Dear Newsgroup ~
Checking the online National Archives Catalogue just now, I found the
following three Chancery suits below which are dated variously
1432-1443, possibly 1467-1470; 1433-1443, or more likely 1467-1472;
and 1433-1443, or more likely 1467-1472. They all appear to concern
the resignation of a parsonage in London by Edward Poynings to Thomas
Say, clerk, after appointing Nicholas Rawlet as curate.
C 1/10/238 Edward Ponyngges, clerk, late parson of St. Austin's. v.
Thomas Say, clerk, William Say, dean of St. Pauls (Powlys), and Sir
John Say, knt.: Actions of trespass in breach of an agreement.:
London. 1432-1443, possibly 1467-1470
C 1/43/271 Nicholas Rawlat, priest v. Master Edward Ponynges, late
parson of St. Austin's, Watling Street, London.: Resignation of the
said parsonage by defendant to Thomas Say, after appointing
complainant as curate.: London. 1433-1443, or more likely 1467-1472
C 1/46/143 Sir Nicholas Rawelet, parson of St. Austyn, London. v. The
mayor and sheriffs of London.: Arrest pending an action for debt
brought by Thomas Say. Corpus cum causa.: London. 1433-1443, or more
The lawsuits would surely all date in the later period, 1467-1472. I
say that because Sir John Say (died 1478) and his known brother,
William Say, Dean of Saint Pauls's, are named together in the first
William Say didn't become Dean of Saint Paul's until 1457, as
indicated by the record below.
Source: Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300-1541: volume 5: St Paul's,
London (1963): 4-7.
M. William Say D.Th. 1457-1468. El. 21 Nov. 1457 (transcript of
'Liber G' in Dugdale p. 403; cf. Brooke p. 243). D. 3/24 Nov. 1468
(PCC 26 Godyn; Reg. T. Kempe pt. i f. 115).
Hence it is apparent that all three lawsuits would date from after
1457. But the first lawsuit would have to date from before 1468,
which is the year William Say died. So the first lawsuit definitely
can be dated 1467-8; the other two could be 1467-72.
The following two records both dated 1466 come from Papal Registers.
They apparently relate to this same legal matter as the three Chancery
lawsuits above. In the first record, Thomas Say is identified as
"Thomas Say, clerk, of London." In the second record, he is
identified as "Thomas Say, clerk, of the diocese of Lincoln." My
first thought is that Thomas Say, clerk, named in these proceedings is
Thomas Say, the known brother of Sir John Say (died 1478), Speaker of
the House of Commons. However, in the second petition below, Thomas
Say, clerk, specifically states that he was aged 23 on or about the
time of the accession of the current Pope, which I presume took place
in 1464. If so, this Thomas Say would have been born c.1441, give or
take. That seems a bit young to be Sir John Say's brother, Thomas
Say. Rather, I believe the Speaker's brother to be the Thomas Say, of
Poddington, Bedfordshire, born c. 1428, who is mentioned in the Eton
College Register. While it is true that Sir John Say also had a son
named Thomas, that Thomas can't be the same person as Thomas Say,
clerk, in these petitions, as Sir John Say and his wife, Elizabeth
Cheyne, were married about 11 Nov. 1446, which is too late for Thomas
Say, clerk, to have been their son.
My guess is that Sir John Say the Speaker was born about 1420, as he
first occurs in an account-book of the Controller of the King’s
Household for the year, Michaelmas 1443–4, where he is listed as one
of some 40 valetti camere domini Regis [see Roskell, Parliament &
Politics in Late Medieval England 2 (1981): 153–174 (biog. of Sir John
So were there three Thomas Say's?
Calendar of Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland,
Volume 12: 1458-1471 (1933): 453 & 545–546:
1466. Non. July. (7 July.)
St. Mark's, Rome.
(f. 257d.) To the archbishop of York, John bishop of Ardfert, residing
in the city of London, and the abbot of St. Peter's, Westminster, in
the diocese of London. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of
Edward Ponynges, rector of St. Augustine's by Watling Strete, London,
contained that although he obtained the said church by canonical
collation, and held it for some time in peace, nevertheless, inasmuch
as Thomas Say, clerk, of London, was hindering his peaceable
possession, he, the said Edward, appealed directly to the apostolic
see, and by way of precaution to the court of Canterbury (fn. 6) ;
that although Edward had caused Thomas to be inhibited by authority of
the said court not to attempt anything to his prejudice whilst the
said appeal was pending, nevertheless, in contempt of the appeal and
inhibition, and upon Thomas's false report to Thomas Winterburne,
auditor of the court of causes of Thomas archbishop of Canterbury,
that Edward was wrongfully detaining possession of the said church,
the said auditor, without citing Edward, by an unjust sentence
declared, at Thomas's instance, the induction which had been made of
Edward to have been and to be null, wherefore Edward has appealed anew
to the said see. The pope, therefore, orders the above three to summon
Thomas Say and others concerned, hear both sides, taking cognizance
also of the principal matter, and decide what is just, without appeal,
causing their decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure.
Humilibus supplicum votis. (N. and A. de Cortesiis. | N. xiiii.de
Bonaparte.) [1⅓ pp.]
1466. 3 Id. Aug. (11 Aug.)
St. Mark's, Rome.
(f. 172d.) To the archdeacon of Berkshire (Barkschirie) in the church
of Salisbury, dwelling in the city of London. Mandate, as below. The
recent petition of Thomas Say, clerk, of the diocese of Lincoln,
contained that after Pius II had granted to Vincent Clementis,
collector of the papal Camera in England, faculty to dispense any
persons of the realm on account of defect of age to hold, after
attaining their twenty third year, a benefice with cure [see Cal.
Papal Letters, Vol. XI, p. 23], the said collector dispensed the said
Thomas accordingly. Subsequently, after the accession of the present
pope, on the voidance of the parish church of St. Augustine without
the gate of the cemetery (cimpiterii) of the church of London, the
said Thomas, then in his said twenty-third year, obtained collation of
it by authority of the ordinary, but, inasmuch as the pope revoked all
such collectors’ faculties to dispense, in cases in which they had not
yet taken effect, some doubt whether the said dispensation was not
therefore revoked, and whether the said Thomas had not obtained the
said church uncanonically. The pope therefore orders the above
archdeacon to summon those concerned, and, after inquiry, to declare
and decree that the said dispensation was and is not revoked by the
said revocation of faculties, and that Thomas could and can receive
and retain the said church by virtue of the said dispensation.Sic
decet Iesu Christi vicarium. (Hug. and Ja. Prats. | Hug. xxiiii.
Folani, prothon. Bisuntin., etc.) [2 pp.]
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah