Some Society members may have come
across the name of Richard Williamson whose widow Katherine petitioned
Parliament for redress against his killers. More of this story has now been
pieced together from the records of the court of King’s Bench.
The Williamsons lived in the East
Riding market town of Howden; Richard Williamson’s alleged murderers all
belonged to the little village of Newsholme two miles further north-east. Beyond
Newsholme, the main road crossed the River Derwent by the Barmby ferry before
continuing northward, through Hemingbrough and the hamlets of Barlby and Riccall,
towards York.
On Thursday 1 October 1472 Richard
Williamson was riding back home from Riccall. What his errand there had been we
are not told, but he may have had connections there since towards the end of
Edward IV’s first reign he had got himself into trouble by entering a close at
Riccall belonging to Henry Babthorpe from which he had picked up goods to the
value of 5 marks (£3 6s 8d); when Babthorpe’s servant had attempted to stop
him, Williamson had fought back with such force that the man had been left
unable to work for some time. Williamson’s motivation for this trespass is
unknown.[1]
On the present occasion too,
Williamson was well equipped for possible trouble, being armed with a sword and
buckler (small shield) as well as a bow and a dozen arrows. All went well until
he reached Barmby. As he was waiting for the ferry, the three Farnell brothers Robert,
Richard and John, ‘defensibly arrayed, that is to say, with jakkes and
salettes, and with force and armes, that is to say, with bowes, arrowes,
swerdes and speres, . . . lay in a wayte to slee and murther the said Richard
Williamson, and uppon hym then and there made a grete assaute and affraye, and
hym there horribly smote with a spere, that he fell beside his hors to the
grounde; and then the said mysdoers havyng noo mercy ne pite of hym, with their
swordes smote of booth the handes of the same Richard Williamson, and oon of
his armes above the elbowe, and hym houghsynued [i.e. hamstrung], and hym so
dedely woonded and lefte hym there for dede’: though not before having robbed him of all his weapons.
Whilst Richard Williamson was dying of
his wounds, the Farnell brothers returned home ‘and roode to the said Thomas
their fader . . . ; and the said Thomas, knowyng all his said sonnes the
forseid felonyez and murdres and robberies in fourme aforeseid to have doon,
all theym and every of theym atte toune of Newsom aforesaid, the same day and
dyvers tymes after, felonsly recetted and conforted.’
It is unfortunate that we have – as is
usual – no hint in the indictment of either motive or evidence. Whether the killing
was the by-product of highway robbery or the simple result of a squabble over
places on the ferry, we have no way of knowing; nor do we know why Katherine
Williamson believed the Farnell brothers to be responsible. So far as is yet
known, they had never previously been accused of any crime; on the contrary,
Thomas Farnell had been the plaintiff in several cases of debt prosecuted that
year in the court of Common Pleas.[2]
After his sons arrived home, Thomas
allegedly decided that they should all four protect themselves by entering the
service of the (as yet unwitting) Duke of Gloucester, whose nearest seat was
Pontefract Castle, 25 miles west of Howden. Parliament was due to open at
Westminster on 6 October, but Richard
was running late, and was possibly still at home when the murder occurred,
because when parliament opened he was still at Bedale,[3] just
10 miles east of Middleham and 50 miles north of Pontefract. It is not clear whether
all four were taken into the Duke’s service, as it is claimed was their
intention, or only the father; but when Katherine Williamson learned what had
happened she too set off for Pontefract, where Richard heard her grisly tale.
Richard’s response, upon hearing
Katherine’s complaint, was not what his new retainer had expected. The Duke had
Thomas arrested and committed to the custody of Sir Ralph Assheton, the county
sheriff, who took him to York Gaol. Thomas’ sons, however, successfully eluded
arrest.
Katherine’s next step was to present a
petition to the Commons in parliament. it is difficult to see how she could
have drafted such a legally complex document, travelled to Westminster with
speed and succeeded in having such an unusual petition accepted, probably after
the official deadline of 15 October, without the support of the Duke of
Gloucester or someone enjoying an equal level of influence and access to legal
counsel. What Katherine wanted was for the King to furnish the Sheriff
of Yorkshire with the necessary writs to bring the Farnells into King’s Bench for
trial:
‘And if
the said Robert, Richard Farnell, John and Thomas. . . appere not afore the kyng in his said bench;
that then they, and ich of theym so then not apperyng, stond and be convicted
and atteynted of the said felonyez, murdres and robberiez, and have like jugement
and execution, and like forfeitures, as usuelly is used in other atteyndres of
feloniez, murdres and robberies, had by the commen lawe.’
Katherine further pleaded that all
four Farnells should be denied bail and held in Newgate for the duration of the
trial.
The Bill was passed, and the required
writs were then issued (quite when is not clear because they were, for
administrative reasons, backdated to the first day of parliament). The first
was a corpus cum causa commanding the Sheriff to bring into King’s Bench
‘on the octave of St. Hilary [20 January] . . . Thomas Farnell . . . together with the cause
of the same Thomas’ capture and detention in the foresaid prison. . . .’
The second writ commanded the Sheriff to make repeated proclamations in Howden summoning
Robert, Richard and John Farnell to bring themselves into King’s Bench ‘to
respond to such bill or bills, action or actions as the foresaid Katherine or
any other person or persons would then prosecute against them, or any of them,
for the foresaid felony, murder and robbery.’
On 30 November parliament was
prorogued for the long Christmas break. On 19 December Sir Ralph Assheton
issued the first of five proclamations at Howden summoning the three brothers
to appear in court on the fourth day of pleas. On the octave of St. Hilary Katherine
was present in King’s Bench to see Sir Ralph Assheton bring in Thomas Farnell
to answer her charges. On that same day, the Justices of King’s Bench, in
keeping with the terms of her statute, committed Thomas to Newgate Gaol. Later
evidence indicates that Thomas pleaded Not Guilty and opted for a jury trial, which
was scheduled for the Easter term. Thomas’ sons, however, failed to appear on
their due date. The justices therefore decreed “that the same Robert,
Richard Farnell and John should stand and be convicted and attainted of the
foresaid felonies, murders and robberies in accordance with the tenor, form and
effect of the foresaid Act, etc.”
By the time parliament reconvened on 8
February, Thomas Farnell had been in prison for four months, and his trial date
was still over two months away. He too now presented a petition to the Commons.
Complaining that he, “beyng of grete age, lyth and is kept in prisone, to
his fynall destruction and grete payne, God knoweth, and like to dye in shorte
tyme, withoute the comfort and relieff of your said maisterships,” he asked
that they, of their “grete pite and blessed dispositions, wold pray the king.
. . to lete the same Thomas to baille, uppon reasenable suertie to be
founden that he shall kepe his day to hym lymyte by the said justices”.
This Bill too was passed, so it may be assumed that Thomas Farnell spent the
remainder of his time awaiting trial in more comfortable circumstances.
Parliament was prorogued again before Easter, and Richard of Gloucester
returned north.[4]
Thomas Farnell’s trial would have
taken place in May, although the exact date is unknown. No description of the proceedings
survives, but a memorandum reveals that the jury acquitted him, and that, as a
result, Katherine Williamson was fined half a mark (6s 8d) for making false clamour.
It must have been a disappointing outcome for her, but Thomas had paid for his
attempt to protect his sons with four months in prison, and the three missing killers
had been convicted in absentia.
Thomas Farnell was still living in
1477, but seems to have died before the end of Edward IV’s reign. His sons may
later have been pardoned or acquitted because in 1484 the eldest, Robert, was
sued together with his widowed mother for the theft of pasturage and hay from a
close in Pontefract.[5]
Main Sources
Parliament
Rolls of Medieval England, ed. C. Given-Wilson et al. (Woodbridge, 2005)
TNA KB 27/846, rot. 85r-86r, and KB
29/103, rot. 5r
by Marie Barnfield
[1] TNA CP 40/837, image no. d.446 on
Anglo-American Legal Tradition (AALT) website.
[2] CP 40/841, AALT nos. d. 1035, 1576, 1587, 1608.
[3] TNA KB
9/330, m. 23.
[4]
TNA DL 29/648/10485, m. 12r.