50 Bland v Clarke

The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640.

This free content was Born digital. CC-NC-BY.

Citation:

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '50 Bland v Clarke', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640, ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/50-bland-clarke [accessed 24 November 2024].

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, '50 Bland v Clarke', in The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Edited by Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online, accessed November 24, 2024, https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/50-bland-clarke.

Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper. "50 Bland v Clarke". The Court of Chivalry 1634-1640. Ed. Richard Cust, Andrew Hopper, British History Online. Web. 24 November 2024. https://prod.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/court-of-chivalry/50-bland-clarke.

In this section

50 BLAND V CLARKE

George Bland of Aldingbourne, co. Sussex, gent v Daniel Clarke

Trinity term, 1640

Abstract

Bland complained that Clarke had questioned Bland's gentility, forcing him to produce again his ancestors' patent and pedigree, exhibited in a former cause between himself and Henry Garton [see cause 241]. This case probably followed his suit against Garton in July 1640 for impugning his gentility [see cause 51]. Maltravers granted Bland access to the exhibits that still remained in court to prove his case, but no further proceedings survive.

Initial proceedings

7/23, Petition to Arundel

'The humble petition of George Bland, prisoner, and c.

Daniel Clarke hath formerly in words much disparaged your petitioner in his reputation, when...your petitioner's complaint therof caused Clarke, and also your petitioner, to bee bounde with surties to abide your honorable censure therin.

Because, upon ye surmise of Clarke, and others there is some question made by the right honorable the Lord Maltravers of your petitioner's gentility.

Your petitioner in a former cause between Henry Garton, esq., and himselfe in the honour courte produced his auncestor's patent and his pedigree for proofe of his generositie, which are there made exhibits.

Lord Maltravers by his order appointed that your petitioner should in this present terme cleer his gentility, and then Clark's cause to bee heard otherwise to be dismissed.

Your petitioner's humble suite is that the patent and pedigree may not only be presently delivered to your petitioner to advise with his counsel thereupon, but also that your honour would assigne a day when your peticioner shall attend to prove and manifest the vertue of his patent and pedigree before your lordship and then to heare and determine the cause.

And your petitioner shall dayly pray and c.'

No date [but the reference to a hearing of Bland's gentility assigned to the current term places it in Trinity Term 1640; see Cur Mil 5/128 in Bland v Garton, cause 51].

7/23, Order from Maltravers

Let the petitioner have accesse to such exhibits of his as are remaining in courte (with his counsel) yf he have occacon to make use of them; and hee may take copies of them from the Register yf hee please. But in regard of the sute still depending betweene him and Mr Garton hee may not yet have them delivered out of the courte lest the Register's deputie attend mee with them at the hearing betweene the petitioner and Daniel Clarke'

Signed by Maltravers.

'Mr Bland to have his exhibits out of courte'.

No date [but the reference to a hearing of Bland's gentility assigned to the current term places it in Trinity Term 1640; see Cur Mil 5/128 in Bland v Garton, cause 51].

Notes

Henry Garton appeared as the fifth son of Sir Peter Garton of Woolavington, knt, in the Visitation of 1633-4. Henry married Mary, daughter of John Luke of Flamstead, co. Hertford. Despite being resident at Aldingbourne, co. Sussex, Bland was arrested for failure to pay ship money in Castle Baynard ward, London, in 1635. In May 1639 a George Bland was also imprisoned in King's Bench for insulting the kings of England, France, Denmark, Sweden and Spain and getting Captain Lumley, Captain Sinclair and Thomas Harrison, B.D., into trouble.

W. Bruce Bannerman (ed.), The Visitations of the County of Sussex in 1530 and 1633-4 (Publications of the Harleian Society, 53, 1905), p. 132; CSP Dom. 1635-6 , p. 8; CSP Dom. 1639 , p. 130.

Documents

  • Initial proceedings
    • Petition to Arundel: 7/23 (Tri 1640)
    • Order from Maltravers: 7/23 (Tri 1640)

People mentioned in the case

  • Bland, George, gent
  • Clarke, Daniel
  • Garton, Henry, esq
  • Garton, Mary
  • Garton, Peter, knight
  • Harrison, Thomas, B.D.
  • Howard, Henry, baron Maltravers
  • Howard, Thomas, earl of Arundel and Surrey
  • Luke, John
  • Luke, Mary
  • Lumley, captain
  • Sinclair, captain
  • Stuart, Charles I, king

Places mentioned in the case

  • Hertfordshire
    • Flamstead
    • Aldingbourne
  • London
    • Castle Baynard ward
  • Spain
  • Sussex
    • Aldingbourne
  • Sweden

Topics of the case

  • denial of gentility
  • imprisonment
  • King's Bench
  • other courts
  • ship money
  • taxation
PreviousTable of contentsNext