COLCLOUGH, William (d.c.1414), of Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffs. and Calverhall, Salop.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
Escheator, Salop and the adjacent Welsh march, 9 Nov. 1406-30 Nov. 1407.
Colclough’s first election to Parliament in 1384 undoubtedly owed a great deal both to his father, who had himself sat for Newcastle in 1360, and his elder brother, John, the mayor, with whom he was then returned (and with whom he again represented the borough in January 1390). As a close relative of two of Newcastle’s most distinguished residents and office-holders, he could thus be sure of a seat in the Commons, although his ensuing popularity with the electors may also have been due to the fact that he was a lawyer. In March 1386 he stood surety in Chancery for the parson of the neighbouring village of Wolstanton (where his family owned property), and he again appears as a mainpernor in 1390 and 1391. During the Easter term of 1393 he acted as his brother’s attorney in a lawsuit over the manor of Hanley. Four years later he was summoned to defend himself in an assize of novel disseisin at Stafford, although the action, which was arraigned by a local widow, may well have been collusive. At some point before 1411, Colclough became either the owner or feoffee-to-uses of land in and around Newcastle which was also the subject of litigation.2 We do not know when he went to live in the Shropshire village of Calverhall, but it seems likely that he left Newcastle during the years between his last return to Parliament (January 1397) and his appointment as escheator of Shropshire (November 1406), perhaps as a result of a lucrative marriage. He was dead well before the summer of 1415, when Sir William Newport* sued his executors for a debt of 40s. He left a widow, Elizabeth, who together with his brother, John, was responsible for the administration of his estate.3
Ref Volumes: 1386-1421
The possibility that Colclough represented Newcastle in the Parliament of 1372 (the return records the election of Thomas Colclough, but the writ de expensis refers to William) is very slight, on chronological grounds alone (Staffs. Parl. Hist. i (Wm. Salt Arch. Soc.), 113-14).