Gilbert Hawkins, Hesketh

Gilbert Hawkins, Hesketh (c1290-?)	Thomas Hawkins, Hesketh (c1272->1349)	William “Walter” Hawkins, de Northwood, de Hokeswod, de Flegh, Hogekins, Hesketh (c1243-c1327)	John Hawkins [Hotchkiss], de Northwod, de Hoxwode, de Flegh, de Hawkinge (c1222-c1311)

		Maud [Matilda] Fitton (c1243-?)	William “Richard” Fitton (c1220-?)
		Maud [Matilda] Fitton (c1243-?)
	Alice de Byspham (c1276-?)	Warren de Byspham (c1250-?)
		Warren de Byspham (c1250-?)

Events

Notes

Note 1

!Source: The National Archives' catalogue https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C9702497

C - Records created, acquired, and inherited by Chancery, and also of the Wardrobe, Royal Household, Exchequer and various commissions

Catalogue description Debtor: William Rybaud of Howick of Northumberland. Creditor: Sir Richard de Horsley,...

Before whom: Nicholas le Scott, Mayor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Gilbert Hawkin, Clerk.

Sent by: Nicholas le Scott, Mayor of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Gilbert Hawkin, Clerk.

Note: 1. Gilbert Hawkin, Clerk fits as Captain Thomas Hawkins / Hesketh’s [~1276 - >1349] nephew Geoffrey accompanying or preceding him north in service.

!Source: The ORB: On-line Reference Book for Medieval Studies https://the-orb.arlima.net/encyclop/culture/towns/florilegium/government/gvpoli22.html

Original source: Public Record Office: item 1: Patent rolls, C66/ 15 Ed.III m.20d; item 2: Coram Rege rolls, KB27/342 m.44d

Transcription in: 1. R.F. Isaacson, ed. Calendar of the Patent Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office ... Edward III. 1341-1343, London: PRO, 1900, pp.220-21; 2. G. O. Sayles, ed. Select Cases in the Court of King's Bench, vol.6, Selden Society, vol.82, [1965], 47-48; 3. Richard Welford, History of Newcastle and Gateshead, vol. I: Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, London: Walter Scott, 1884, 114-16.

On 5 December 1341 at Newcastle upon Tyne, jurors from various wards in the county of Northumberland presented before Thomas Surteys, Thomas de Heppescotes and their associates, king's justices assigned to sit in judgement on [cases involving] trespasses, conspiracies, confederacies, oppressions, injuries, grievances, and abuses committed in that county, that on 1 October of that year, when the election of the mayor of Newcastle customarily and rightfully was to take place in the town, the then mayor of the town, John de Denton, and two of the bailiffs of the town, Gilbert Haukyn and Peter Graper, had an official proclamation made that all who owed suit to the court were to be at the plea hall in Newgate of the town. But then the other two town bailiffs, Thomas de Burneton and John de Galeway, through a conspiracy hatched between themselves and Richard Scot, Thomas Flemying, William de Burneton and others of the town, intending no good, dissociated themselves as a group from the mayor and bailiffs and, at the instigation of Richard de Acton and his wife Matilda, had a large number of the lesser people of the town [ignorant men of little understanding] gather at the church of St. Nicholas. Through this confederacy thus made among them, contrary to the custom of the town, they elected Richard de Acton as mayor in contravention of customary and usual method of electing their mayor and with the result of creating dissension and discord within the community of the town.

This indictment, among others taken before the same justices, the king caused by his writ to come before him to be tried in the following year. The sheriff was therefore ordered to have Thomas de Burneton, John de Galeway, Richard Scot, Thomas Flemyng, and William de Burneton present to answer [the charge at that time]. The trial of Richard Scot continued from one session to another and from [law-]term to term until the present time – that is, 3 November 1345. On which date, a certain Henry de Bywelle, the attorney of Richard Scot, came before the king at Westminster and, when asked how he wished to acquit [his client] of the charges of conspiracy and trespass, he stated that the king had issued letters patent pardoning Richard Scot of the offence, and showed the pardon to the court.

Perhaps from the beginning political rivalries were active: following Denton's first mayoralty, Richard de Acton was elected in 1334, and it appears that Denton may have been replaced towards the close of his 1337/38 term, as Hugh de Hecham is named as mayor in a deed in September 1338. However, this is flimsy evidence on which to base solid conclusions, and any notion of opposing factions seeking to control local administration is weakened by the personnel in the ballivalty. Of those later associated with the Acton faction:

William de Burneton had already held the mayoralty in 1330/31, when his bailiffs were Hugh de Hecham [who however, was replaced around May 1331 by Gilbert Haukyn], John de Denton, Robert de Haliwell, and Waleran de Lumleye; Burneton had been bailiff under Emeldon in 1314/15, from 1316 to 1319, in 1323/24 and 1325/26, and from 1328 to 1330, as well as under Sir Nicholas Scot in 1321/22. Other men of this surname had been bailiffs in the 1260s and '70s.

Richard Scot was a bailiff during Denton's first mayoralty [1333/34], again under Hugh de Hecham [1335/36] and once more under Denton again [1337/38].

Robert de Haliwell was bailiff during Denton's third mayoralty, he having earlier served under Emeldon in 1323/24, 1327-30, and 1331/32, as well as under William de Burneton [above] and in 1334 under Acton.

John de Galeway was first bailiff during Hecham's mayoralty of 1335/36, then again under John de Denton in 1340/41, while his brother Richard de Galeway had served during the 1339/40 mayoralty of Waleran de Lumleye; the Adam de Galeway who had been bailiff ca.1306 was father to John and Richard, and like Emeldon a self-made man.

Thomas de Burneton was another of the bailiffs during the mayoralties of Lumleye [1339/40] and Denton [1340/41].

John Frismareys' first ballivalty came under Hugh de Hecham [1335/36]; he was again elected in October 1344, but his tenure was brief [see below].

We know fewer of the names clearly associated with the Denton faction, but of those:

Gilbert Haukyn first appears as bailiff in 1317, alongside Acton and Burneton and mayor Emeldon, this group being re-elected en masse in 1318, with Haukyn continuing for a third term in 1319/20; he was again repeatedly elected bailiff from 1321 to 1323 and in 1325 [no election results being known for 1324 and 1326], and again repeatedly from 1332 to 1334, during which period he first served alongside Denton, then under him, and finally under Acton. He was bailiff again during the Denton administrations of 1336/37 and 1340/41, and that of Lumleye in 1339/40.

Peter le Graper, by contrast, was a relatively new figure in the leadership, having first been elected bailiff in 1337 [under Denton], and his 1340/41 ballivalty was only his second. However, his father, a prominent merchant of the same name, had been bailiff in 1293/94, ca.1295, 1296/97, and 1299/1300, before himself holding the mayoralty for three consecutive terms between 1300 and 1303 [Emeldon first serving under him]; and Peter junior appears to have married into the Karliol family. The younger Peter therefore had some roots in the urban ruling class, although Peter senior's father Osmund was a newcomer to the town, a branch of a county gentry family of declining fortunes.

The younger Peter therefore had some roots in the urban ruling class, although Peter senior's father Osmund was a newcomer to the town, a branch of a county gentry family of declining fortunes.

Although it is clear that the top positions in local government were being repeatedly held by a relatively small group of townsmen, the groupings of personnel do not themselves provide any clear insight into factional affiliations in the years preceding the outbreak of hostilities. But then it is perfectly possible that former colleagues fell out, or that political alliances were fluid. Nor should we assume that any particular administration would be staffed solely by members of a particular party, any more than is the case with urban governments today. However, one possible indication of the alliance later to manifest itself in opposition to Denton is given in 1336, when Richard Scot and John de Galeway, then bailiffs, were arrested for the murder of two members of the Lubbard family, with an accusation made at the same time that they had abused their positions of power. Their fellow bailiff, John Frismareys, allowed Scot to escape from custody. All three bailiffs were removed from office. That those ordered to arrest Scot and Galeway were Denton, Acton, and Adam and Peter Graper, may or may not be significant, but at the next election Denton became mayor and the only bailiff of the previous administration untouched by the scandal, Gilbert Haukyn, continued in the ballivalty under Denton. Whether or not this was a sign of political problems within the town, it did not prevent Scot's re-appearance as a bailiff in 1338, and the king dropped the case against Scot and Galeway in June 1339; Frismareys had already been commissioned, in 1337, to levy wool in the north for the king. The king's need for such men to help him finance his foreign campaigns was greater than his need to see justice was done.

What does seem clear, however, is that both Acton and Denton had set their sights on capturing [or in the latter's case recapturing] the mayoralty at the election at the beginning of October. Denton having possession, and evidently good support within the ruling elite, he was able to use the customary machinery to achieve his ends. Acton's election, while unconventional, was founded on the authority of the community, and he also had his supporters from within the ruling elite; his popular support allowed him to get the upper hand.

Denton could have lost no time in seeking royal intervention. There is an undated petition from him describing, in terms later reflected in royal orders issued, the rival elections, the resulting dissension within the town, and revealing that Acton had strengthened his position by having his supporters take control of the town gates [C.M. Fraser, ed. Ancient Petitions Relating to Northumberland, Surtees Society, vol.176 [1966], 33-34]. That Denton was in the disadvantaged position is indicated in that he did not request royal approval of his election. He instead proposed that the king order both men not to assume mayoral office but hand over the reins of government to Gilbert Haukyn, Peter Graper, Robert de Haliwell, and William de Acton, whom Denton described as the town bailiffs [the set elected by Denton's supporters, one assumes], and that Richard de Acton should be ordered to hand over to those four the keys to the town gates, until the king and his council could investigate the disturbance.

Some townsmen benefited more than others from the situation: Richard de Emeldon, Gilbert Haukyn, and John de Denton were prominent among those who were contracted to supply the king with cloth and victuals. Denton for example was very active in victualling the renewed campaign to recapture Berwick in 1332. Occasionally, merchants might benefit from surplus army stocks, as in 1323, when Emeldon, Richard de Acton, William de Acton, Robert de Musgrave and William Thorald bought flour for £633.6s.8d. But while the royal army was a valuable client for Newcastle's merchants, providing supplies was one thing, getting paid for them quite another. At some point in the final years of Edward II's reign, Thomas de Karliol was pursuing a debt of almost £66 owed him by the king for victuals supplied for the army. Sometimes it was not a matter of purchase, but of forced requisitioning; an earlier petition by Karliol in the same period asked that a debt of £60 due from his account as collector of the new custom as Newcastle [in which position he was for most of the period from 1304 to 1318, partnering with Nicholas de Karliol] be offset against £126 due him for goods seized for the king's needs.

Gilbert Haukyn complained to the king, ca.1323, that his three warehouses had been commandeered for one-and-a-half years, as storage depots for grain to provision the army, but that he had never been compensated for the rent of £6 due. Admittedly this was partly Haukyn's own fault, for refusing compensation offered him in the form of a quantity of oats, instead demanding a cash payment. But the point of concern to us here is that many of the town's merchants lost the use of their warehouses for the same reason.

Newcastle was often required to furnish and equip, with crews and provisions, ships from its mercantile fleet to support military campaigns or to patrol the seas in search of the enemy. For example, in June 1324 the king sent orders to mobilize all ships of over 40 tuns belonging to townsmen, of which there were six at that time, of which two belonged to Robert de Musgrave and two to members of the Haukyn family; the mayor and bailiffs responded that the ships were all off on voyages, but they promised to impress them as soon as they returned. Again, in May 1337, orders were sent to commandeer all ships of that size for convoy work in Scotland; four ships were removed from commerce during peak season as a result, one being occupied for 7 weeks, another for 18, the third for three periods totalling 26 weeks, and the fourth for two periods toalling 24 weeks. The total cost to the townsmen to equip crews of sailors and soldiers was almost £500; they were in due course to obtain reimbursement from the Exchequer, but the auditing of their accounts resulted in the rejection of about 10% of the expenses claimed, on the grounds of inadequate documentation. By 1340, the Newcastle townsmen were pursuing a claim of £723 they said was owed them for the expenses of ships ordered into service against the Scots, and in July 1341 the king indicated preparedness to make allowance from the borough's fee farm for £868.11s.9d for the cost of the ships and purveyance of supplies for the royal household; the farm, however, was only £100, so reimbursement would be slow. No wonder that the burgesses were reluctant to submit to their ships being commandeered; in September 1342, William de Acton's arrest was ordered because when his ship La Rose was impressed at Sandwich for war service, he and the ship's master broke it free.

Newcastle men were not always the victims, however. A complaint made by two Gascon merchants, related to seizure of their ship and its cargo prior to July 1316, was during 1317 leading towards the outlawry of 37 Newcastle burgesses, including Robert de Shilvyngton, Hugh de Hecham, John Wodeman, Thomas Thorald, Robert Musgrave, and several members of the Acton and Haukyn families. They were saved only by repeated interventions by the Earl of Arundel, warden of the Marches, who indicated the accused were in his service, defending the town, and he could not afford to lose them. The opportunism of English merchants could translate at times into piracy. This meant that Newcastle's merchants had to fear not only the pirates of other nations, but also those from among their countrymen; in 1314, ships from some of the Cinque Ports had set upon a convoy of northern ships in their home waters, and made off with the wool cargoes and one of the ships.

Not all of the accused evaded capture. The two who suffered worst were, ironically, not even among those accused by the widow. Alan Chapman, refusing to plead, was thrown in prison and, like Denton, died there. Gilbert Dolfanby was convicted and hung for his part. In 1341 Dolfanby had leased for life a property from Matilda de Acton, at a very modest rate, although we should not read too much into such a connection and perhaps it was a very modest property. He had been among those fined for their part in the political disturbances of 1341, and among the group associated with mayor Galeway in the forceful action taken against the conduit of the Friars Minor in 1343/44. He had also been among another group accused in August 1345 of having seized ships intending to land cargo at Gateshead, on the opposite side of the Tyne from Newcastle and within the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Durham – there being an ongoing battle between the town authorities and the Bishop for control of commerce on the Tyne, and particularly the coal trade. The accused group included a number of those indicted for Denton's death – Robert de Haliwell [since he leads the list, the offence may have occurred during his mayoralty], Richard and John de Galeway, Thomas Flemyng, William Burneton and others – along with other leading townsmen such as Gilbert Haukyn, William de Acton, John Frismareys, and members of the Karliol family. This was not an act of factionalism but of the principal movers within the community taking aggressive action against an outside rival; however, it suggests that Denton's killers represented the faction dominant in the town at that time.

Gilbert Hawkins, Hesketh

Personal and Family Information

Pedigree Chart (3 generations)

Events

Notes

Note 1