Home > Hertfordshire > Herts to 1599 > John of Caswell

John of Caswell Esq bap 1583 d 1658/9

John was 16 or 17 when his father—Sir John III—was knighted. The family lived at the grand house of Mackery End, Wheathampstead. Most of his life he was called John Brockett of Wheathampstead Esquire, but here we identify him by his last home Caswell, to distinguish him from his older second cousin namesake. Aged 20/21 John was implicated with his father in allegations of counterfeiting silver in Ireland. The dynasty had already begun to decline in influence since Sir John II's death 1598, and John III's line further suffered from the events in Ireland. Nonetheless Mackery End was not sold till 1628 and in 1634 John of Caswell was the subject of a Heralds' Visitation. But towards the end of his life, John became less and less well off. He sold his interest in various Wheathampstead lands and spent his latter years at Caswell, a small farm, which he said he had difficulty retaining.
     
 
        ______________________________________________________  
        |                                             |
        |                                             |
 
Sir John I d 1558                           Nicholas of Mackery End Esq d 1585
 
m Margaret Bensted                          m Margaret Reynolds, nee Hoo
 
     ___|___________________                        |
     |               |                                |
     |               |                                |
 
Sir John II      Edward of Wheat-               Sir John III m Mary Snagg
 
d 1598           hampstead Esq d 1599           c 1561-1613  |
                                                             |
no surviving         |                               ________|_________________
                     |                               |                         |
sons                 |                               |                         |
 
         John of Wheathampstead Esq    Joan   m   John of   m Elizabeth      Thomas
 
               c 1571-1649/50          Lacon  | Caswell Esq | Mordaunt      bap 1584
                                              |             |
      _______________|___           ________|             |__________
      |          |                    |       |             |          |
      |          |                    |       |             |          |
 
   George     Thomas                John    Lacon        Edmond    Elizabeth
 
   bap 1624   bap 1628             bap 1612
 

  Contents of this page: 1. Ireland 5. Brocket v Cutts 1650  
    2. Wives and children 6. Brocket v Baker 1652  
    3. Virginia 7. Will  
    4. Wheathampstead    


1. Ireland

Back to the top

In March 1603 20 year-old Lieutenant John Brockett was called as a witness at the inquiry into the alledged counterfeiting of coins in Duncannon Fort, Ireland. He was implicated, but his younger brother Thomas was not (Calendar of State Papers for Ireland p 578-81).

 

2. Wives and children

Back to the top

The Visitation of Herts 1634 named John's wives and children as:

  1. Jane dau and coheir of Edward LACON of Willy, Co Hereford. Children: John and Lacon—a daughter.
  2. Elizabeth dau of Edmond MORDAUNT of Oakley, Bedfordshire. John and Elizabeth married there 8 Jul 1624 (IGI). Children: Edward and Elizabeth.

The 1860 Gateshead Pedigree gave his first wife's name as Joan, daughter and heir of Edmond Lacon of Wilwyn. The Wheathampstead Parish Registers gave baptism dates:

  1. John 29 Jul 1612
  2. Edward—actually Edmond—23 Jun 1625
  3. Elizabeth 28 Jun 1626.

There was a 13 year gap between John and his brother. John is the only known Gentleman John Brockett who could have married Mary Blackwell in Sandridge 1635.

Although the Wheathampstead Parish Registers and the Visitation of Herts 1634, and then the 1860 Gateshead Pedigree all named John's 2nd son Edward, John's will clearly gives his name as Edmond, as does the 1650 Chancery suit, Edmond's brother John's will and indeed Edmond's own will. Mother Elizabeth's father was an Edmond.

The Merchant Taylor's Company's Presentment Books (Guildhall Library microfilm 352:57) and Index to Freeman (Guildhall Library microfilm 324) recorded Edmond being presented 4 Apr 1646 and freed 4 May 1653, by master Thomas Pendleton. Freedom usually coincided with the age of 21, but Edmond was 28. The only other known contemporary was Edmund the son of Edmund, Vicar of Luton, bap 1605—too early to have been an apprentice 1646-53. Edmond the Merchant Taylor died of the plague in 1665 in London in difficult financial circumstances and a dispute arose over the execution of his will (pr PCC PROB 11/318) between his widow Judith (d 1688) and the executor, kinsman Thomas Brockett (PRO C10/107/25 Brockitt v Brochitt, Hare, Banton). John and Richard Hare were among the defendants.

 

3. Virginia

Back to the top

1609-1613 John's father invested in the Virginia Company during Sir Thomas Smyth's treasurership.

Before 1639 John's father granted him 200 acres in New Norfolk, Virginia when he assigned it to Francis Roulston, alias Willcox (Nugent 1934- vol 1 p 110):

'Henry Watson, 200 acs, Low Co, New Norfolk, Jun 10, 1639. On Elizabeth River at the head of the broad creek. Due by assignment from Francis Roulston alias Willcox and assigned to the same Francis by John Brockett, Esqr., son to Sir John Brockett, Knight, having been granted the sd. Sir John Brockett by bill of adventure from Sir Thomas Smith, Knight, late treasurer to the Company for VA.'

John's brother Thomas was probably the Thomas Brockett, gentleman, recorded in 1623-4 as an Adventurer of the Virginia Company (Kinsbury 1906- vol 4 p 366).

 

4. Wheathampstead  

Back to the top

During his life John had interest in various lands in and around Wheathampstead:

  • Mackary End House Wheathampstead, or Mackerells End, was the home of his childhood (VCH Herts 1908 vol 2 p 300 n 64 citing Westminster Abbey Muniment 14050) and John is said to have conveyed it to Thomas Levett the day after Ascension Day 4 Charles I—May 1628 (n 65). But in fact it was his younger brother who did so (PRO CP25/2/248):
    Latin English translation
    1. hec est finalis concordia ...

    5. ...Inter Thomam Levett Armigerum quer' et Thomam Brockett Armigerum deforc'

    6. de Manerio de Mackeryend cum pertinencijs ac de sex mesuagijs decem Cotagijs duobus

    7. molendinis aquaticis decem Gardinis decem pomarijs octingentis acris terre

    8. quinquaginta acris prati Centum & Viginti acris pasture sexaginta acris bosci

    9. ducentis acris Iampnorum & bruere & quinque solidat' reddit' cum pertinencijs in Whethampsted

    10. Harpenden & Kimpton …

    17. ... nouingentas libras sterlingorum
    1. This is the final agreement ...

    5. between Thomas Levett Esq purchasor and Thomas Brockett Esq vendor

    6. of the Manor of Mackeryend with 6 messuages, 10 cottages, 2

    7. watermills, 10 gardens, 10 apple orchards, 800 acres of land,

    8. 50 acres of meadow, 120 acres of pasture, 60 acres of wood,

    9. 200 acres of gorse and heathland and 5s rent, with appurtenances in Wheathampstead

    10. Harpenden & Kimpton ...

    17. ... for £900 sterling
  • John and his son John conveyed Saunceys to James Ellis in 1638 (PRO CP25/2/430; VCH Herts 1908 vol 2 p 302 n 75).
  • John spent the last part of his life at Caswell House (VCH Herts 1908 vol 2 p 296a—with a picture—citing Westminster Abbey Muniment 14117). In the dispute with Samuel Baker it is referred to as: 'one Messuage called Casswell house with thappertenances and seuerall pieces or parcells of land conteining by estimation two hundred acres of land arable meadow and pasture set lyeing and being in the parishes of Harpeden Kympton and Whethamstead in the said Countye of Hertford'.

 

5. Brocket v Cutts 1650  

Back to the top

This was a dispute over some money John had borrowed against some of his property in Wheathampstead. Because of it he was twice briefly imprisoned. His son Edmond was involved. Two documents have been found: John's Bill of Complaint and William Cutts' Answer (PRO C9/5/18).

The main details:

Abbreviations: JB = John Brockett, EB = Edmond Brockett, WC = William Cutts, W = Wheathampstead

line John's Bill of Complaint line William Cutts' Answer
3 1646 JB borrows £15 from WC 3 JB already owes WC £20, making a new total of £35.
4 As security, JB gives WC land in W with annual rent of £9 10s. 5f As security, JB gives WC land in W with annual rent of £6 till £35 paid off, + 8% interest on £35 meanwhile.
5 JB & EB enter a bond with WC for £30. 9 JB & EB enter a bond with WC for £60.
6f WC receives rents for 3 years, more than paying off the £15. 11f WC receives £14 4s 6d.
9 WC has JB arrested 13 WC has JB arrested
10 WC is arrested because of £20 14 JB has WC arrested
10f Arbitration Jan 1648 18 Arbitration
12 JB & WC promise each other £40 surety 19 JB to deliver up the £20 bond
14f JB to pay WC annual rent of £6 + 27s 6d 20f JB & EB to pay WC annual rent of £6 till debt cleared.
15 WC to deliver up the £30 bond 22 WC to deliver up the £60 bond
16f JB to deliver up the £20 bond 25f EB refuses to pay WC the rents
22 WC refuses to deliver up the £30 bond 34 WC has received £4 3s 6d towards another loan to JB of £5.
23 Aug 1650 WC has JB arrested again and imprisoned    
26 WC with others steals 14 acres of wheat worth £40-50 from JB while in prison 37 WC denies stealing any corn from JB

 

6. Brocket v Baker 1652  

Back to the top

This was an involved dispute over John's property in 'Casswell' in the 1650s. Three documents have been found but no judgment as yet:    (abbreviations—JB: John Brockett, SB: Samuel Baker)

  1. JB snr's Bill of Complaint of 9 Feb 1652—PRO C10/465/40
  2. SB jnr's Bill of Complaint of 2 Dec 1652, a new suit—PRO C10/24/23
  3. JB snr's Plea & Demurrer of 13 Feb 1653 to 2—PRO C10/24/23.

Summary and analysis

1. Interpretation of JB snr's argument in his 9 Feb 1652 Bill of Complaint (C 10/465/40)
John Brockett snr built Casswell House (l 44) and owned it himself absolutely ('as of fee' ll 2,3). In 1638 he had a legally binding deed drawn up settling ownership after his death (ll 5,6). In it he settled Casswell House with about 200 acres of adjoining land on himself till his death, part thereafter to Elisabeth, his wife, till her death (l 6) and part to JB jnr, his eldest son [by his first wife]. Elisabeth's part was to revert to her stepson JB jnr on her death (l 8). JB snr's settlement was a free gift. He did it for and in consideration of blood and natural affection and for no other payment. JB snr did not intend to restrict himself or Elisabeth to having to maintain the property at the same value (l 9). He had therefore intended to have the clause 'without impeachment of waste' in the deed, but he said that JB jnr influenced the people drawing up the deed into omitting it (ll 10,11).

Comment: JB jnr's reversionary interest in the land would have been worth more this way. A future holder of the reversion (like SB snr) would be assured that when his time came to take possession of the land, the land would be in much the same state as when he had purchased it. It might also have put JB jnr in a position to sue his father, or perhaps rather his stepmother, for any reduction in the property's value during their or her tenure. JB snr was careless when he did not check the deed for the 'without impeachment of waste' clause, the more so when in the Bill he insisted to the Court that not being liable for waste was so important to him.

After signing and sealing the deed JB snr realised the omission and questioned JB jnr (ll 12, 13), who promised him that he wouldn't take any advantage of the omission and that his father could do what he pleased with the property during his lifetime (l 13). [His stepmother's lifetime was not mentioned.] But JB snr did nothing to rectify the situation except rely on his son's assurances that all would be well.

Comment: But a promise is not a contract. When JB jnr told his father that 'he (JB jnr) will not take advantage of this omission and that John Brockett the elder could for his lifetime do as he pleased as though the said clause had been inserted' JB jnr could have been guilty of a misrepresentation of fact, if at the time he knew his statement to be untrue. If JB snr was induced to sign because of this misrepresentation of fact he might have been able to avoid the deed on the ground of fraud. However, he did not call on JB jnr to come to court.

At any rate, JB snr said that he had not been aware that his son then sold his future inheritance in the land to Samuel Baker snr of Hempstead, Esq (l 16). He also claimed that his son parted with it for little if any payment.

Comment: If the father's claim were true, why did JB jnr sell his title so cheaply? Was he in a hurry to sell? By contrast, SB jnr in his Bill claimed JB jnr sold it for a valuable consideration.

According to John snr's Bill, this sale was probably in 1642 or early 1643, because 'not long after' (l 17) SB snr sued a writ of waste against JB snr for cutting down some trees on the property. The writ was issued after Easter in the 18th year of the reign of Charles 1 (l 18), i.e. about April 1643. Samuel Baker's writ of waste seems to have gone through court without JB snr's knowledge (l 21), or so he alledged, and damages of £50 were awarded against JB snr. As was customary at the time, these were then trebled to £150 and SB snr was also awarded 106 acres out of the property, the alledged area of waste (ll 21, 22). The following year SB snr sued for execution of this judgement and was awarded an additional 68 acres in lieu of the unpaid £150 (l 24), so he then owned 174 out of about 200 acres. [The remaining 26 acres would probably have been next to the house.]

SB snr died Dec 1644 (l 26) and his part of the property and reversionary interest passed to his son Samuel and to Josias and Faith Martin (l 27). In the ensuing seven years these three are said to have earned about £800 from the property (l 30), while by contrast JB snr claimed that he and his family were reduced to subsisting on the charity of others and were unable to keep the house in good repair (ll 31, 32).

Late in 1651 JB snr won a court action and got the earlier judgments overturned (ll 32,33). This was the result of a Sheriff's inquisition which also awarded him £516 plus expenses (l 36). Avoiding service of this judgment, SB jnr and Josias Martin refused to make payment and JB snr's by now 'extreme poverty' (l 38) caused his house to fall into disrepair, i.e. waste (l 37). [Judgment having concluded that suit, the holders of the reversionary title could act afresh on the implied impeachment for waste clause.] They issued a second writ against JB snr for alledged waste made on the house in order to gain possession of it (ll 39,40).

JB snr could not enforce them by the common law to suspend this new writ till they had paid the £516 (ll 42, 43) which would enable him to repair the house. He was therefore appealing to equity and good conscience when on 9 Feb 1652, he requested the High Court to subpoena his opponents to come and answer to the Lords Commissioners (ll 47-49).

2. Essence of SB jnr's argument in his 2 Dec 1652 Bill of Complaint (C 10/24/23)
1. In about 1639 JB snr pretended that his estate in the Manor of Sancey Rothamstead & Chivills was only life interest and that the reversion was settled on JB jnr (l 7).
2. Agreement for purchase of the reversion was therefore made between SB snr and JB jnr for a valuable consideration.
3. SB snr died c 1644, so the reversion descended to SB jnr.
4. Since 1644 JB snr has pretended that his estate was fee simple (owned absolutely) and that JB jnr had no reversion and therefore no right in 1639 to sell it (l 15).
5. JB snr and JB jnr have forged and antedated several deeds for parts of the premises.
6. JB snr is making great waste in the premises.
7. Request to subpoena JB snr and JB jnr to reveal what estate JB snr has and how it came to him.
8. Request for an injunction to stop more waste.

3. Essence of JB snr's argument in his 13 Feb 1653 Plea & Demurrer (C 10/24/23)
Plea 1: SB jnr has sold everything on to Mr Weedon, so he now has no right to sue JB snr.

Plea 2: SB jnr had declared an action v JB snr in the Court of Common Pleas last autumn regarding the same alledged wastes. This action is still depending.

Demurrer: SB jnr is trying to force JB snr to acknowledge the waste, which would mean JB snr would have to forfeit his estate and by law no one can be forced to do something which would have that result.

Chronology of the alledged events in the dispute

Year Date Event Source Acc. to
1638   JB snr drew up deed of settlement. He said JB jnr 'influenced the people drawing up the deed'. Feb 1652 B of C JB snr
1638   JB snr & jnr conveyed Saunceys to James Ellis PRO CP25/2/430  
1639   Treaty existed between SB snr and JB snr & jnr re purchase of Manor of Sancey Rothamstead & Chivills Dec 1652 B of C SB jnr
1642 Or bef spring/ summer 1643 Sale of reversionary interest by JB jnr Feb 1652 B of C, Dec 1652 B of C JB snr, SB jnr
1643 Spring/Summer 1st writ of waste by SB snr Feb 1652 B of C JB snr
1644 Hillary Writ of execution by SB snr Feb 1652 B of C JB snr
1644 Dec SB snr dies Feb 1652 B of C JB snr
1651 late JB snr's writ of error which successfully sets aside the judgment from the 1st writ of waste Feb 1652 B of C JB snr
?   2nd writ of waste by SB jnr Feb 1652 B of C JB snr
?   JB snr & jnr 'create secret estates and antedate the deeds' Dec 1652 B of C SB jnr
1652 9 Feb JB snr's writ of subpoena v SB jnr Feb 1652 B of C JB snr
1652 Autumn 3rd writ of waste by SB jnr - still depending in the Court of Common Pleas in Feb 1653    
1652 2 Dec SB jnr's writ of subpoena v JB snr & jnr Dec 1652 B of C SB jnr
1653 Before Feb SB jnr sold all his estate in the premises to Mr Weedon Feb 1653 P & D JB snr

 

7. John's last will and testament 1655/6  

Back to the top


Last will and testament of John Brockett of Caswell Esquire
1. In the name of God Amen the seaventh day of March
2. in the yeare of our Lord God One thowsand six hundred fifty 'and' five
3. I John Brockett of Whethamsted in the County of Hartford Esqr.
4. being sicke in body but of good and perfect remembrance I praise
5. God doe make my last will and testament in manner followeing
6. First I give up my soule into the handes of Allmighty God hopeing
7. for mercy through Jesus Christ. I desire my body may be buried
8. in the parish Church of Wheathamsted neire vnto my father Item
9. I give vnto my eldest sonne John Brockett one shilling to be paid
10. him within one yeare after my decease. Item I give vnto my
11. younger sonne Edmond Brockett five shillinges to be paid 'vnto him' within
12. one yeare after my decease. Item I give 'and bequeath' vnto Elizabeth my loveing 'wiefe'
13. all the rest of my goodes Chattelles debtes dues and rightes whatsoever
14. whom I make sole Executrix of this my laste will and testament
15. and hereby doe revoke all former willes by me heretofore made. In
16. witnes whereof I have herevn to putt my hand and seale the daie
17. and yeare above written : John Brokett. Read acknowledged
18. subscribed and sealed in the presence of George Brokett, the
19. marke of Joane Rudd Robert Greene snr.

Probate: London the Fifeteenth day of February One thowsand six hundred fifty eight ... by the oath of Elizabeth Brockett the relict and sole Executrix ...
 

Too much can be read into wills, but compared to other Esquires' wills from this century, indeed Gentlemen's and even many Yeomen's, this one is short and meagre. A token bequest for the eldest son was not so unusual, if property had already been passed on, but is less usual for both sons, and to allow 1 year for such small amounts to be raised from the estate is odd. It could imply that John had little to pass on and had fallen on hard times, and/or that there was some breach between father and sons. Neither daughter was mentioned.

The witness George Brokett was a son of the other John Brockett of Wheathampstead Esq. George was baptised in Wheathampstead 1624 and was still living 1675. George's brother Thomas was executor to Edmond Brockett, most probably John of Caswell's second son.