believed that it was during a surprise attack by the French on the King and his bodyguard, on 26 July 1544, that Philip CHUTE was the key figure in preventing the King being killed or seriously injured.

78.       As a result of the compliant, on 15 October 1545, the Privy Council, of which Sir Thomas CHEYNE, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports was a prominent member, ordered ISTED, CHUTE and partners to appear before it at Windsor (in the Castle) to answer the charge of piracy (robbery from a sip at sea). One can only imagine the reaction of ISTED, CHUTE and partners when they received the order to appear before the highest council of England to answer the charge, which was hardly routine Council business. Did they travel to Windsor with a sense of apprehension, possibly fearing that there heads might be in danger of parting company from their bodies. In any event, they would no doubt have taken the opportunity of ensuring they had their stories straight and that the evidence each would give was consistent. It is possible that the case may have already been independently investigated, but this is doubtful. In any event, it appears that the evidence presented at the Privy Council meeting of 28 October 1545, by ISTED, CHUTE and partners, and possibly MACUELO and GURAS who were most probably also present, led the Privy Council to conclude that the entire blame should be attached to the ship’s Captain William WOLLER. It also ordered the partners to return the goods that had come unto their hands, and do the best they could to seek out and return the rest of the goods, bring WOLLER to account and seize his property until this had been achieved.

79.       It is quite possible that WOLLER had been off on a frolic of his own in committing this act of piracy. However, Cinque Port ships were known to have used their privileged position to engage in piracy over the centuries, which was much more profitable than legitimate trade. We should, therefore, consider the possibility that the partners, if not the Crown, were complicit in the ship being engaged in this type of activity, if not this particular act on this particular Spanish ship. Indeed, if this had involved a French ship, or a ship of any number of other countries, we may never have heard anything about this incident as they would not have been able to safely put into an English port to make a complaint. However, the act, by mistake or design, was against a Spanish ship. And, as Spain was currently an ally of England, it was highly politically embarrassing, especially with the people involved – Philip CHUTE being a recent hero of the war against France in which England was allied with Spain, who had been personally rewarded by the King for his heroism; and John ISTED already elected Burgess of the forthcoming Parliament, who also as Bailiff of Hastings was the King’s representative in the Port as well as the head of the local administration and judiciary. Therefore, if they had been complicit in any way, it might have been politically expedient to allow, or even engineer a cover-up. And, unfortunately for Captain WOLLER, he was the lowest on the food chain who could reasonably be held responsible.

80.       What evidence is there that this may have been a cover up and the hapless WOLLER made a scapegoat? The answer is not very much, nor would you expect the Privy Council to leave much of a trail of such a thing. However, in addition to the reputation of Cinque Port ships, there are a few slightly curious things which could possibly lead to a suspicion of a cover-up. These are:

a.            Why did the Privy Council order the ship’s owners to ‘answer for a robbery’ if there was not at least a suspicion that their captain had been acting in accordance with their orders?

b.            Why did the Privy Council not order WOLLER, as well as the ship owners, to appear before them, or at least order his detention until the matter had been properly investigated?

c.            The fact that some of the goods had ‘come unto their (the partners) hands’. It may be that they had confiscated these from WOLLER with the intention of restoring them to their rightful owners. However, ‘come unto their hands’ sounds a bit passive for confiscation. It may, therefore, be that WOLLER had delivered part of his spoils to them as their share of the booty from his piracy or privateering. If so, I suspect the partners’ share would have been the lion’s share, with the Captain and crew taking a share according to their rank.

d.            A letter from the Privy Council ordered the Master of the Rolls to dismiss the complaint by MACUELO and GURAS, following an agreement between them and ISTED, CHUTE and partners. This provides a strong indication that MACUELO and GURAS were also present at the Privy Council meeting. The dismissal of this complaint with the Master of the Rolls effectively left the jurisdiction with John ISTED who as Bailiff of Hastings was the head of the local judiciary. However, as a part owner of the ship in question and the employer of WOLLER he was hardly independent or impartial. If the Crown had really wanted to apprehend WOLLER the best chance of this would have been for the Privy Council to have ordered the Lord Warden to endorse a warrant for Crown officers to arrest him, which would have ensured independent and wider out of Port jurisdiction.

e.            The Privy Council order states that the partners should ‘do the best they could’ to seek out the rest of the goods and to apprehend WOLLER. This sounds a little half-hearted, especially when compared with the only other record I can find where the Privy Council ordered Hastings to take action against one of their own - a comparatively minor offence when John LONDON, a fisherman of Hastings, was ordered to be set on the ‘Pyllerye and one of his ears cut off, and afterwards deterned in pryson’. John LONDON’s offence was to have spoken ‘certaine lewede woordes’.

f.             There is a suspicion that the partners, especially John ISTED, as Bailiff of Hastings, may have already let WOLLER go free. WOLLER and the ship must have returned to Hastings after the incident, as part of the goods had come unto the partners hands. However, he was not detained then, and there is no indication that any attempt was made to arrest him for this incident when they may have had him in their grasp.

g.            It is possible that WOLLER may have been a nickname or an alias. Bains points out in his book ‘Historic Hastings’, that people from Hastings, particularly fisherman and seafarers, often went by nicknames or aliases which were often descriptive. This was not to conceal their true identity, but to distinguish themselves from others of the same surname. An example of this is that a number of records referring to Edmund JACKLIN, a Bailiff of Hastings during John ISTED’s time, often refer to him as ‘alias Bocher’ – a butcher. This was probably an indication that he was a trader in meat, rather than the sobriquet of a mafia hit-man, although the Cinque Ports have sometimes been referred to by historians as ‘legalised mafia’. In any event, similar popular systems of aliases still exist in relatively small and closed communities with limited numbers of surnames, such as in parts of Wales where there are disproportionately high numbers of JONES, EVANS, etc, where Dai the death might be the undertaker and Evans above the chapel minister. Therefore, WOLLER an occupational name for someone dealing in wool may well have been such a nickname or alias descriptive of a wool dealer; or perhaps a wool smuggler. The export of fleece was illegal at the time without a special licence. However, the illegal export trade, commonly known as ‘owling’ because it occurred at night, was a lucrative occupation which was known to have gone on from the nearby South Downs and Romney Marshes through the Cinque Ports; especially Rye and Winchelsea, and Seaford which was a limb of Hastings. Indeed, this possible misunderstanding regarding the ship captain’s name may have been convenient, if not deliberate or contrived by the partners, with or without the knowledge of CHENEY, SOUTHWELL and the Privy Council, to give him further protection from the possibility of arrest and prosecution.

h.            There is no record of anyone named WOLLER ever having been prosecuted by Hastings for this or any other crime, although records from this period are incomplete. There is also some evidence that the Cinque Ports and Hastings in particular, had a history of failing to prosecute one of their own for piracy or smuggling. To many of the members of the Cinque Ports of the time, WOLLER’s only mistake might have been one of picking on a ship of the wrong country (Spain) at a time of shifting alliances, or of merely being found out.

82.       Unfortunately, we will never have the answers to these questions. All we know for certain from the official records is that WOLLER was held accountable for this crime and no guilt was attached to the owners of the ship. Anything else remains a matter of speculation.

Defence of Cinque Port Privileges 

83.       During John ISTED’s time the Cinque Ports’ privileges, and especially the Lord Warden's monopoly on the return of writs, came under increasing pressure from the Crown. Shortly after the MACUELO incident and following the Lord Chancellor’s issuing subpoenas on some Portsmen, representatives of Hastings, Rye and Sandwich met with Sir James Hales, the Ports' retained legal counsel, to discuss the best way to secure the Lord Warden’s assistance. This seems to have resulted in some success. However, in 155O the mayor and jurats of Dover had to refuse to accept another royal writ because it was not accompanied by a letter of attendance from the Lord Warden. And in 1552, the brotherhood complained of the many writs and processes that had recently been issued directly to Portsmen rather than via the Lord Warden. As a result, it was decided to draw up a petition to be circulated around the ports and then presented to Dover Castle for the Lord Warden’s inspection.

84.       John ISTED is recorded as becoming involved in an incident, in May 1556, when Joseph BEVERLEY, clerk of Dover Castle; and William CRISPE a kinsman of the Lord Warden and Lieutenant of the Castle, were arrested by the Lord Chancellor's sergeant at arms. It is not clear what their offence was, but it is thought it may have been related to the muster they had taken on the day of their arrest, or to a demand for the delivery of prisoners held on suspicion of piracy. BEVERLEY and CRISPE called on John ISTED for assistance and he took a letter from BEVERLEY to the Lord Warden appealing for his help. After taking legal advice, the Lord Warden replied that he would complain to the Lord Chancellor that the warrant for their arrest was invalid since it had not been addressed to the Lord Warden's office and so infringed the liberties of the Cinque Ports:

‘I trow thys ys the ffyrste lord Chancellor that ever sent any such offysur to areste any man with in the ports onles he cam ffyrste to the Warden of the ports ... (this was obviously untrue and Cheyne knew that.) I wyll styk wythe the Ryght to the utter moste of my power, I meane to the libertyes of the ports, as ffar as there charters wyl bere’.

85.       As a result, BEVERLEY and CRISPE regained their freedom on this legal technicality, but it appears they may still have been at risk to later appearance in court as CHEYNE wrote to advise them that they should request every port to:

'make serche for suche presidentes as they have to maynteigne their said liberties', 

and to send representatives to a meeting at Dover to discuss tactics. He closed the letter by restating his determination to:

'stand by you and them for the maynteininge of their said liberties asfar as their charters will beare to thuttermoost of~y po(w]ore' 

Again, this defence appears to have been successful as BEVERLEY and CRISPE remained at liberty.

86.       It is unclear why John ISTED got involved in the BEVERLEY and CRISPE case. Was he a lawyer?; was he in the forefront amongst those of the Cinque Ports in the defence of their ancient rights?; was it WOLLER and his men, or other members of the crew of a ship John ISTED owned that were amongst those held on suspicion of piracy that BEVERLEY and CRISPE had refused to hand over to the sergeant of the Lord Chancellor?; or was he merely in the right place (Dover) at the right time to provide assistance and take a letter to the Lord Warden at his residence at Shurland, Isle of Sheppey, Kent?

87.       The Lord Warden had duel responsibility to protect both the Cinque Ports rights under their Charter and the interests of the Crown. It was often quite impossible to ride both these horses at the same time. In the question of the writs, he always seemed to come down on the side of the Cinque Ports despite there often being clear cases to answer. The Cinque Port Charter itself, as far as I can see, did not demand that writs had to go through the Lord Warden for his approval, only that the Cinque Ports could maintain their own system of justice in practically all matters, which seems to have been interpreted that they alone had jurisdiction over Portsmen, and that by custom and practice this could only be overridden with the Lord Warden’s approval. Nevertheless, CHEYNE may have felt that a change in this custom and practice was an erosion of his powers. In any event, there appears to have been, at times, an almost symbiotic relationship between CHEYNE and the Cinque Ports – the Cinque Ports relied upon the Lord Warden for the protection of their rights and privileges and the Cinque Ports were the Lord Warden’s power base. Of course, the Lord Warden could not go too far in protecting the Cinque Ports against the Crown’s interests, as the Crown always had the option of removing him and replacing him with someone more compliant to its wishes. However, the Crown also relied upon the services of the Cinque Ports and the members of their Freedom and as a result was prepared to allow them a good deal of leeway.

Administration of the Maudlin House (Hospital) and Lands 

88.       Another of the responsibilities of the Bailiff was the administration of the Hospital of St Mary Magdalen. This had been in existence by the end of the 13th century and run by the Abbott and monks of the local Benedictine Priory, but the Bailiff had some administrative responsibilities for it from the earliest times, which were outlined in the Custumals of 1356:

89.       However, this appears to have come to an end with the dissolution of the monasteries when the Hospital passed more directly into the hands of Hastings, just prior to John ISTED’s known association with the Cinque Port, in a decree dated 17 November 1538:

‘Its decreed that the Maudlin House & Lands, the Rents and Stock thereunto belonging, should from henceforth and forever be at the letting of the Bailiff and his Brethren, so that any Lease by them to be made should not exceed 20 years, and that the Rent should be distributed at the discretion of the Bailiff and his Brethren among the Poor People inhabiting within the Liberty of the Town quarterly, And that two persons should be elected at the next Hundred Court to receive and distribute the said Rents as agreed, and also that whoever would give most Money for the said Farm at any time between that day and the Feast of St Andrew then next coming should have the same, so as such person would be bound to dwell upon the same.’

90.       It is not known what happened to the inmates of the hospital, but it appears that following the dissolution of the monasteries they no longer had a home at the Maudlin House. Nor is it known how the Bailiff and his Brethren, including John ISTED, used the rents derived from the lands for the benefit of the poor. However, there is an interesting decision recorded in the extracts from the Old Record Book concerning the Maudlin lands during John ISTED’s time. The record is undated, but its position in the book indicates that it was probably in or around 1546. This records:

‘that all the timber and wood on the Maudlin Land should be sold and applied for the use of the Pier’ (Major work was being planned for the pier at the time.)

This decision appears to be against the spirit, if not the letter, of the 1538 decree.

91.       It was not until 1610 that it was decided to purchase another house to be used as a hospital for the care of the poor. And a year later the following purchase was made:

‘Ther is paid unto Mr Life for his howse to mak an hospitell this Sept 29 1611, £20 10s and ther remayneth to be paid him more 50s…’ 

I assume that this house belonged to the LIFE family who were members of the Freedom and possibly that it had at one time belonged to the Mr LIFE who had been Bailiff of Hastings for a number of years, and for whom the rule was changed so that he could continue to serve in this position in consecutive years.

JOHN ISTED: BURGESS OF HASTINGS

The Parliaments 

92.       During John ISTED’s time Hastings, in common with the other Cinque Ports, returned two members of Parliament. Records show that John ISTED was one of those to represent Hastings at four Parliaments under three successive monarchs, as follows:

                                                            YEAR              SUMMONED             SESSIONS

                        Henry VIII:                   1545                30 Jan 1545                 23 Nov 45 – 24 Dec 45 

                                                                                                                        14 Jan 47 – 31 Jan 47 

                        Edward VI:                  1547                4 Nov 1547                 4 Nov 47 – 24 Dec 47

                                                                                                                        24 Nov 48 – 14 Mar 49

                                                                                                                        4 Nov 49 – 1 Feb 50

                                                                                                                        23 Jan 52 – 15 Apr 52 

                                                            1553                1 Mar 1553                  1 Mar 53 – 31 Mar 53

                        Mary I:                         1554                2 Apr 1554                  2 Apr 54 – 5 May 54

The last Parliament of Henry VIII 

93.       Parliament had no record of who represented Hastings during the last Parliament of Henry VIII. However, ‘Historic Hastings’ (Bains) makes note of John ISTED having submitted an expenses claim (2s per day – 10p in new money) for attendance at what appears to be the 1545 Parliament – the last of Henry VIII (para.6.a. above) . Unfortunately, there are discrepancies between the dates recorded in the account and in the House of Commons Journal - the Journal records two sessions; while the account records three sessions, none of which exactly match the dates of either session recorded in the Journal. John ISTED’s original account in ‘Extracts from the Old Record Book’ (ESRO c/a/d) confirms Bain’s findings and the discrepancies in the dates. However, the differences in the dates of the first two sessions in the account are very close to the dates of the last Parliament of Henry VIII recorded in the Journal. These minor differences can probably be accounted for by the claim being allowed for travelling time to and from Parliament; and associated business, such as a pre meeting of the members returned from the Cinque Ports who acted as a bloc in support of their mutual interests. Unfortunately, this does not explain John ISTED’s claim for a session that does not appear to have occurred. I did, however, notice that the House of Lords’ Journal records that Parliament was convened on 4 November 1546; a few days after John ISTED’s claim commenced (on 31 October) for the apparent missing session in the Commons records. Interestingly, the Lords’ Journal only records that Parliament was prorogued until 14 January (1547), the start of the next session for which John ISTED had also submitted a claim. Even more interestingly, there is a note to the effect that this record had been lost as it had been bound out of order in the Lords Journal. In any event, it appears that Parliament had originally been called with the intention of holding a session from 4 November 1546, probably to 24 December 1546, but that it was immediately suspended for some reason until 14 January 1547. This was not that unusual and would not necessarily have required any action in the House of Commons, which might explain why there is no reference to this in the House of Commons Journal. However, that does not mean to say that John ISTED and other members of the Commons did not travel to London expecting a full session of Parliament. It may have been that as a result he was allowed by Hastings to claim for the full session as he would probably have put in place arrangements for him to be away from Hastings and his business interests for that long, and had occurred expenses in travelling to and from Parliament. It could even be that he had stayed in London during that period on Cinque Port business, possibly including seeing the King’s Attorney to obtain drawings for all the Ports which also features as a line in his accounts. Alternatively, and possibly more likely, as this missing session is third on the list in the account but would have been second on the list if it had been placed in apparent chronological order, it may be that the account was not exclusively for the last Parliament of Henry VIII but also included the first session of the first Parliament of Edward VI, which ran from 4 November to 24 December 1547. However, this would mean that the heading date of the account – 38 Henry VIII - was incorrect.

94.       In checking the Extracts from the Old Record Book at ESRO I also noticed entries recording the selection of Burgesses for the 1539 Parliament for which Parliament also had no record; and the 1536 Parliament against which the History of Parliament had a question mark. I, therefore, forwarded copies of these documents to the Director of the History of Parliament, after first obtaining permission from ESRO. The Director wrote back to thank me for these and to say that John ISTED needed to be ‘attributed to the 1545 Parliament’. This is an example of how amateur historians can occasionally help the professionals fill in some blanks. However, it will be sometime before the official History of Parliament: 1509 to 1558 will be revised for reprint.

Interference of Sir Thomas CHENEY, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports in Parliamentary elections 

95.       As can be seen from the surviving records, (6.b, c, d & e. above) Sir Thomas CHENEY, the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, tried to interfere with the electoral process for the March 1553 Parliament by telling the Cinque Ports who they should elect to represent them as well as selecting an out of Port Member for each. This was resisted by the Ports and judging by the resulting representatives to that Parliament there appears to have been a compromise. Bains Historic Hastings refers to all these documents, but is selective in what is quoted and makes no mention of the dates where they are known. This very much gives the impression that they were all part of the same exchange of correspondence and process leading up to the election of John ISTED and John FRANKE as Burgesses at the second Parliament of Mary I. However, the date of the first document makes it clear that this relates to the second and last Parliament of Edward VI (March 1553). The second document probably relates to the same Parliament, and is a follow up letter to the first. However, the date of 5 January, with no year, appears to pre date the first letter which is dated 16 January, but they make no sense this way around. The only thing that makes sense is that there was a mistake in dating the letters, either by Dover who copied them to all the other Ports on behalf of the Lord Warden, or by the Hastings Town Clerk when he originally copied them into the Record Book, or by the later Town Clerk who appears to have copied them from the damaged original. I suspect the second letter should have been dated 5 February, instead of 5 January, as it refers to a letter from Dover dated ‘the first of the month’ which appears to have been the response to the Lord Warden’s letter of 16 January. The third undated record is most probably the Hastings response to the Lord Warden’s letters at 6.b and c. However, its position in the copied Extracts from the Old Record Book, which is far from a complete record, and its reference to a letter from the Lord Warden dated ‘last day of August’ means that it could possibly be related to some missing later correspondence to either the first or second Parliament of Mary I. The results of the selection process do not make things any clearer. However, it is interesting to note that Parliamentary records show only John ISTED representing Hastings in the second Parliament of Edward VI (March 1553) and the other as ‘unknown’. It is possible that Hastings and the Lord Warden had failed to agree on the representatives for this Parliament and as a result Hastings refused to elect a Burgess, leaving John ISTED as the Lord Warden’s appointment. Alternatively, it might just be that this is another gap in the records with perhaps Sir William STAFFORD, who had served in the previous Parliament again taking his seat alongside John ISTED. In any event, the Burgesses attending the first Parliaments of Mary I indicate that CHEYNE may have got his way in at least appointing an external member – John PEYTON – with Hastings electing its Bailiff of the time – Thomas RODES as its preference or under instruction. Nevertheless, there appears to have been a successful defence by Hastings in the election to the following Parliament, as the note in the Extracts from the Old Record Book of 11 March 1554 states the Commons of Hastings chose ‘Barons to the Parliament…. John FRANK and John ISTED’.

Why did Sir Thomas CHEYNE try to interfere with the Cinque Ports electoral process?

96.       Sir Thomas CHEYNE’s letter of 16 January and 5 February (misprint January) 1553 raise a number of questions, notably:

a. why did he claim that ‘Divers honest & credible Men have told me that all my Predecessors have appointed the Burgesses & I am sure that all will do so at this day through all England’, when it is clearly not the case that his predecessors had done so?

b. why did he wait until the March 1553 Parliament to seek to impose his wholesale will over the selection of the Burgesses, when he had been the Lord Warden since 1536 – some seventeen years?

97.       It could simply be that he had mistakenly been told that this was his right, which he had not known about for the previous 17 years or that this was simply the sort of dramatic invective that characterised much of his correspondence. However, if you examine the sentence quoted in 96.a. above, there are two parts to it – the claim, and the expectation. In the first part he is clearly talking about his personal rights in the case of the Cinque Ports to who the letter is addressed. However, in the second part it is not clear who he is talking about in the case of the ‘all will do so at this day through all England’? He cannot be referring to himself as ‘all’ nor can he be talking about all the Cinque Ports in terms of his expectation of obeying him, as they were not ‘through all England’. Could it be indicative that CHEYNE was part of a plot of a number of regional potentates to stack Parliament with as many people as possible who would be loyal to them and supportive of their aims? This sounds conspiratorial, but Tudor England was conspiratorial amongst the governing classes. The question is why might there be such a conspiracy at this time? The answer might be in the same problems that persisted throughout the Tudor period – the succession, religion, the jockeying for position of various members of the aristocracy, and to a lesser extent England’s relationship with foreign powers, particularly Spain. The most important of these, which affected all the other issues, was the succession. But why might the succession be such an issue leading up to this particular Parliament?

98.       It has long been suggested that Edward VI had always been a sickly child and that there had always been concerns about his health. However, more recent theories suggest that this may not have been the case; only that Henry VIII had him mollycoddled because of his own fears. In any event, Edward VI contracted the measles in the Spring of 1552. This was a serious disease in those days. It appears that Edaward had been considerably weakened by this and that it had left him open to other infections. By the winter of 1552 he had become seriously ill again and by January 1553, when the next Parliament (March 1553) was being summoned on NORTHUMBERLAND’s initiative, it was clear that the King had tuberculosis. There was little chance of a cure or of him surviving to reach his majority or sire an heir. It would, therefore, be surprising if concerns about the succession were not again foremost in the minds of those on the Counsel, especially amongst those who had most to lose, or gain, by the death of the King without a male heir – NORTHUMBERLAND and SUFFOLK.

99.       It may, therefore, be that NORTHUMBERLAND had considered the possibility of introducing a new Act of Succession to displace the Catholic Princess Mary when he decided to call the March 1553 Parliament. If so, it would have required a like minded or compliant Parliament to be in place. If this had been his intention, he might have been unsuccessful, or he decided it was too early to raise the question of the King’s own mortality with him, or he did not want to alert the opposition to his intentions. In any event, no such legislation was introduced in this Parliament. As it transpired, it appears that NORTHUMBERLAND and SUFFOLK struck an alternative deal at some stage. This was that Lady Jane Grey, the eldest daughter of Francis Grey who was third in line of succession and the wife of SUFFOLK, would marry Guildford DUDLEY, a younger son of NORTHUMBERLAND. Then at the right time, NORTHUMBERLAND would persuade the King to amend his will to name Lady Jane Grey as his successor, although as a female she was not actually included in the succession in Henry VIII’s will, which named his daughters and their male heirs and then his sisters daughters and their male heirs. No mention was made of any female heiresses.

100.     How much CHEYNE might have been in on these schemes, or where his real sympathies may have lain is difficult to determine. He was thought to be a religious conservative, i.e. someone with Roman Catholic sympathies, as his own son reported him to the authorities for keeping icons in his private chapel which was a treasonable offence. However, he declared for the Protestant Lady Jane Grey in July 1553, only to switch to Princess Mary when it was evident she had won. He then appears to have sat on the sidelines during the WYATT Rebellion and then made his excuses and pleaded loyalty to Queen Mary when it was all over. The only conclusion that can be drawn from all this is, regardless of what his personal preferences were, he was a consummate political survivor and did whatever was expedient at the time. However, if CHEYNE had been in on a plot to stack the March 1553 Parliament to change the succession, it is almost certain that those he named in his letter to the Cinque Ports of 16 January 1553, including John ISTED, were either particularly loyal to him, or Protestant, or both.

101.     The strange thing is that if everyone had left well alone and followed Henry VIII’s wishes regarding the succession, one of the male heirs of Francis Grey’s 3 daughters would probably have succeeded to the throne in 1603. Instead, England accepted James I and the Scottish succession, a line that had been excluded by Henry VIII. A cogent argument could also be constructed that things would have been better if Henry VIII’s wishes had been carried out. And that failure to do so led to: a failed plot to blow up the King in Parliament (James I), two Civil Wars (Charles I), a dictatorship (Oliver Cromwell), the Restoration of the Monarchy (Charles II), an enforced abdication (James II), the adoption of German Kings from the Scottish succession (the Hanoverians), two Jocobite Rebellions (1715, and 1745 under Bonnie Prince Charley); and not to mention the political union of the nations of the United Kingdom which has been the subject of controversy ever since. Of course, a reasonable argument could equally be constructed that produced a worse outcome. All we can say for certain is that history would have been a whole lot different.

Why was John ISTED not elected to the first Parliament of Mary I but was then elected to the second? 

102.     The other thing worth considering why John ISTED did not represent Hastings at the first Parliament of Mary I, after having represented it at the last Parliament of Henry VIII and both Parliaments of Edward VI; and then why was he returned to the second Parliament of Mary I. The simple explanation may be that he simply was not elected by Hastings for the first Marian Parliament, who chose Thomas Rodes, their Bailiff that year. Alternatively, he may have made it known that he did not want to serve at this Parliament for any number of reasons, including he may have felt he had done his share and that it was a convenient time to make a change, especially with a new monarch ascending the throne. However, given the context of the time, it is worth considering whether there may have been more complicated reasons why he may not have sought election to the first Parliament of Mary I, but did so, or was persuaded to do so, for the second Parliament.

103.     This was a time of political and religious intrigue and upheaval and a time when politics and religion were inherently linked. While we do not know of John ISTED’s religious persuasion, East Sussex was an area that was strongly Protestant and where a number of people suffered under the later Marian persecutions. We also know that John ISTED was a Burgess at the Parliaments of Edward VI which reformed the Church in England and changed its liturgy from Roman Catholic to Protestant lines, which is something Henry VIII had been careful not to do, even though he had repudiated the Pope’s authority and made himself supreme over the Church in England. Perhaps having been party to the religious reforms under Edward VI, John ISTED may not have relished the idea of being a member of a Parliament of Mary I in which she was bound to seek to overturn these changes. We also do not know whether he had supported the accession of Lady Jane Grey, or even whether he had known about it until it was virtually all over – 9 days. But if he had supported it, he may have felt unable to serve in a Parliament under a monarch whose accession he had been so recently opposed to.

104.     There was some overt opposition to a return to Roman Catholicism from a number of Members of the first Marian Parliament. Indeed, 60 Members are marked on the Crown Office list for this Parliament as, ‘They which stand for the true religion are signed thus’. By this they indicated they stood for the Protestant religion, not the Roman Catholic faith, and were thus opposed to overturning the Edwardian religious reforms – a brave and principled stance. It is interesting to note that none of the representatives of the Cinque Ports were marked as being amongst the opposition. But whether they were chosen specifically because they had Roman Catholic sympathies or no strong Protestant convictions, or for their strong pragmatism is a matter of conjecture. However, RODES who had replaced John ISTED as Burgess, must have been trusted by the Marian regime, as he later received some public appointments, including being the Vice-Admiral of Sussex. In any event, it appears that Parliament was ultimately not so much opposed to the return to Roman Catholicism as it was to returning the land which many of its members had acquired through the dissolution of the monasteries under Henry VIII. So, when it was agreed that the ex-monastery land would not be repatriated, most of the opposition in Parliament to return the country to Roman Catholicism quickly dissipated.

105.     Could it be that with the deed done – returning England to the Roman Catholic faith – to which he had not been a part, John ISTED felt that he could once again serve in Parliament and deal with subsequent and other parliamentary business? Or could it be that there were other events which may explain why John ISTED may have been persuaded to represent Hastings at the second Parliament of Mary I. Could it be that his decision was influenced by the dramatic events – the WYATT Rebellion and the subsequent host of executions - that occurred between the dissolution of the first Parliament of Mary 1 on 6 December 1553; and the election of John ISTED and John FRANKE, on 11 March 1554, for the second Parliament of Mary I summoned for 2 April 1554?

106.     Sir Thomas WYATT, a major hero or villain of his day depending upon your perspective, would certainly have known many members of the Cinque Ports, including John ISTED. Although it is not known how well acquainted WYATT and John ISTED were, they appear to have had a number of things in common:

a.            They were both members of the second Parliament of Edward VI (from Nov 1547 to Apr 1552) at which WYATT was a member for Kent, a constituency which bordered many of the Cinque Ports and that neither of them served in the first parliament of Mary I;

b.            They had a number of friends and associates in common:

(1)             Sir Thomas CHEYNE, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports was a friend and neighbour of WYATT, although he was closer in age to WYATT’s father and grandfather. WYATT had a large estate in Kent, including Allington Castle, Aylesford Priory and Boxley Abbey (all near Maidstone), as well as property on the Isle of Sheppey where CHEYNE had his main residence – Shurlands.

(2)             Sir William STAFFORD had been a soldier who was well acquainted with WYATT. He and John ISTED were the members for Hastings at the first Parliament of Edward VI, at which WYATT was a member for Kent.

(3)             Philip CHUTE, the Standard Bearer to the King, was a soldier who saw service with WYATT, most notably at Boulogne where they both served with distinction. CHUTE was a shipping partner of John ISTED. He also served as the Burgess for the Cinque Port of Winchelsea in the 1545 Parliament in which John ISTED was the Burgess for Hastings. It is also thought that CHUTE may also have replaced ROWLAND as the member for Winchelsea in the 1547 Parliament in which both WYATT and John ISTED were members. CHUTE also had land in Kent, including at Malling which was adjacent to WYATT’s main properties around Maidstone.

(4)             John FRANKE of Hastings had the supply contract for the garrison at Boulogne at the time WYATT was the captain of the garrison. John ISTED and John FRANKE, as fellow purveyors to the monarch, may have had a business relationship.

c.            WYATT and John ISTED may have been about the same age. Although their dates of birth are unknown other evidence indicates their latest dates of birth were in the early 1520s

d.            Both WYATT and John ISTED had illegitimate sons.

However, whether this level of acquaintance and things in common would have led to WYATT and John ISTED to be friends or to have any social contact can only be a matter of conjecture. WYATT was known for liking a drink, as he had once been arrested and imprisoned in the Tower for being drunk and disorderly. Perhaps WYATT and John ISTED may have had a beer or two together with fellow Parliamentarians, in the forerunner of the Red Lion at the bottom of Parliament Street, following a gruelling day in the House of Commons? Perhaps WYATT might have provided hospitality to John ISTED at his residence near Maidstone whenever he may have travelled to see CHEYNE at his main residence of Shurland, as this was on the direct route between Hastings and the Isle of Sheppey? We will never know.

107.     There is no direct evidence to connect any of the Cinque Ports to the WYATT rebellion, or that WYATT had consulted CHAYNE or any of his friend connected with the Cinque Ports about his plans. However, CHEYNE and the Cinque Ports would undoubtedly have been useful to WYATT and the other rebels, especially as it was known that WYATT had met with the French ambassador – DE NOAILLES - and that France had promised to send an army to support the uprising. If the support of the Cinque Ports could have been secured to assist with safe passage across the Channel and to provide a safe harbour for landing the French troops close to London, in or near the county of Kent where the uprising had been most successful, it would have proved of great benefit to the rebel cause. It would have, therefore, been surprising if WYATT had not at least sounded out CHEYNE and/or some of his contacts in the Cinque Ports. However, as it turned out, the French troops never arrived, perhaps because the uprising was suddenly brought forward by the course of events and it was all but over before VISDAME, who was to head the French army, could have brought forward his preparations. It may seem odd that a Roman Catholic country like France would support a Protestant rebel cause. However, the axiom of my enemy’s enemy is my friend might have applied in this case. France’s main enemy at the time was Spain and it would not have relished the prospect of a union between England and Spain brought about by the proposed marriage of Mary I to Prince Philip of Spain. Perhaps CHEYNE and the Cinque Ports constrained themselves from openly declaring for the rebels so as not to draw the attention of the authorities to them which might have hampered the later arrival of the expected French support. However, I suspect that if CHEYNE had known about the WYATT Rebellion beforehand, he would have sat on the sidelines until he was sure which way the course of events might take, which is what he appears to have done. This is, of course, pure speculation. And no matter how much it seems to make military sense, there is no direct evidence to suggest that CHEYNE or anyone from the Cinque Ports were approached, let alone agreed to support the rebel cause.

108.     Nevertheless, CHEYNE was suspected of at least having sympathy with the rebel cause, despite the possibility of him having had a hand in the proposed marriage between Mary I and Philip of Spain when he was sent as Mary’s emissary to the Emperor Charles shortly after she came to the throne; and despite his rumoured religious conservatism. His cause was probably not helped by him having declared for Lady Jane GREY as queen following the death of Edward VI. Also CHEYNE saying he was unable to take action against the rebels in his own county of Kent because the people around him were so bent on their ‘devilish enterprise’ that he could trust not more than ten of his own men, may not have rung all that true, as the Sheriff of Kent took action to challenge the rebels, albeit unsuccessfully. (Coincidentally, the Sheriff of Kent at the time was, Sir Robert SOTHWELL who had been the Master of the Rolls who was involved in the case of Anotonio MACUELO’s goods in 1545, involving John ISTED and partners.) Regardless of where CHEYNE’s sympathies may have lain, the Cinque Ports were most probably opposed to The Queen’s marriage to the Spanish prince, which is what provoked the rebellion, as they initially refused to provide ships to escort Philip across the Channel. They also tried to resist the provision of ships at other times during Mary’s reign, much to the Lord Warden’s displeasure, which may in part be an indication that they continued to be opposed to the marriage and the alliance with Spain.

109.     Regardless of whether CHEYNE was in sympathy with the WYATT rebellion, the doubts about him in the climate of the time would have put his political survival instincts to a severe test. He might, therefore, have wanted to surround himself in the Parliament immediately following the rebellion with a few old hands who he could trust. Alternatively, it could also have been that in view of the difficult position CHEYNE may have been in at this time, he did not want to get into any disagreement with the Cinque Ports over this matter and so let dissenting ports have their way in electing both Burgesses. Perhaps another indication of this weakness is that CHEYNE appears to have kept an uncharacteristically low profile at the April 1554 Parliament. In any event, Hastings elected its most experienced political operators to serve them at what was expected to be a difficult Parliament – John ISTED the town’s most experienced Parliamentarian, and John FRANKE a veteran of the 1542 Parliament. It is also interesting to note that while none of the members of this Parliament signed themselves as ‘supporters of the true religion’ (the Protestant religion) there were more signs of opposition to the monarch in Parliament, with the Commons refusing to pass the Bill of Attainder against Sir Thomas WYATT. It is not known how John ISTED may have voted on this Bill. It is, however, possible that a number of members of both the Lords and Commons who may have been involved in the rebellion owed a debt of honour to WYATT, as he went to his death accepting full responsibility for the Rebellion, without implicating anyone despite having been tortured for the information. However, at the second Parliament that year – 12 November 1554 to 16 January 1555, at which RODES and PEYTON resumed their seats for Hastings, the Bill of Attainder rejected by the previous Parliament, of which John ISTED was a member, was passed without amendment. CHEYNE was also back to his conspicuous and confident best - attending the Queen and her consort to Westminster Abbey for the mass which heralded the opening of Parliament; helping the Speaker elect to the chair; taking several bills up to the Lords; and fighting off bids to reduce the size of the Council and to exclude him from it. Nevertheless, he was no longer as politically active after this as he had previously been, although this might just have been age catching up with him.

Parliamentary business 

110.     The business of Parliament during most of the time that John ISTED was a Burgess for Hastings can be seen in the Journals of the House of Commons at http://www.british-history.ac.uk/source.asp?pubid=14 which covered matters of high politics and the seemingly trivial. Unfortunately, this gives little flavour of the House of Commons as a debating chamber. However, Thomas CROMWELL, the patron of Sir Thomas CHEYNE whom CHEYNE later arrested on the King’s orders, had the following to say about the House of Commons following the first Parliament he attended:

‘I amongist other have indured a Parlyament which contenewid by the space of xvii hole wekes, wher we communyd of warre, pease, stryffe, contencyon, debatt, murmure, grudge, riches, poverte, penwrye, trowth, falshode, justyce, equyte, discayte, oppressyon, magnanymyte, actyvyte, force, attempraunce, treason, murder, felonye, consyle[ation], and also how a commune welth myght be edeffyed and contenewed within our realme. Howbeyt in conclusion we have done as our predecessors have bene wont to doo, that ys to say as well as we myght, and lefte wher we began.’

Perhaps some things never change.

HOME LIFE, LIFE & FASHION 

The House 

111.     We know from his will that John ISTED lived somewhere in the Parish of St Clement, Hastings. This was the most prosperous part of the town in those days. Although we do not know exactly where he lived in St Clements, there are some relatively large houses still standing in the Old Town that date from this period and one can imagine John ISTED and his family living in a house of this type. These buildings were largely constructed around timber frames fixed together with wooden pegs. The walls would have been constructed of lathes of wood covered with daub. Most of the roofs would have been thatched, although some may have had tiles. Inside, the walls would have most probably been panelled in wood, or a combination of wood and plaster, some of which would have been covered with tapestries or painted cloths. The ground floor was probably of stone, while the upper floors would have been bare floorboards. Carpets were an expensive luxury and any the ISTEDs may have had would have been hung on the walls rather than on the floor. In the winter, stone floors might be covered in straw or rushes and scattered with dried herbs to give it a sweeter smell. The windows would have been of a lattice type - made of small pieces of glass held together by strips of lead. The poor, however, would have had to make do with either unglazed shuttered windows or windows covered with linen soaked in linseed oil. The house would no doubt have had a number of expensive chimneys, the introduction of which made it possible for houses to have a number of rooms on a number of levels that could be more easily heated. However, the poor lived in houses of only one storey with few rooms and a hole in the roof to let the smoke out from a central fire.

Light, Water and Sewage 

112.     The house would have been lit with candles. The ISTEDs might have used the more expensive beeswax candles, especially in important rooms, rather than those made of tallow which gave a more unpleasant smell. There would have been no running water. The house may have had a well, but most probably water for washing and cleaning would have been carried from the Bourne which ran through the town. Drinking water would have been brought from further afield, although people mainly drank beer, cider, and perry, which due to its alcohol content was more sanitary than the water. Even the children would have been weaned from milk to beer at a relatively early age. There were no bathrooms or flush toilets and waste would be put into a cesspit or possibly thrown into the street, the sea or the Bourne. Even the Brewery – the Old Town Brewery, now a shopping centre – was not allowed to take water for beer production from the Bourne below a certain point, as it was largely an open sewer through the town. Incidentally, John ISTED’s grandson – another John ISTED – held the brewery licence in Hastings in the early 17th Century and most likely operated from the Old Town Brewery.

Furniture 

113.     The furniture in the ISTED household would have been sturdy and made of wood – most likely oak - and there would have been few soft furnishings, apart from cushions. However, the children and servants would most likely have sat on stools or benches. John and Anne ISTED would probably have slept in a four poster bed, hung with curtains to keep out the draft. They would most probably have slept on a feather mattress covered with heavy linen sheets and woollen blankets, although as a merchant John may have had access to other richer materials – cotton and silk - and embroideries. The servants and poorer people in general would have had to make do with straw mattresses supported by ropes strung across a wooden frame. There may have been a clock in the house and/or a sundial in the garden. The garden was probably quite small and given over to flowers and herbs, with vegetables being bought at the market. They may have kept some chickens for their eggs, and horses in a nearby stable, but no other livestock is likely to have been kept.

Diet 

114.     The ISTED family diet would have consisted of large quantities of fresh, salted and smoked fish which was readily available in Hastings and from John ISTED’s fish shops in particular. They would also have eaten reasonable quantities of meat, both fresh and cured. They would also have consumed reasonable quantities of bread, cheese, some grains and vegetables. However, there diet would have been considered high in animal fats and deficient in vegetables by today’s standards. But things like potatoes and tomatoes were unheard of in England in John ISTED’s time. Fruit was available, although in Tudor times fresh fruit was considered bad for you unless it was baked into a pie or a tart, which in the absence of sugar may have been given added sweetness by honey. Meals would have generally been eaten off of pewter plates and bowels with spoons, as forks were not used at that time. The ISTED’s would probably have used silver spoons and may have had some silver plate when entertaining guests.

Anne ISTED’s Life 

115.     Anne ISTED probably had a servant or two, probably a cook and a housemaid. She would probably have spent much of her time looking after the children, and spending her recreation engaged in such activities as embroidery, music – perhaps playing something like a harp or a psaltery - playing cards and backgammon. She may also have spent some time reading, as printed books in English were becoming more readily available; although not all females, even from amongst the aristocracy and the gentry were taught to read and write. However, education for most people was arguably better before the dissolution of the monasteries than it was afterwards, until the Education Act of 1870. Most of the Books that would have been available to the ISTEDs would have been of a religious nature. The one book they most probably had if they were Protestants, or Lollards as they were still more commonly known at the time, was a copy of ‘The Newe Testament in Englyshe and Latyn’ which contained Tyndal’s English translation New Testament and Erasmus’s Latin version. They would probably have also had their own copy or copies of the Book of Common Prayer, following its publication in 1549. Anne may also have spent some time teaching the children to read and write. What education her daughters would have received would have been from their mother at home – mainly home crafts, how to run a household and other wifely duties. (This was not a time of equal opportunities, despite there being a female monarch during this period – women had to wait a few hundred years more.) However, the boys would no doubt have attended the local petty school (primary school) and then moved onto the local grammar school. This school arose out of the collegiate church in Hastings Castle which had been the responsibility of monks until its suppression in 1547, following Edward VI’s succession and the subsequent religious reforms of which John ISTED as a Member of Parliament had been a party.

Entertainment 

116.     There probably was not much public entertainment in Hastings outside of the Taverns, apart from the odd visit from some travelling players, or the odd cock fight. However, hunting was popular amongst the better off and John ISTED probably spent some of his leisure time in this pursuit. This would have taken the form of hunting with a bow and arrows, or with a hawk, much the same as the first known ISTED – William de ISTEDE had done in Mayfield c1285. Indeed, John ISTED may have learnt his hunting skills in much the same area as William de ISTEDE, on the nearby land that he owned in Framfield. It is, therefore, likely that John kept a hawk and a hunting dog or two. The ISTED Coat of Arms, with the three Talbot heads on the shield may well demonstrate a love of hunting, as much as their other significance – fidelity.

117.     Football was played by the poor, although it was banned for a time by Henry VIII. It was, however, a different game in those days; often played by large numbers of people, sometimes from competing villages, over large distances between the opposing goals. It was a rough game as indicated by the following description at around the time that John ISTED lived:

‘Football is more a fight than a game....sometimes their necks are broken, sometimes their backs, sometimes their legs.....football encourages envy and hatred....sometimes fighting, murder and a great loss of blood.’

So there is not a lot of change there then, except the game itself is now more civilised and the violence occurs more amongst competing fans in and around the stadiums.

Fashion 

118.     In the time of John and Anne ISTED fashion became important to the more prosperous, and along with this came fashion victims. We cannot be sure, but I suspect John and Anne were not entirely immune from this. Arguably one of the dafter ideas was the introduction of the farthingale from Spain, which was a frame made of whalebone or wood which was suspended from the waist beneath women’s skirts and petticoats. We have no idea of what Tudor men, and John ISTED in particular, might have thought of this fashion. However, I suppose it saved them from the age old question, ‘does my bum look big in this?’ to which there is no guaranteed right answer. For those who could not afford a farthingale there was always the ‘bum roll’, a roll of stiffened material worn around the waist which did much the same job as a farthingale. Above the farthingale or bum roll, women wore a smock or petticoat, and above that a dress made in two parts – a bodice and a skirt. Sleeves were generally detachable and held on by means of laces. Bras had not been invented then and Tudor women wore no knickers. This meant that John ISTED and husbands in general, were not tempted to buy their wives expensive designer lingerie, with the almost inevitability of getting it wrong.

119.     Men’s clothing was more practical. They wore short trouser-like garments called breeches, or hose. They also wore tight fitting jackets called doublets. Another jacket called a jerkin was worn over the doublet. Over the jerkin the better off wore a cloak or cape. However, men were not entirely immune from strange fashion. A little before John ISTED’s time, in 1482, Edward IV introduced a law which forbade men below the rank of Lord from exposing their private parts below the latest fashionable short doublets. However, as men found it extremely inconvenient to have their crotch seam sown up, the codpiece was invented. Originally it was a pouch sown onto the hose or breeches in which the ‘family jewels’ rested. However, men quickly discovered that they could easily enhance the appearance of their manhood with a bit of strategic padding. Then finally the pouch idea was discarded altogether, along with any pretence to function, and large padded shapes of bizarre dimensions were tied onto the hose with the items of value residing behind them. Of course, as an ISTED, John would have had no need for such artificial enhancements. The codpiece went the way of all fashion in the 1580s – 20 to 30 years after John’s death - when the fashion for more voluminous folds in trunk hose made them redundant.

JOHN ISTED’s BUSINESS INTERESTS 

What we know 

120.     All we know of John ISTED’s business interests, in the chronological order of the records from which we get the information, is that he:

What we do not know 

121.     We do not know:

Interpretation of his business interests 

Shipping 

122.     We cannot be sure what sort of cargo was carried by the ship owned by ISTED, CHUTE and partners. However, if ISTED, CHUTE and Partners were engaged in piracy, they would most probably have had no scruples with smuggling and engaging in the illegal export trade. The export of raw wool was banned at this time to protect the English wool and cloth manufacturing industries. However, smuggling of raw wool, known as ‘owling’ was well known, particularly from the nearby Romney Marshes and South Downs. It may, therefore, be possible that the Cinque Ports, and ISTED, CHUTE and Partners may well have taken advantage of their proximity, privileges and immunities to engage in this activity. As discussed earlier in the act of piracy in the case of Antonio MACUELO’s goods, there may be a clue to this in the name, nickname or alias of the ship’s captain - WOLLER, an occupational name meaning dealer in wool. On the other hand, this may have been purely coincidental.

123.     The illegal export of fleece or legal export of finished wool would primarily have been bound for the mature textile industry of Flanders. This would no doubt have taken the ISTED ship to Antwerp which was the second largest European city north of the Alps at that time, a major trading centre and the centre of international currency trading. England had its own building and permanent representative in Antwerp. In 1551 the permanent representative in Antwerp was Sir Thomas GRESHAM, who John ISTED would no doubt have known through his membership of Parliament and GRESHAM’s work for the Crown, and their respective merchant interests. Coincidentally, Sir Thomas GRESHAM later acquired an estate and iron working interests in Mayfield, where the ISTEDs were Ironmasters, and adjacent to the Parish of Framfield where John ISTED held land. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that GRESHAM and John ISTED were ever engaged in any business enterprises, least of all GRESHAM’s currency smuggling on behalf of Edward VI’s government. However, using an armed merchant ship with Cinque Port privileges and obligations of service to the Crown, with a somewhat rough reputation, might seem a reasonable prospect for such trade.

124.     Another contender for illegal activity was the cross Channel trade in canon and shot manufactured in the rapidly expanding Wealden iron industry of the time. Records are scarce during the 16th century, particularly relating to any illegal trade. However, gun parts characteristic of the two-part cast gun were known to have been manufactured in the Weald before 1506. One-piece cast cannon were also known to have been cast in 1538 and by the mid 1540s this type of gun-founding had been successfully established in the Weald and grew into a profitable and sometimes illegal export trade. Little is known of this early trade. However, later in the century, in 1573, by which time Richard ISTED, John’s son, had probably attained the Freedom of Hastings, Ralph HOGGE who held the monopoly of casting iron ammunition for the Crown, listed the ironmasters that he knew were casting ordinance. This list included Sir Thomas GRESHAM, a sometimes known licensed exporter, and Nicholas FOWLE who was named as being engaged in the illegal export trade. It was this Nicholas FOWLE who was an in-law of the ISTEDs. These accusations led to a survey being carried out of the Wealden iron industry which resulted in an extensive list of all the iron works and ironmasters capable of producing ordinance. This list included Thomas ISTED, the son of Richard and Joan ISTED, who with the other Ironmasters had to sign a bond for £2,000; an enormous sum of money in those days, against producing ordinance for illegal export. Thomas ISTED is also later believed to have taken up residence in Hastings.

125.     There is no firm evidence connecting ISTED, CHUTE and partners, or later John’s son Richard, with the illegal export of ordinance manufactured in the Wealden iron industry. However, if cannon had been exported from the 1540s onwards, shipping it down the Rother to Rye, or the Ouse to Seaford (a limb of Hastings) for shipment in Cinque Port ships would have been the obvious thing to do if you had the right connections. And John and Richard ISTED who had land in the Weald and family connections with the iron industry, had the ship, the protection of the Cinque Ports Charter, positions of some importance. And if John ISTED’s ship had been engaged in acts of piracy with his consent, he might have had little moral objections to engage in such trade.

126.     The imported cargo of the ship of ISTED, CHUTE and Partners is probably a little more difficult to predict. The ship may have taken on a variety of cargoes for a number of importers, or a large part of it may have been exclusively for the merchant businesses of John ISTED and his partners. However, no doubt it would have featured wine from France through Calais which was an English possession at the time; and probably finished textiles from Flanders. It is also possible that they may have brought back some refugees from the Schmalkadic Wars and some experienced iron workers for the Wealden iron industry which was still expanding at the time and in need of skilled workers. Most of these workers appear to have been Protestants, although it is thought that it was commercial interests rather than flight from persecution that was the main reason for their arrival in England.

127.     In any event, whatever their trading activity, it is most likely that John ISTED’s ship would have visited Calais, an English possession in France until 1558, Flanders – Bruge and Antwerp – and possibly into the Baltic. John ISTED who as an owner of the ship and a merchant may have gone on some of the voyages. If so, he may have become aware of the Swedish maritime port of Ystad, Sweden, which features in the ISTED family legend of the origins of the ISTED family and its name. This might account for the start of the oral history of this legend, which as far as we know was first recorded in a written document in the following century.

Purveyor to the King

128.     We only know that John ISTED was a Purveyor to King Edward VI, as it is recorded in the Journal of the House of Commons, on 11 March 1553, that he was given leave of absence as ‘Purveyor to the King’. Unfortunately, we do not know what goods he purveyed to the King or the reason that necessitated him being absent from the House of Commons. The obvious assumption, given John ISTED’s fish shops was that he was a purveyor of fish to the King. However, it is believed that all purveyors of fish to the King traded through the Old Fish Market in London, (not Billingsgate which did not come into prominence regarding fish until the 17th century). If so he may have been a Liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers, which received its Royal Charter in the 13th century and is 4th in precedence of the City Livery Companies. Unfortunately, we do not know whether this was the case as most of the pre 1666 records of the Worshipful Company of Fishmongers and those of the other Livery Companies that existed at the time were destroyed during the Great Fire of London. However, the routine supply of fish to the Royal Household seems an unlikely reason to be absent from Parliament.

129.     We know of one other Purveyor to the King who had also been a Freeman, Jurat, Bailiff and Burgess of Hastings during John ISTED’s time – John FRANKE. We know this, because he received permission to conduct business in Calais in 1536 to obtain items necessary for the King’s buildings – ‘plate with all things necessary at reasonable prices’. We also know that he was a victualler – a dealer in alcoholic beverages and food – and had the contract to provide victuals to Boulogne after it had been captured from the French in 1544. He was also asked to obtain a flat bottom boat required by Calais in 1547. Unfortunately, it seems that the monarch did not always want to pay for the things provided, as in his will John FRANKE left some money to his eldest son ‘out of the debts the Queen (Elizabeth I) owes me, if he can obtain it.’ It is the same John FRANKE who was the fellow Burgess of John ISTED in the second Parliament of Mary I and who was an executor of his will. It may, therefore, be possible that John FRANKE had been a business partner of John ISTED and one of the two unnamed ship owners referred to in the Privy Council Order of 1545.

Fish Shops 

130.     John ISTED left several fish shops in his will, which by pure coincidence were located close to where my great-aunt owned a fishmongers shop and a fish restaurant. No doubt John ISTED’s business, like my great aunt’s, was supplied by the local fishing fleet which drew up their fishing boats and landed their catch on the Stade, where the fishermen also stored and mended their nets in the distinctive tall fishing huts peculiar to Hastings. Not all of these shops may have been shops in the accepted sense, as the word shop was also used in the 16th century as a place of business. Some of the premises might have been shops in the modern day sense, but may also have included a wholesale market, and smoking and salting houses. They may also have included an office from where business was conducted and accounts and other records kept. It is not known whether John ISTED owned any fishing boats, or whether he just bought, processed and marketed the catch.

Fishing Huts, Hastings

JOHN ISTED’s DEATH 

131.     The only thing we can be reasonably certain about John ISTED’s death is that he died sometime between 8 January 1557 when he made his last will and testament, and 9 February 1557 when his will was proved. We do not know his cause of death, where he died, nor where he was buried. There is no record of his burial, as the earliest records that survive for Hastings start from 1558. Neither, is there a trace of any tomb at the churches in the parishes of St Clement where he lived, and Framfield where he and the ISTED family had property. Nevertheless, it is possible to consider a number of possible scenarios in the context of the time. First of all, there could be any number of reasons why there is no record of his death or trace of his tomb, including him being buried elsewhere, his remains were never given a formal burial on consecrated ground, or he may have been buried in an unmarked mass grave during a major epidemic. Alternatively, his tomb/grave may simply have been lost over time. Indeed, there are a number of graves/tombs of undetermined age at St Clements Church where all the inscriptions have been erased by the elements over time.

St Clements Church, Hastings

132.     It is possibly a coincidence that John ISTED died so shortly after he made his will. However, it seems more likely that he was aware that he was probably going to die or at great risk of dying when he made his will. On the face of it, this could mean almost anything, including execution, injury as a result of an accident, chronic illness, infectious disease or old age.

133.     Given John ISTED’s involvement in public affairs during this dangerous time when so many people were executed for treason and heresy, I considered the possibility that he may have met his end on the scaffold or at the stake. This would certainly explain why there is no trace or record of a grave, as those executed for treason had no graves, as their heads were stuck on poles and dismembered parts of their body hung up at various locations until they rotted in order to deter would be traitors. And, of course, there was little or nothing left of those burned at the stake and who, in any case as heretics, would have been denied a Christian burial on consecrated ground. However, this can probably be ruled out, as I can find no mention of John ISTED on any of the surviving lists of those executed during the reign of Mary I.

134.     It is also unlikely that John ISTED died of old age. Although we are not certain of John’s age, we have been able to narrow it down as being older that 34 and younger than 51 at the time of his death. While life expectancy at birth during this period was estimated at about 35 years of age, infant mortality was extremely high and those who survived into adulthood and avoided major epidemics, especially amongst the better off, could expect to live into their 60s or 70s. As an example of this the contemporaries of John ISTED mentioned most frequently in this paper: Sir Thomas CHEYNE, Philip CHUTE and John FRANKE lived to the ages of 76, 61 and 71 respectively.

135.     An examination of the pathology of the period of John ISTED’s death reveals a couple of possible causes of death from disease. It is estimated that influenza literally decimated the population of England between 1556 and 1558, killing 10%; while plague killed 6% of the population between 1556 and 1560. There were a number of areas where there were major plague outbreaks during this period; in particular Bristol, Norwich and Exeter each suffered three major plague outbreaks during which at least 15% of their populations died. This suggests that there would be smaller areas where an even greater proportion of the population might have been infected and died, but remained unreported nationally, while other areas may have escaped altogether. Unfortunately, no local records exist of disease in Hastings during this period, although there is a report of a major outbreak of plague in Hastings in 1563 – 6 years after John ISTED’s death.

136.     Nevertheless, it is possible that Hastings may have been threatened or hit by the plague or influenza in 1557. We know from records surviving from a threatened outbreak of plague in the following century that the Mayor and Jurats imposed a number of measures, including restrictions on travel in and out of the town, health screening, isolation of those infected within their own homes, fumigation by smoke and frankincense (completely ineffective, but the prescribed practice into the 18th century) and plans for mass graves. It is possible that the Bailiff and Jurats of Hastings made similar plans when the plague or influenza may have struck nearby in John ISTED’s time in the previous century. This may have prompted them and others, including John ISTED, to get their affairs in order and to review or make their wills given the virulence of these diseases. John ISTED may have then subsequently contracted the plague or influenza and died as a result. If so, he may have also been buried in a mass grave outside of the town precincts, which would explain there being no trace of a surviving tomb or monumental inscription; although if there was one, it might simply have been lost over time. It is also possible that these diseases may not have hit Hastings in 1556/7, but that John ISTED may have contracted one of them while away on a business trip. Indeed, ports and other centres of trade which he would have frequented, where many people from different areas gathered were, and still are, important in the transmission of disease. If this were the case, he could have died and his body buried in any number of places.

CONCLUSIONS 

137.     It is impossible to reach back almost 5 centuries to gather together the few remaining snippets of records pertaining to someone of the status of John ISTED, then piece them together and be confident of producing an accurate picture of the man and his life. As a writer, and probably as a reader, it is easy to fall into the trap of romanticising, or exaggerating the importance of an ancestor; and also of judging them and their age by our own standards or the general standards of our own time. The best that we can hope to do under the circumstances is to paint a picture of reasonable possibilities, some of which may hit the mark while others will no doubt be way off target, if not fanciful. And if we are going to be judgemental in any way, we should try to do so within the context of the circumstances and mores of the time in which John ISTED lived.

138.     In this context, I thought it might be helpful to conclude with a simplified recap of what we know and what we can only guess at about John ISTED and his life.

We know that John ISTED was:

·        born by 1522;

·        died in 1557 of an unknown cause shortly after he had only just written his will;

·        survived by a wife, and 2 legitimate sons and 3 legitimate daughters by his wife Anne; and one illegitimate son of an unknown mother;

·        one of the most prosperous residents of Hastings, who also held land at Framfield, Sussex in an area where ISTEDs had lived since at least 1285;

·        a leading figure in the administration of the Cinque Port of Hastings;

·        a leading figure generally within the Confederation of the Cinque Ports, having attended several Botherhelds; and having represented the Cinque Ports: as Bailiff at Yarmouth; obtaining drawings for all the Ports from the King’s Attorney; the production of new Custumals for all the Ports and; the defence of the Ports ancient liberties;

·        succeeded by one son – Richard - and a grandson – John – as members of the Freedom of Hastings (his eldest son Barnard died in early adulthood, shortly after he married, and appears not to have become a Freeman of Hastings);

·        a member of 4 Parliaments of 3 different monarchs – Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary I;

·        a member of the Parliaments of Edward VI which established the Church of England as a Protestant church;

·        a member of the second Parliament of Mary I which refused to pass the Bill of Attainder against Sir Thomas WYATT following the rebellion earlier in 1554;

·        a purveyor to King Edward VI of unknown goods and services;

·        a ship owner in partnership with Philip CHUTE and 2 others, whose Captain committed an act of piracy for which John and his partners were questioned but not held accountable by the Privy Council;

·        the owner of several fish shops in Hastings.

What we do not know and can only surmise is:

·        how he became a member of the Freedom of the Cinque Port of Hastings;

·        what family his wife may have come from and what help this may have been in the advancement of his career;

·        how he may have exercised many of his political, judicial and civic responsibilities and powers;

·        the extent of his business interests;

·        who his other business partners might have been;

·        whether or not he was engaged in any dubious or illegal activities that many Freemen of the Cinque Ports have been alleged to have engaged in under the protection of their Charter;

·        his religious and political sympathies and support for the: religious changes and persecutions under Edward VI; the succession of Lady Jane Grey or Mary I; the WYATT rebellion; the reversion to Roman Catholicism and religious persecutions under Mary I etc;

·        whether or not he was one of those from Hastings to attend the coronations of Edward VI and/or Mary I, and if so whether he was one of those who supported the canopy above the monarch during the procession and sat at the monarchs table during the subsequent banquet;

·        how he died and where he was buried.

139.     If I were to make a judgement, I suspect John ISTED did no more than successive generations have done – make best use of his abilities and opportunities for the benefit of himself, his family, his friends and associates; and hopefully the wider community. However, this would have been within the constraints of a very ‘interesting time’ – a dangerous and dynamic political and religious environment, especially to be involved in public affairs in any way. To survive, let alone succeed in this, would probably have involved a good deal of pragmatism, knowing when to press your case, knowing when to bend with the wind, and knowing when to keep your head down.

Bibliography:

Extracts from the Old Record Book of Hastings (1509 to 1581), ESRO C/A/d

Acts of the Privy Council dated 28 and 29 October 1545, British Library Additional Manuscript f 160

Act of the Privy Council, Dasent 264

Journal of the House of Commons Volume 1, dated 13 March 1553 

John ISTED’s will (1557), PROB: PCC 11/39 4 Wrastley

The Great White Book and the Black Book of the Cinque Ports, Eliot Stock (1905)

Historic Hastings, John Mainwaring Bains (1963)

The History of Parliament – The House of Commons 1509 to 1558, S T Bindoff (1982)

http://www.cinqueports.org/

http://www.sheppey.free-online.co.uk/history/cheyne/essay.html

http://www.localhistories.org/tudor.html

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=31149