Sir Edmund Harewell, Jr.

Notes:

2/13/1621/22: Records of the Virginia Company

§ The precedent Quarter Court beinge read a request was made in the behalfe of ffranc Harwell that for somuch as his elder brother Sr Edmund Harwell Kt of ye Bath had assigned unto him under his hand and seal all the interest he had to three Shares of land in Virginia descended unto the said Sr Edmund by the decease {1611} of Sr Thomas Harwell their younger brother who adventured £37 10s towards the advancement of the Plantacion as doth appear: the Court would therefore please to confirme the said shares unto the sd ffrancis Harwell; whereupon the books being searched and Sr Thomas Harwell the Adventurer {seems to suggest "investor" or "speculator" as opposed to "adventurer" per se} beinge found indebted £25 unto the Company upon Sr Edward Canways underwritinge for him to the fourth Roll, some Doubt was made whither those shares might be permitted to passe before the said Debt was cleared. After some dispute thereupon, it was resolved that Sr Thomas Harwell could not in equity be charged with that which another man for him had underwritten and instance was given of the verie like case allowed by Auditors and the debt renulled with which there is reason and president the Court being well satisfied and the shares therefore put to the question were by a general ereccon. of handle confirmed unto the said Ffrancis Harwell; inwhich shares one Mr. Kellam havinge an interest likewise from the said Sir Thomas Harwell did not acknowledge in open Court his full assent into the passing of them unto the said Ffrancis Harwell which acknowledgement he did likewise testifie under his hand and seale upon the foot of the said assignment.

Edmund married Elizabeth Griffin 1588, Besford, Worcestershire, England. Elizabeth was born 1570, Pembrokshire, England; died , England. [Group Sheet]

1. Thomas Faulk Harewell was born 1606, Besford, Worcestershire, England; died 16 Jan 1686, Virginia.

Notes:

1st of 5 Harewells to be High Sheriff
Occupation: 1575: High Sheriff

Edmund married Elizabeth Bury 1555, Hampton, Oxfordshire, England. Elizabeth (daughter of James Bury and Amy Lovett) was born 1534, Hampton Poyle, Oxfordshire, England; died 1588, England. [Group Sheet]

Notes:

Name:
alternate spelling Berry

Thomas married Margery Vampage 1535, Worcestershire, England. Margery (daughter of Robert Vampage) was born 1501, England; died 1545, Besford, Worcestershire, England. [Group Sheet]

Notes:

Pedigree charts found in "The Visitation of Worcestershire, 1569"

Daughter and coheire to Robert Vampage sister and coheire to John Vampage.

James married Amy Lovett ca 1531, Astwell, Northhamptonshire, England. Amy (daughter of Thomas Lovett and Elizabeth Butler) was born ca 1515, Astwell, Northhamptonshire, England; died Bef 1558, England. [Group Sheet]

Notes:

Plantagenet Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families (p.467), James Bury married Amy Lovett, daughter of Thomas Lovett and Elizabeth Boteler.

Notes:

The Story of Besford Court by the Right Rev. Monsignor Newsome (Administrator), Birmingham: The Herald Press: 1927.

Edmund, married Jane, the daughter of Robert Russell of Strensham, and lived at Besford.

Some very interesting documents have lately been found at the Public Record Office, relative to a dispute between William Compton, Abbot of Pershore, and this Edmund Harewell. The year in which the dispute culminated is not certain, but it was probably towards the close of the period 1504-1527, during which time William Compton ruled at Pershore.

The first file (Court of Requests, Bun. 5/194) of these documents consists of the complaint of the Abbot, and of Harewell's answer thereto. Another document (Court of Requests, Bun. 4/146), now unfortunately separated from the other two, is the replication of the Abbot.

In his complaint the Abbot says that he and his servants, on the 11th July last, were in God's and the King's peace, within the Monastery and town of Pershore, not intending harm to anybody, when Harewell, accompained by John More, John Hill, John Ledyngton and William Nashe, arrived in the town. They were accompanied by ten or eleven riotous persons, so the Abbot alleges, and they were all "defensibly arraied in manner of Warre," with bows, arrows, swords, bucklers, and other unlawful weapons. Meeting with some of the Abbot's servants they forthwith assaulted them, no reason being given for this sudden attack. The servants were at once in fear and jeopardy of their lives, and "were gladde to flea with an hard escape" into the Abbey precincts, and to shut the gates--"to spare the abbey gats"--against the pursuers.

This is not enough for Harewell, but daily he threatens the Abbot's servants in such a manner that they really are afraid to go outside the precincts of the Abbey, which is greatly to the Abbot's and their hindrance, discomfort and peril and, of course, creates a position that is contrary to the law of the land. The Abbot therefore begs that Letters of Privy Seal may be issued to Harewell and his confederates summoning them to appear before the Court of Requests to answer for their very wrong behaviour.

Harewell, with John More, answers that none of them are guilty of the Abbot's charges against them. It is true, Harewell continues, that he came into Pershore on the day as stated, accompained by some of his servants and tenants, but they all came from Besford in a quite peaceable manner, and simply because they wanted to have spoken with Gyles Grevill, gentleman--who, presumably, was the Abbot's Steward. They did not know that John Salbrugge was in the town, a man unmentioned by the Abbot in his complaint, but who evidently was a storm-centre. They all called at a certain alehouse, kept by a man named Peryn, and there asked for a cup of ale. Peryn's wife invited them all to enter the inn, but Harewell sent More in to bring out the ale. As he entered he was met by Salbrugge and another man unknown to them. Salbrugge struck violently at More with a wood-knife, and put him in jeopardy of his life, so if he received any hurt from More it was because the latter was forced to defend himself. Noboby else entered the inn, and nobody else struck any blows and, as for weapons of offence and defence, they only bore such as they were daily accustomed to have with them, except that More was wearing "a scull"--an iron defence for the head, sewed inside of the cap. This he wore for the surety of his life, for fear of the threats that Salbrugge, for a long time past, had been making that he would slay him whenever he should chance to meet him. In conclusion, Harewell derides the allegation of the Abbot that his servants had to flee for safety within the Abbey gates, and says that, on the contrary, he himself had to entreat them to keep inside the gates and to observe the King's peace.

The Abbot returns to the charge and, in his replication--of which the following is a modernised form of ther original document, of which a photograph (facing p.15) is alson given--now paints his picture in deeper colours:--

"The replication of the Abbot of Pershore to the answer of Edmund Harewell and John More. The said Abbot saith that the said bill is good and true in every point and that the matter in the said bill specified the said Edmund with all the other persons in the said bill mentioned in forcible manner with bows, bills, swords, and bucklers of their perpense malice came to Pershore aforesaid and perceived where the said John Salbrugge was drinking in a house near the Abbey Gate the same Edmund sent into the house five of his servants to the intent there to quarrel and beat the said John Salbrugge. And in the meantime he himself with his bow bent and others of his company with him ready with their weapons stood about the Abbey Gate aforesaid that if any of the said Abbot's servants had come forth to have beaten or slain them. And when his said servants came into the house where the said John Salbrugge was he knew them not but offered them to drink. And they answered unto him and said that they would drink with him anon. And forthwith they drew their weapons and sore wounded him almost to death and then drew him by the legs to the street. And the said John Salbrugge then thinking no otherwise but they would slay him called for a priest. Then came a friar that was waiting upon the said Edmund Harwell(sic) unto him. And the said Edmund then in a great fury came to the said John Salbrugge where he lay and gave him with his weapon a great stroke. And nay had the said friar been [there] he would have slain him out of hand but by means of the said friar which kneeled upon his knees and beseeched him to have pity with many lamentable words. And by means thereof he then forebore further meddling with him. And after incontinent [suddenly] the same Edmund went into a house and asked for water and said: "I have washed my hands in a knave's blood." And then a man of the said town said unto him, "I am sorry that this trouble is now fortuned." And he said "So I am not for this shall teach Abbey knaves to beware." And the said Edmund was not yet herewith content but on the morrow next ensuing he came to Pershore aforesaid accompanied with eight or nine persons with weapons and walked up and down in the said town. And divers times by the Abbey Gates aforesaid to the intent to have quarreled with the Abbot's servants. And when the said Abbot perceived that he charged all his servants, to keep them within the said Gates and so they did. Without that the said Edmund and those persons in the said bill named came to Pershore aforesaid for any other cause or intent than in this Replication is expressed and without that that the said John Salbrugge or any other person with him violently with a wood knife or any other weapon struck at the said John More in manner and form as the said answer is alleged all which matters the said Abbot is ready to prove..."

There the matter ends for there is no further record of this suit or of its result. Probably the Lord Abbot charitably omitted to mention the original provocation given by his own servants, but doubtless Harewell was as well able to take care of himself in the courts of justice an in a brawl.

Edmund married Jane Russell 1494, Worcestershire, England. Jane (daughter of Robert Russell) was born 1473, Strensham, Worcestershire, England; died 1502, Worcester, Worcestershire, England. [Group Sheet]

Notes:

Pedigree charts found in "The Visitation of Worcestershire, 1569"

the daughter of Robert Russell of Strensham.

Edmund married Jane Pinchpole ca 1501, Winrush, Gloucestershire, England. Jane was born 1475, Astwell Northampton, England; died ca 1556, England. [Group Sheet]

Thomas married Elizabeth Butler. [Group Sheet]

Notes:

Name:
also spelled Boteler