Valence v Corbyn Bill of Complaint and Answer
(The National Archives: Pleadings ref.: C 3/185/37 )
A Thomas Valence sent a letter of complaint regarding a Hugh Corbyn to Sir Nicholas Bacon, Keeper of the Great Seal of England. Unfortunately neither Valence’s letter nor Hugh Corbyn’s answer include a date or place. Sir Nicholas Bacon held the position between 1558 and his death in 1579 so the complaint must have been made during that time.
The ink on Thomas Valence’s letter has faded and is very feint in places and the document has suffered some damage. Combined they make the letter difficult to read particularly in the latter part and so there follows only a partial transcription.
The Letter of Complaint
To the right ho[nor]able Sir Nich[ol]as Baconn Knyght Lorde Keeper of the grete Seale of England/
In his most humbly wyse complaynynge shewith unto your hon[or]able lordship your pore orattur Thomas valence Admynystratur of the goodes and cattalles of John Valence decessed naturall brother unto your s[e]id orato[ur] that where the seid John Valence was lawfully possessed as of his owne p[ro]pre goodes, Among and ether thinges of and in the goodes and cattalles [foll]owing that ys to witt on gowne of puke furred with conye price iijl vjs viijd on cloke or cape of fine puke price xls on [c]ote of [?] price xvjs viijd a sworde and buckeler price xxvjs viijd and sworde girdle of velvet price vd on rapier and on dager with [?] skabard xxvjs viijd / so [?] right hon[or]able Lords[hi]p that all the seid goodes and cattelles ys casually [?] to thandes and posession of one Hugh Corbyn who by reason therof hath and doth converte the same to his own use….
Thomas says that he has asked for the chattels back but Hugh has not returned them and…
… foras much as your seid oratur is a pore yonge man and not able [pre]secnte this suit at the comon lawe against the said Hughe Corbyn he is therfore like to be without remedi and lose the p[re]m[m]issz for ever unles…
Thomas asks that the court commands Hugh to appear before it to answer the complaint and to abide by the decision of the court. He finishes:
… your seid oratur shall dayli praye unto god for the preservacan of your good lordshipe longe to endure etc.
L?ge
The Answer
The Answer of Hugh Corbyn to the l[etter] of Complaint of Thom[a]s Valens /
The saide Hugh Corbyn defendant / by protestacon not confessinge eny matter expressed or conteyned in the saide bill of complainte to be trewe / for Answer sayth that the saide bill of complaint ys uncerttynt and insufficient in the lawe to be Answered unto/and that the matters in the said bill of complaint mencyoned / yf they weare trewe as they be not / be matters detmynable at the comon Lawe by acc[i]on of Trespacc or by acc[i]on of detynnt / And not in this honerabell courte / as by the same bill pleynly apprazyth / And therefore / And also for the insufficientcy of the same bill / the saide Defendant prayeth that the saide bill of complaint by order of this honerabell courte may be abtyd / And that he the saide Defendant may be dysmyssed onte of the same / and restoryd to his reasonabell costes charges and expences / by hym susteyned for his wrongfull vexac[i]on in this behalf/.
John Cymrohe
Commentary
Having discovered the chattels included weapons I would probably have dismissed the case as irrelevant to my search for Corbyns in West Parley had I not previously read the 1584 will of John Lokyar (Lockyer). John Lokyar’s will, in which he appointed Hugh Corbyn of Wood Town as one of his attorneys and overseers, makes mention of ‘armour, weapons and the like’. So the yeoman farmers of West Parley had armour and weapons!
The following extract is taken from Sword and Buckler Fencing Part 2 (thearma.org)
In 1558 the Frenchman Stephen Perlin wrote of England, “it is to be noted the servants carry pointed bucklers, even those of bishops and prelates…The husbandmen, when they till the ground, leave their bucklers and swords…so that in this land every body bears arms”.
There is nothing to connect the defendant Hugh Corbyn with Parley but Hugh Corbyn is not a common name. Records from so long ago are scant but the only two people of that name that I have found who were alive at the time were Hew Corbyn of East Parley and Hugh Corbin of Wood Town, West Parley. There was a brewer by the name of Hugh Corbyn buried in St Thomas, Exeter on 7th September 1557 but that was prior to Sir Nicholas Bacon’s appointment.
Valence is also a local surname. As parish records have been lost for West Parley it is not possible to place Thomas or John there. There was a Thomas Valence who married Tonsey Buggis in Winterborne Kingston in 1591.
The Lord Privy Seal presided over the Court of Requests, an equity court mainly concerned with civil matters. At this time the Courts of Common Law and the Courts of Equity were at loggerheads over jurisdiction. Courts of Equity were originally established for a plaintiff to pursue equitable relief where the relief available under common law was insufficient to do justice. Because these courts were cheaper, quicker and required less proof than courts of law people started using them in preference even when relief would have been available under Common Law. This appears to be the case here. John Valence says he’s a poor young man and cannot present his suit at common law so he will be without remedy unless Sir Nicholas Bacon commands Hugh Corbyn to come before the court to answer his complaint (and then presumably order Hugh to return the chattels). Hugh Corbyn’s answer is that if the complaint were true, which is isn’t, then the case is a matter for the common law and not the Court of Requests. Unfortunately we don’t know what happened next or the outcome of the case.
John Valence had died intestate and Thomas was appointed his administrator. According to the rules probate would have been granted firstly to a surviving spouse and secondly to any children of age before being granted to a sibling. So John had no surviving spouse and any children were too young to fulfil the role. As administrator Thomas would have drawn up a probate account detailing John’s assets and debts which is how he knew the value of the items listed in the complaint. Thomas does not explain how the goods came to be with Hugh or whether they were in Hugh’s possession when the valuation was done. He does not provide any information regarding Hugh’s relationship to the family and the letter does not state that Thomas is John’s heir. As his natural brother he may have been but John may have had children or there may have been other siblings. As such it’s not clear who the items actually belonged to. It is only inferred that they belonged to Thomas.
The wording of the complaint shows that Thomas is claiming conversion by Hugh. For conversion to occur the item needs to be ‘lost’ and then ‘found’ by someone other than the owner. The finder converts it by using or moving it so preventing the true owner from possessing it. Conversion does not imply dishonesty or theft (an example of conversion is finding an abandoned umbrella on a bench and taking and using it) but theft is always conversion. The items Thomas describes are hardly likely to have been casually lost. It seems more likely that they were already in Hugh’s possession at the time the inventory of goods was taken or were given to him later for safe keeping. We will never know.