¥rm T^rNf :h^p^ ^>' '/ /^'L / mm: ■Hr^B] v0QOffh ■ '^.L^ nHAa, />■-_/ «tl^ -'/1/7/1 'i/Qf^i mm^ OlflruFU ImurrBttg ICtbrarij BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE FISKE ENDOWMENT FUND TH E BEQUEST OF LIBRARIAN OFTHE UNIVERSITY 1668-1883 IQO5 rl.3.^^,^-6- --- --- s^.^H|ifc was taken J 1 DATE DUE 1 "^1 '^^^^Bl 1 r, .'H' M^^- OCT^J S^T '^m fli ^1 ^H Hi " m m 1 i m 4 i GAVLORO P«,NTeO,NU 5 . I I iiiiiiii.i'li'iiK.'r'; UNIVERSITY LIBHAf) 3 1924 088 020 882 iolO V. /'O- I (/-lA- \J) Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924088020882 ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. ONZT 300 COPIES FMINTEH. ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIEE. THE REV. R. W. EYTON, HECTOR OF RYTON. Non omnia grandior setas Qu£e fiigiamus habet. VOL. I. LONDON: JOHN RUSSELL SMITH, 36, SOHO SQUAEE. B. L. BEDDOW, SHIEENAL, SALOP. MDCCCIIT. THE EIGHT HONOURABLE ROWLAND, VISCOUNT HILL, BARON HILL OF ALMAREZ, OF HAWKSTONE, AND OF HARDWICKE, LORD LIEUTENANT AND CTJSTOS EOTULOETIM OB THE Counts of Salop, AS TO THE REPEESBNTATIVE OP A NAME, WHICH,- WHIIE LONG AND INTIMATELY ASSOCIATED WITH Sijropsfjire antr its J^iStoig, HAS BEEN NO LESS IDENTIFIED WITH PATEIOTIC PRINCIPLES AND NOBLE DEEDS, THIS WOEK, WHICH HE WAS THE FIRST TO ENCOURAGE, IS, WITH HIS LORDSHIP'S PERMISSION, INSCEIBED, BY HIS MOST OBEDIENT SERVANT, THE AUTHOR. IJST OF ENGRAVINGS. VOL. I. 1. Between pp. 16 and 17. Map of Paet op Sheopshiee, Stappoedshiei:, AND WaEWICKSHIBE. To face page 42. ChanceIi Dooe, South Side, Morville. Eev. J. L. Petit, del. 3. 4. 5, — PiLT.ATC and Capital, Morville. — Chancer Aech, Morville. — Font, Morville. 6. To face page 66. BiiiiNaSLBT Chttech. 7. To face page 116. Chancel, Q.uatford. 8. — — Font, Quatford. 9. — — Incised Slabs, Quatford. 10. To face page 146. Upton Ceessett Chttech. 11. — — Font, Upton Cressctt. 12. — — Dooe-wat, Upton Cressett. 13. To face page 208. Head op Dooe-wat, Aston Byre. Eev. J. L. Petit, del. Ecv. J. L. Petit, del. Rev. J. L. Petit, del. F. S. A. del. E«v. J. L. Petit, del. Rev. J. Brooke, del. Rev. J. L. Petit, del. R«v. J. L. Petit, del. Rev. J. L. Petit, del. F. S. A. del. F. S. A. d£l. Antiquities of B>^topelfivt. THE EEV. E. W. EYTON, Sector of St/ton, Salop. VOL. I. Won omnia grandior setas Quae ftigiamus habet. omr 800 COPIES frintsd. PREFACE. J.N deciding on a plan for the present work, the author has felt his greatest difficulty to exist in producing that combina- tion^ which, while it need not offend the mere antiquary, may also be attractive and useful to those local readers, who feel a pride or an interest in the County to which they belong. Large in extent,^ important in position, rich in fertility and productions, beautiful and varied in scenery, Shropshire has ever been inhabited by a race of men characteristic for uni- formity of principle and energy of action. Great in its antecedents, and not unfortunate in its present, it may be no bad omen of its future, that those who have chief concern in its welfare be the slowest of all men to adopt any theory which identifies patriotism with a contempt of the past. Much does the antiquary congratulate himself in having chosen a field of research which promises such unusual ad- vantages of encouragement and sympathy. The present series of volumes on Shropshire Antiquities will relate mainly to the interval which elapsed between the Norman Conquest and the death of Henry III. 1 The documents which furnish nearly all the knowledge we possess of the earlier Anglo-Norman period are written in base Latin : the use of contracted forms is also general, though the forms themselTcs are various, no two scribes employing exactly the same. Translations more or less lite- ral have therefore been given in the text, whilst the original has been added in a note, wherever its meaning was doubtful or unexpressible in another language. In the latter case all contractions have been resolved. 2 Shropshire, with the exception of Wiltshire, is the largest of the inland counties of Great Britain. Its limits will have sometime been greatly in excess of that county. Its ancient position, on a hostile frontier, is that more particularly alluded to in the text. PREFACE. That period involved two centuries of years, a succession of eight Kings, and the hves of six generations of Princes of the Norman dynasty. The contemporary Chronicles are not numerous, but where- ever their aid has been available for the present work, they have been consulted. Their testimony is however seldom of local interest, as none of them, except Ordericus, had any connexion with Shropshire, and his was chiefly that of birth. As regards national records, a short account of those which have reference to the period must be given, if only in expla- nation of the more summary mode of citing them which will be adopted in the sequel. Domesday Book, or at least its general character, is known to all. This great territorial record was compiled by itinerant commissioners, in the years 1085-6, and the result of their labours returned into the King's Court at Winchester, in the Easter of the latter year. Its evidence in regard to Shropshire is most satisfactory, whether we apply such external tests as remain to us, or look to the better guarantee of internal con- sistency. The printed edition is a very creditable facsimile of the original, at least as far as this county is concerned. The national record, which comes next, both in point of date and importance, is the series of Pipe Bolls. The earliest of these Rolls is of the 31st year of Henry I (a.d. 1130), but unfortunately any portion thereof relating to Shropshire is either lost or never existed. The next Roll belonged to the 1st year of Henry II, but it is lost, and its former existence is only known by its having been epitomized by a later officer^ of the Exchequer. The Pipe Rolls, from the 2d year of Henry II, to the end of the period with which we are concerned, still contain all that was ever entered* on them relative to Shrop- ^ Alexander de Swereford — who, at the time he made this abstract, viz. A.D. 1230, was Archdeacon of Salop (Lichfield dio- cese). ■* It is a very usual subject of regret amongst antiquaries, that the Pipe EoU of 1 Henry III is lost from the series j such regret might be extended to the KoU of 18 John as well as to the EoU of the latter half of King John's 17th regnal year ; though the absence of these seems not to have been observed. It is probable how- PREFACE. shire. They are the accounts of the sheriffs of counties, of that revenue for which each was annually responsible at the King's Exchequer, and they include statements of the ex- penses of those officers in the Royal service. The Record, commonly called the Liher Niger, or Black Book of the Exchequer, is mainly the result of an order made in the year 1165, or beginning of 1166, on every tenant in capite of the Crown, to return a list before the first Sunday of Lent (March 17th, 1166), of all who held under him by knight's service, stating whether such tenure was of old or of new feofiment, that is, whether it had existed from the days of Henry I, or had arisen since. Subject to this order, there was a return made and enrolled of the following Shropshire baronies, viz.: that of Eitz-Alan, Castle Holgate, Clun, and Lacy, and of some tenures of less extent ; but we miss from the record any statement of the Domesday Baronies of Corbet, Mortimer, Say of Richard's Castle,^ and several other lesser, but then existent fiefs. Hearne's printed transcript of this document is unusually faithful as regards Shropshire, but several entries are distinguished in the original, by being written in a difierent hand and paler ink than the general matter. They were in fact supplementary, but Hearne's transcript takes no notice of this important distinction. The Rotuli Literarum Patentium, or Patent Rolls, are copies ever, that, owing to the disturbed state of the kingdom at the time, the business of the Exchequer was totally suspended, and consequently that these BoUs never existed. The Shropshire Pipe KoUs of the pre- cediag and subsequent years supply some evidence of this fact which will be stated hereafter. Here it is sufficient to point out the general value of these records as tests of historical siccuracy, for the national vanity of our Chroniclers has led them to understate the disorganization which pre- vailed at the period. s Osbom Fitz-Hugh, the then Baron of Bichard's Castle, made a return ; but it was informal, and so was sent back to be amended. WUliam de Beauchamp, who had charge to see to its correction, was Sheriif of Herefordshire and Worcester- shire ; yet the note of this transaction is erroneously given in the ' Liber Niger,' under Northamptonshire. Osbom Fitz- Hugh's amended return nowhere appears. The statement as to this barony, which is inserted under Herefordshire, is of the supplementary character noticed in the text. Hearne's reading thereof is, how- ever, BO incorrect as to leave it uninteUi- gible. {See Hearne's Liber Niger, vol. i, pp. 159, 217.) The true reading is re- served for its proper place. PREFACE. of such writs of the Crown as were engrossed on open sheets of parchment, and had the seal of the Sovereign pendent at the bottom. These writs have usually a public address or direction as to their execution, though they may treat of the concerns of an individual. They comprise documents on every variety of subject, — ^prerogative, revenue, judicature, treaties, safe-conduct, liberties, offices, wardships, ecclesiastical dignities, pardons, liveries, licences, creations of nobihty, &c. They exist no earlier than for the third regnal year of King John (commencing May 3d, 1201), and from that time down- wards, but not in quite an uninterrupted succession. The Rotuli Literarum Clausarum, or Close Rolls, were writs of the Crown, which were folded up, sealed on the outside, and usually addressed to individuals. Their subject was as diversified as that of the Patent Rolls. They exist from the sixth year of John (June 1204), but not continuously. The Botuli Chartarum are the contemporaneous registers of Royal Grants of lands, dignities, liberties, and privileges. They commence with the first year of King John (a. d. 1199), and, with the exception of a few years, are preserved for the whole period with which we are concerned. The Oblata and Fine Rolls constitute one series, commencing at the same period as the last. They are records of sums of money offered to and accepted by the Crown, when a subject had to negociate any favour or feudal right. The Placita and Assize Bolls are records of proceedings in the Courts of Law. No arrangement of these Rolls, founded on a distinct principle, has yet been made, and it is not easy to devise a plan for such arrangement. In general they are badly and inaccurately written, and ill preserved. More than half also are lost. Those which remain are, nevertheless, of the greatest importance, as containing information which no other source can supply. They contain minutes of trials both civil and criminal; at Westminster, and in the provinces; before the King himself, his council, and his justiciars. The present Deputy Keeper of the Rolls, edited for the Record PREFACE. 5 Commission all that was supposed to remain of them, for the reign of Richard I, and the first year of King John, but a few undated Rolls escaped observation, owing probably to the faulty arrangement which is not yet rectified. Two of these undated, and therefore unprinted. Rolls contain however internal proof of date, and of being earlier than any others. Nothing whatever remains of this kind which can be attributed to an older date than the reign of Richard I. The Fedes Finium, or Final Concords, are records of the terms on which any real or fictitious suit at law was compounded between the litigants. These documents are supposed to have been originally in triplicate. A copy was allotted to each of the according parties, whilst the third was retained as a record by the Crown. Their preservation is extremely acci- dental, but a few remain of the time of Henry II. Copies of many are preserved in Monastic chartularies, and other depo- sitories, the originals of which are no longer existent in the proper custody. Hhs, Escheat Bolls, otherwise called Inquisitiones post mortem, are chiefly records of the writs addressed by the Crown to the proper ofiicer, to summon a jury when the death of any tenant in capite involved a right of wardship, or marriage, or a fine by such tenant's successor for livery. The returns of these juries also form part of the Record, and usually contain statements as to the extent and value of the deceased's pro- perty, its tenure, and the name and age of his heir. In some cases the writ is lost,^ whilst the return is extant, and vice versa. But these RoUs only commence in the reign of Henry III, and even then are not well preserved. The Inquisitions of this and the succeeding reign frequently involve matters which are not comprehended in the above description, such as perambu- lations of forests and inquests of the class afterwards entitled ad quod damnum. * The printed Calendar of theaS docu- ments notices the absence of some which an earlier index had registered as in the proper custody. One such I have myself foimd in the British Museum. It is the Inquisition of 31 H. 3, No. 42, and is to be found in Harl. Chart. 45. a. 33. PREFACE. By Charta Antiqua are generally understood, those copies of certain ancient charters which are enrolled at the Tower. These are not all royal charters. Similar documents existent at the British Museum and elsewhere, and to which the same title would be equally applicable, shall be described when quoted hereafter, by the place of their custody. The Bed Book of the Exchequer {Liber Buber Scaccarii), a volume of great interest and most varied contents, was com- piled previous to the year 1246. When quoted in this work, it will be so as a collection of scutage-roUs, of lists of knights' fees and serjeantries, and of abstracts of Pipe Rolls. The Testa de Nevill is also a compilation of similar matters. As regards Shropshire it contains lists of tenures by serjeantry, of other tenures in capite, of the knights' fees constituting particular baronies, also notices "^ of churches, wardships or marriages of the King's gift, and scutages. These documents are of the reigns of John and Henry III. The Hundred Bolls for Shropshire are of two kinds, and relate to two periods, viz., the years 1255 and 1274. The former is chiefly a territorial record, specifying the tenure and extent of each manor in a given Hundred,^ its privileges and liabilities as ascertained by Jury. The latter is an inquisition by similar Juries of Hundreds as to frauds on the Crown Revenue, or oppressions of the people by public officers. The Placita de quo warranto were legal proceedings insti- tuted by the Crown with reference to frauds thus or otherwise ascertained or suspected. A series of such trials was held in Shropshire in time of Edward I. The Forest Bolls, preserved at the Chapter-House, West- minster, contain pleas and proceedings before the Justices of the King's Forests in their respective circuits. Mixed with ' A part of these transcripts is clearly taken from Assize EoUs. Thus we have a fragment of aShropahireAssizeEoll of date A.D. 1227, and the original of which is lost. * Boroughs and Hberties, where extra- hundredal, are also reported of. The Shrop- shire Ijuudred of Brimstree is unnoticed in each of these Surveys, but the rolls of many other counties are far more incom- plete than that of Shropshire. PREFACE. them are perambulations of forests, where a boundary was in question, and documents relating to other questions of Uoyal demesne. A very early forest roll for Shropshire is preserved. It is undated, but belongs to the year 1180^ or 26 Hen. II, and is in perfect condition. The oriffinalia Bolls seem to be a series of memoranda of matters connected with the constant or casual revenue of the Crown. They were preserved in the Lord Treasurer's Re- membrancer's Office, as belonging to that department of the Exchequer called the Exchequer of Account. They commence with the 11th year of Henry III (a.d. 1226). A book commonly called Kirbys Quest, ^^ and of which the original and constituent documents are supposed to be lost, seems to contain a series of extracts from the Escheat Rolls ; but its more valuable and distinctive feature is a state- ment of temu-es in different Counties and Hundreds, as they existed in time of Edward I. The survey of Shropshire is very full, and stands a most valuable continuation of the series formed by Domesday, the Liber Niger, the Testa de Nevill, and the Hundred Rolls. In further continuation of this series there was a record of the time of Edward II, commonly called the Nomina vil- larum. The contents of this are similarly to be gathered only from transcripts, and those very inaccurate. A few minor records remain to be noticed. The Rotiili de ^ This date is proved in a curious but most satisfactory way. At the foot of the Roll, the sum of amercements levied on this occasion is stated as £58 4«. 6d., and an additional sum of £55 is entered as accruing from the sale of lead, the pro- duce of the King's mines at Shelve. In his account for the fiscal year ending Michaehnas, 1180, Hugh Pantulf, then Sherifi' of Shropshire, actnowledges each of these sums as due to the Crown, and he discharges the debt iu subsequent years. The Sheriffs account farther sup- plies the name of the justice of the forest who held these pleas, and which is not given on the Eoll itself. It was Thomas Fitz-Bernard. (Mag. Eot. Pip. 26 Hen. II, Salopesor.) 1° John de Kirkby, whose name is asso- ciated with these inquests, was treasurer to King Edward I at the time they were taken. He presided himself over the in- quests in Devonshire, but the justiciars who visited Shropshu-e and Staffordshire were Biohard de Stanford, Clerk, and his fellows. I have two original parchment roUs of tenures nearly contemporary but not identical with Kirly's Qtiest. They extend only to the Hundreds of Bradford and Pimhill. 2 8 PEEFACE. dominabus et pueris et puellis are a record of marriages and wardships of the King's gift as ascertained in- certain counties by Itinerant Justices in the year 1185 (31 Hen. II). Shrop- shire was not thus visited, but we obtain information as to certain persons connected with the County, and which, as relating to so remote a period, it would be vain to expect elsewhere. The Liberate Bolls are entries of the different precepts which were in fact the warrants of the fiscal Officers of the Crown in their payment of pensions, stipends, and other state expenses, constant or occasional. They remain of the 2d, 3d, and 5th years of John, when their matter becomes involved in the Close Bolls, and they are discontinued. They recom- mence in the tenth year of Henry III, and continue till the reign of Henry VI. The 3Iis(e Bolls are accounts of the daily expenses of the King's Court. Only two exist, those of the 11th and 14th years of John. The PrcRsiita Bolls were records of advances out of the Royal Treasury for a specific purpose, or on loan. They exist only for five years of John, viz.: the 7th, 12th, 14th, 15th, and 16th years of his reign. With regard to ecclesiastical matters and possessions, there are no national records of the early date contemplated in this work, at least none of an exclusively ecclesiastical character. But whereas documents of a later period have, where places rather than persons are concerned, a wide retrospective signi- ficance, I shall frequently quote certain national records, which treat of the temporal and spiritual possessions of the Church. The principal of these will be three : — 1st, Pope Nicholas Taxation, a survey and valuation taken between a.d. 1288 and 1292, on occasion of Pope Nicholas IV having granted in the former year, to King Edward I, the tenths of all ecclesiastical income in England for six years to corae. These annual tenths were usually payable to the See of Rome, though in a previous instance they had been granted. PREPACK. 9 for three years, to King Henry III. The object for which Edward I was to employ them was a Crusade. His tem- porary interest in the matter occasioned a Royal Commission, which sm'veyed the Church's possessions throughout the realm; and this valuation governed all ecclesiastical taxes, whether payable to King or Pope, till the reign of Henry VHI. It was in fact the Domesday of the Church, and from it we not unfrequently get the earliest notice of our parochial existence and relations. — 2dly. The Record printed under the title Liquisitiones Nonarum, or Inquests of the Ninths, purporting to be a valua- tion taken a.d. 1341, through every parish in the kingdom, of the ninth of certain stock in such parish. This tax was the country contingent of a general subsidy granted by parlia- ment in support of the wars of King Edward III. The ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, in a parish, was expected to equal the ecclesiastical valuation of glebe, and tithes in general ; so that Pope Nicholas' taxation was in effect the basis of the cal- culation : but this assessment was made in each case by a jury of parishioners, and where their return differed from the taxation, they stated the local or temporary causes which pro- duced the discrepancy. Hence the Record embodies a variety of local and statistical information, quite accidental to a fiscal document. — Sdly. The Valor Ucclesiasticus, or great Ecclesiastical Valua- tion of Henry VIII, which had its origin in this way. When the King had succeeded in depriving the Papal See of all revenue derivable from his realm of England, his next care was to secure to himself, in some form or other, the income thus disengaged. The Parliament which met on 3d Nov., 26 Henry VIII (a.d. 1534), granted to the Crown the annual tenth of all ecclesiastical income whatsoever. The institution thereupon of a Royal Commission, or Commissions, resulted in the general valuation before us. This Record is printed in six folio volumes, and Mr. Hunter's Introduction, embodied in the sixth volume, is an able account of many further particulars. 10 PREFACE. The whole or parts of other Records, above described, have been printed, chiefly by order of the late Record Commission, vi^hose powers seem to have been withdrawn precisely at the time when they were in most efficient exercise. When a docu- ment is quoted in the following pages, which has been thus well edited, reference will often be made to the page of the printed book, rather than to the original folio or membrane. 1 cannot dismiss this notice of the public Records of the kingdom, which, according to the liberal system adopted by the present Master of the Rolls, I have had the privilege of consulting or transcribing free of expense, without expressing my sense of the ready and accommodating spirit with which the Officers of each department have facilitated my researches. Something of this is, I understand, the result of general dh-ections ; but I speak of a uniform civility and readiness to assist, which is not required, and could not be enforced by any system of rules. Passing now from national Records to those of a more local character, the first which have to be mentioned are the Dio- cesan Megisters. These, unfortunately, do not much affiect the period with which we are chiefly concerned. The Lichfield Registers commence with that of Bishop Walter de Langton, who was consecrated 22d Dec, 1296 : the Hereford Hegis- ters, with that of Bishop Thomas de Cantilupe, consecrated 8th Sept., 1275. The former I have had every facility for consulting, through the united kindness of the Bishop, the Registrar, and Deputy- Registrar of the Diocese. I had already extracted the Shrop- shire entries of the three earlier^^ Registers when my progress " The Harleian MSS. 3868 and 4799, now in tlie British Museum, and some time in possession of Peter le Neve, were un- doubtedly, at a still earlier period, part of the Diocesan Registers of Lichfield. They contain documents of extreme antiquity and interest. They are not, like the later Registers, continuous records of the Dio- cesan transactions, bat appear rather to be enrolments of certain documents exhi- bited at Episcopal Tiaitations, in proof of various rights and titles to Church pro- perty. DupUcates of many entries are to be found in Monastic Chartularies, but where the latter are lost or inaccessible, the information supphed by these Registers is invaluable. Further, on fly-leaves or other (origi- nally) vacant spaces of the first Lichfield Registers have been transcribed a few PREFACE. 11 was stopped, not immediately, because the Registers refer to a period later than that in hand, but from finding that the work had been already done by another. All extracts neces- sary to a County History, and which the Registers either of Lichfield or Hereford could supply, were taken by the late Rev. J. B. Blakeway, and may be found among his MSS. in the Bodleian Library. Of Monastic Chartularies, there are four only known to be in existence, which relate to the greater religious houses of Shropshire. They are of Shrewsbury, Haughmond, and Lilies- hall Abbeys, and of Wombridge Priory. The Shrewsbury and Wombridge Chartularies are in the collection of Sir Thomas PhUlipps,Bart., of Middle Hill, Worcestershire, whose liberality in allowing access to his valuable collections is too well known to need mention here. For my knowledge of the contents of these two Chartularies I am however indebted to Mr. George Morris, of Shrewsbury, whose extracts from them, while in the hands of a former owner, have been obHgingly lent me, and are amply sufiicient for my present purpose. The Hauglmond Chartulary, in possession of Andrew William Corbet, of Sundorn, Esq., is open to my inspection, through permission of its owner ; but Mr. Morris's extracts have similarly been available to me, and contain all that I can at present wish to derive from this source. There is a fragment of a diff'erent Chartulary of Haughmond in the British Museum, which, with many other documents there, I have either copied or carefully consulted. To the Lilleshall ClMrtulary and other documents in pos- session of his Grace the Duke of Sutherland, I have also leave of access ; but the references, which I am at present enabled to make to the former, are by means of extracts taken long since, and to be found in the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, and the Diocesan Registers. charters of much earlier date than the general contents of the series. This pro- bably was by procurement of parties in- terested in the preservation of these older documents, or possibly by the spontaneous diligence of some clerk anions to rescue the remains of an earlier and perishing Kecord. 12 PREFACE. The Chartularies of Wenlock Priory, and of BuiWwas Alley, are lost, or, at least, have not been heard of in this country since the dissolution. Of the former, a few items may be gathered from the Monasticon and other quarters. The loss of the latter may be much more satisfactorily supphed from various sources. It is not impossible that a connected Chartulary of either house may yet be found in some foreign depository. Some inquiries in that direction have however been hitherto unsuccessful. Por assistance in the loan of private deeds and documents, I must leave all detailed acknowledgment to the sequel, and I have reason to anticipate considerable aid of this kind from several sources. Already I have received valuable contribu- tions from the Rev. J. Brooke, of Haughton; R. H. Cheney, Esq., of Badger ; E,. Gardner, Esq., of Leighton ; and W. W. How, Esq., of Shrewsbury. ^^ I omit to particularize several promises of most efficient aid in the illustrative department of this work, simply lest some unforeseen hindrance may occur to one or other of my expect- ations. I must be similarly guarded as to some architectural notices which I have hope of obtaining from a well-known authority ^^ in such matters. My business here is merely to disclaim all personal credit for either kind of contribution. Maps will be given which will follow the territorial arrange- ment of Bomesday, as far as that can now be ascertained. '2 I have farther to add to this list of benefactors, the names of the Et. Hon. Lord Forester, Sir Baldwin Leighton, Bart., T. C. Whitmore, Esq., W. Wolryche Whitmore, Esq., and Greorge Pritohard, Esq., who have given me every facility for consulting and transcribing documents in their possession. At WUley is a register of Wenlock Priory, chiefly in the handwriting of the two Priors, who preceded John Baylis, the last who enjoyed that dignity. The volume is extremely valuable, not only as furniehing in its various rent-rolls much of topographical information, but as coutainuig several earlier documents transcribed, I presume, with reference to some current question of title or prescriptive right. 13 The Eev. J. L. Petit,— -who already favours me in a way which I must acknow- ledge both gratefully and openly. His notices of the earher ecclesiastical remains at Morville, Quatford, and Upton Cresset, which will appear forthwith, are the result of a recent visit to those places, under- taken expressly for my assistance. The illustrations also, which bear his name, are presented by him to the work in their finished state. PREFACE. 13 and, where doubt exists, the whole question will be stated in the text. The tables of Domesday Hundreds which will accompany these maps, are intended further to illustrate the state of things at the time of that survey. With regard to former works on the same or cognate sub- jects, I shall have most frequent occasion to refer to — The History of Shrewsbury, in 2 vols. (1825), by the late Ven. Archdeacon Owen, and the late llev. J. B. Blakeway. The Sheriffs of Shropshire (1831), a posthumous work of the Rev. J. B. Blakeway. And to the Antiquities of Shropshire (1844), by T. F. Dukes, Esq. I shall not hesitate to borrow from these works whatever I may find in them necessairy to the completeness or illustra- tion of the subject in hand ; but it is more with reference to objections which I shall have to make to some of their con- tents that I wish here to speak and to apologize. The self- reliance which such objections may be construed to imply will only be apparent, for of all names associated with our local history and antiquities that of Mr. Blakeway has ever seemed to me entitled to an increasing reverence. The History of Shrewsbury, the joint work of himself and Archdeacon Owen, is, I imagine, of the very highest order of excellence ; and that not merely topographically, but as furnishing those very elements towards a general History of England which ought to be ready and available to the national historian, whenever one competent to the greater undertaking shall arise. The objections which I speak of are then only to matters of detail, on which it is impossible for one person at any one time to attain perfect accuracy. Herein Dugdale himself, though ignorantly criticised in his day, was no exception to the general rule, that antiquarian truth must be progressive, and so never complete. The smallest change of premises will often largely affect a conclusion, and a dozen established facts assume a totally new complexion, by the addition of one hitherto uncertified. I close this digression with a simple 14 PREFACE. acknowledgment which I trust will excuse reiterated apologies in the sequel. It is only where some further fact, apparently unknown to Mr. Blakeway, may happen to occur to me, or where my greater leisure, and more limited sphere of inquiry may enable me to devote much attention to points, which in his varied researches he was obliged to treat summarily, that I would venture to express a difference of opinion. I have one more profession to make. It is as to the limits which I propose between an indulgence in conjecture, and an avoidance of difficulties. The former is the stigma of the old school of heralds and antiquaries ; the latter is more likely to be the error of modern inquirers. And the reason of both is apparent. The former expected and gained everything by flattery and invention ; the latter write under surveillance of a searching, if not over-active, spii'it of criticism. Conjecture is to be avoided till all available resources of knowledge have been exhausted, but any attempt to solve a still remaining difficulty is excusable ; and an acknowledgment of a difficulty, wherever one occurs, is a duty, even though it may provoke a suspicion of ignorance unfavourable to the author. A diffi- culty evaded is only a difficulty postponed ; but a difficulty confessed is a mark for future inquiry, more skilful, more active, or more fortunate, than the one in hand. I cannot conclude without some acknowledgment of what I owe to a Society of living Antiquaries, whose writings I shall frequently have recourse to, and the very mention of whose names is a condemnation of that wretched economy which suspended the operations of the Record Commission, and so deprived the public of services which may never again be at command. Some personal obligations, and a wish to avoid all appearance of flattery, prevent my saying more in con- nexion with the names of Sir Francis Palgrave, Thomas Duffus Hardy, Esq., and the Rev. Joseph Hunter. I am not so withheld in speaking of the works of the late Thomas Stapleton, Esq., my extreme admiration of which, as it is associated with no personal feeling, so can it no longer wear PREFACE. 15 even an appearance of flattery. His commentary on the Eotuli NormannicB is a model of antiquarian criticism ; and mention of that particular work is less out of place here, because it contains the only correct accounts of two great families early connected with Shropshire, those of its Norman Earls and of the Mortimers. And now, having taken full advantage of that license to speak in the first person which is usually allowed to a Preface, I commit my work to the indulgence of its readers, little doubting that a liberality, kindred to that which has already welcomed an unknown author with a subscription list of more than a hundred names, will double that number, and be yet further extended to a judgment of his labours when published. ROBERT W. EYTON. Rtton Eectoey, Sept. mth, 1853. OF FAUT OF ^2riEvO)IPSIIIIIEIE.^TAFIFi5mDg2Ii:M: ILLUSTRATIVE OF DOMESDAY BOOK SHROPSHIRE Marwrsin jihwdesirei^. Juru^^ .. .Se<^ as M-jmlle Manors tn JiUzfUofv Jltvt/^j^ _ Ore^rv oj MaHeley Maiwrsjh BascJatrchEundmi/^deiached'J Bhie as SidbmT STAFFORDSHIRE ■Manffrs in Sat^d^Tne' .Sun^e^Z YeUtTw as WARWICKSHIRE Maamv in Stanlev Smuilnsl . Browrv ns Qi^t Manors, liiwnslaps&c as^acenlla^imo/vedin^ or of later myin. ikmv H^ aiott' ( *^ Scale - Half aalncll to a ihle . 1 ijJfljeWenlock " Slunetou SlancwcoA^ Farley ■&l&fe'si tAriat 17 THE MAP. The foregoing Map is chiefly intended to show the Domesday divisions of that part of the County with which our survey begins. It contains two entire Shropshire Hundreds, viz., Alnodedrm and Patinton ; and the Domesday Manors, forming, or probably forming, each of these Hundreds, are printed in two different colours {red and green). There was also a Shropshire Hundred of Basehercli at the time of Domesday, the bulk of which lay north and north-west of Shrewsbury, and so, very distant from the quarter of our present inquiries. But this Hundred had two detachments, curiously involved in different parts of Alnodestreu Hundred. The Manors forming each of these detachments are printed in a third colour {blue). The County of Salop now contains several Manors which at the time of the Norman Survey were members of other Counties. Some of these must come under early consideration. Such of them as contributed, in 1086, to form the Staffordshire Hundred of Saisdone, are printed in a fourth colour {yellow) ; such as were members of the more distant Warwickshire Hundred of Stanlei, in a fifth colour {brown). Lest, at this early stage, the allegation of such eccentric divisions should provoke a suspicion of inaccuracy, it is better to state that they can aU be accounted for, and exactly on the same principle as that which Dugdale laid down long ago, when he met with similar phcenomena in his Survey of Warwickshii-e. An explanation in each instance will be offered in its proper place. Lastly, names marked on the Map in black ink are of five different classes, viz. : — 1st. Adjunctive terms employed at a later period than Domesday to distinguish Manors of the same name. Such are the terms Much and Little prefixed to the two Wenlocks — George and Burnett affixed to the two Eudons ; and so forth. 2dly. Names of Manors existent at the time of Domesday, but belonging to other Hundreds than those above-named, and which will be properly distinguished in future Maps. Such are Stottesden, Buildwas, &c. 3dly. Townships or Hamlets involved in various Domesday Manors, but which have no specific notice so early, e.g., Astley Abbots, Tasley, &c. 4thly. Places of later origin than Domesday, as Bridgnorth. 5thly. Names of rivers, streams, hill s, forests, or woods, few of which are mentioned in Domesday, though of course all existed under some name or other. These land-marks, more or less enduring, are necessary to any Map, and their names, wherever printed, are only meant to render the whole intelligible. In these cases, and for the same purpose, the modern name is employed. For instance, the Brown Clee Hill is so printed, though I suppose one part of that name to be extremely recent. Not so the Wrekin, whose modern name is but a revival, after some disuse, of its oldest appellation. Yet, if our Map had described the Wrekin as Mount Gilbert, that term, though perhaps the most proper when speaking with reference to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, did not, that we know of, exist in the eleventh ; and its use, even if chronologically accurate, would have interfered with that perspicuity which is so essential to this kind of illustration. 18 TABLE OF THE DOMESD Domesday Name. Albriestone . Estone . . , . Estone . . . . Begliesovre . Bispetone . . Broctone . , Bosle Dehocsele. . Eldone ... Faventrei Fuloordie . . G-leslei . . . . Etone Etone Madolea. . . . Middeltone . Membrefeld. Aldeberie . Pichetorne Euitone Stoohetone Sudtone . . TJItone . . . wait Bolebeo . Catinton. . Donitoue . Ardintone . Tuange. . . Cerlecote Saxon Owner, T.E.E, Algar & Q-odhit Elrio Domesday Tenant in Capite. Bruiiiht Tuvgod Bruniht Gethno Ecclesia Sanctse Milburgse . . . .^luuard .... TJlchetel .... Archetel TJluiet ^luui Ordui Ordrio Elmiuid Eluuard Turgot Turgod Austin Edrio EexEdwardufl Eluuard Ecclesia Sanctse MOburgse . . Wiuar Bricstual .... Eduin Ordui Comes Moroar Elmund Hunnit Eogerius Comes . . . Idem .... . . . Idem .... . . . Idem .... . . . Idem .... . . . Idem . . . . . . . Idem . . . . I . . Idem . . I . Idem , Idem. , >. . Idem . . , . Idem . , . Idem . . Idem . . Idem . . Idem . , Idem . . (■■ , Idem . . Idem . Idem . Idem , . . Idem . . Idem . . Idem . . Idem . Domesday Mesne, or next. Tenant. Normannus Rainaldus Vicecomes . Idem Osbernus Normannus Osbernus Helgotus Ecclesia Sanctse Mil- burgse Kainaldus Yicecomes Walchelinus Raiaaldus Yicecomes Idem Idem GerarduB Helgotus Eainaldns Vicecomes . Ecclesia Saucti Petri , CapeHani Comitis . . . Eicardus Piucema . . Eainaldus Vicecomes . Ecclesia Sanctse MU- burgse Osbernus Domesday Sub-Tenant, Toohil . . . Alcher . . Eobertus Eadullus . . Azo WiUielmuB . Eicardus . . {. . Alcher . . Albert Eadulfus . . i Gerardua Idem Eainaldus Vicecomes Turold , Hugo . . . Hunnit . . Stenulf Godeva Comi- tissa .... Eduinus Comes Ecclesia Sanctse Milburgse . . Morcar Comes . Manors probably in Alnodestreu, but who Eogerius Comes . . Idem , . Idem . > . . Idem . . . Idem . Elsi. Manor probably in Alnodesteec, but , Idem .... Helgotus 19 UNDRED OF ALNODESTREU. Domesday Features. Silva i Molendinum . SHva , SilTa Silva Presbiter. Molend : fEcclesia .... < 18 berewichse (. Molendinum ( Molendinum . .~) (Silya J Molendinum , Silva Domesday Hidage. 1 i hides , 1 hide . , 2 hides . i hide . . 1 hide . . 1 virg. 8 acr. 1 hide . , i hide . , 2 hides 2 hides . . . i hide .... 2 hides . . . i hide . . , . J hide . . . . i hide . . . . 2 hides . . . 12 hides . . . 1 hide 3 virg. i hide .... 5 hides . . . 1 hide 4 hides . . . 3 hides . . . i hide . . . . 45 i hides 8 acr. UNDEED IS NOT STATED IN DoMESDAT. Domesday Kfiference. fo. 259, a. 2 255, a. 2 Ibidem. | fo. 257, b.2 259, a. 2 257, b.2 258, b.l 252, b.2 255, a. 2 257, b.l 255, a. 2 Ibidem. Ibidem. fo. 259, a.l 258, b.l 255, a. 2 253, a. 2 255, a. 2 252, b.2 257, b.2 259, ».l Ibidem. | fo. 255, a. 2 258, a.l /■ Presbiter . . . . ^ \ Prsepositus . . f j Molendinum . . ( ( Silva ; ( Molendinum . . ") ] Silva [ {_ 5 Salinas in Wich J SBurgum de ■^ Quatford ■ • ■ ( Nova domus . . I Molendinum . . J i hide . 1 hide . 3 hides 5 hides 3 hides . . . UNDBED IS MISSTATED IN DoMESDAY i hide .... 58 i hides 8 acr. fo.254, a.l Ibidem. fo.253, b.2 254, a. 1 253, b.2 fo. 258, b. 1 Modem Hundred. Brimstree , Stotteadeu Ibidem. . Brimstree Ibidem . , Ibidem. . Wenlook Brimstree Stottesden Ibidem . Ibidem Ibidem Brimstree .... Ibidem Stottesden . . . Ibidem Ibidem Ibidem . . . Ibidem . . . Brimstree . Ibidem Ibidem Stottesden . . Wenlock . . , Stottesden . . . Brimstree .... Stottesden . . . Brimstree . . . . Stottesden . . . Modern Name. Albrightou. Aston Botterel. Aston Eyre. Badger. Bishton. Brockton. Deuxhill. Eudon BurueU. Faintree. Eulwardine. G-lazeley. Hatton ? Hatton ? Meadowley. Middleton Scriven. Morville. Oldbury. Pickthom. Kyton. Stockton. Sutton Maddock. Upton Cresset. Waiey. Chetton. Donningtou. Eardington. Tong. Oharlcott. 20 TABLE OF ALNODESTREU HUNDRED. Whereas, in the foregoing Map, the modern orthography has been substituted for that of Domesday, the 1st column of the annexed Table supplies the latter, as far as this Hundred is con- cerned. The 2d column gives the Saxon owner of each Manor in time of King Edward the Confessor— T. R. E. (as Domesday abbreviates " Tempore Regis Edwardi.") The 3d column gives the tenant in capite of 1086, who, in Alnodestreu Hundred, was uniformly the Norman Earl (Roger de Montgomery) . The 4th column gives the tenant or tenants holding, in 1086, immediately under the Earl, and whether individual or corporate. If the Earl held the whole or part of the Manor in demesne, and had therefore no tenant, such fact is marked in this column by a horizontal line. The 5th column gives the under-tenant (holding imder the Earl's tenant), where any such is named in Domesday. The 6th column enumerates certain features or adjimcts of some Domesday Manors, often useful as evidence of identity, such as Churches, Priests, Provosts, Berewicks,i Mills, and Woods. The 7th column gives the Domesday hidage of each Manor, that is, such capacity as each Manor was rated at for the assessment called Danegeld. Sometimes a portion of this hidage is stated in Domesday to be free from that impost {non gildabilis), but this exemption does not occur in Alnodestreu Hundred. The Domesday hidage of Manors is very important, as it formed the basis of later taxes than the Danegeld, and so is often a guide in questions of identity. The Domesday hide of this Hundred is computed ^ at 240 acres of the period ; the virgate (or yard-land) of the same Record at 60 acres. These acres however wiU have been somewhat larger ' Corn-farms. ^ This is adranoed as an average rather than an invariable estimate, and subject to a special question whether the hide, even if originally an actual measure, was so practically. For instance, — suppose two Manors of equal areal extent, but extremely diiferent agricultural value — I cannot think that the Domesday hidage (a basis of taxation then and afterwards) would in such cases be equal. TABLE OF ALKODESTREU HUNDRED. 21 than our modern statute acres, though not so much larger than an older and ruder mode of mensuration might reconcile and account for. The 8th column gives reference to the folio, page, and column of the printed Domesday, which faithfully represents the original in this particular. The 9th column gives the modern Hundred of each Manor, except where such Manor's identity is uncertain, in which case the space is filled up with a note of interrogation. The 10th and last column gives the modern name of each Manor, as in the Map ; hut where douht exists as to identity, such doubt is marked by a note of interrogation after the surmised name. If the identity cannot even be surmised, the same note occupies the space alone. The whole contents of the Domesday Hundred are added together at the foot of the table; but this is in prospect of a fature question, to the solution of which such calculations will contribute their share. ^InoDestreti Jlunlrreti. This Hundred, variously wiitten by the Norman i Scribes of Domesday as that of Elnoestrul, Elnoelstruil, Elnoelstrui, Elnoel- stui^ or Alnodestreu, owed the latter part of its name, perhaps, to a vill or tre of British origin, whereat in succeeding times some Saxon j331noth may have presided as Ealdorman, over the folkmote or hundred-court of the district. The locality of such a British vill cannot now be surmised, as probably its existence, and certainly its conjectured importance, had ceased before the days of King Edward the Confessor. In his reign (a.d. 1042-1065), the Hundred of AJnodestreu had its centre or caput at Membrefeld (Morville), where consequently that local jurisdiction will have been exercised which, together with the Manor, realized an annual revenue of .€10. The proportion between the Curial and Manorial income is not stated in Domesday; but two-thirds of the former, whatever it was, belonged to the Crown, and the other third toithe Earl of Mercia. When in the year 1086, the Domesday Survey was taken, the collective value of Morville Manor and its attached Hundred of Alnodestreu was a little in excess of the Saxon valuation, viz. jfilO. Ss. 6d. The Norman Earl (Roger de Montgomery) was now entitled to the whole profits^ of the hundred-court, which are ' The Domesday Commissioners for Worcestershire and other, probably ad- joining, Counties, were Kemigius, Bishop of Lincoln, Earl Walter Giifard, Henry de Ferrers, and Adam, brother of Eudo the King's Sewer.— (Co«o» MSS., Tib. A. xiij.) They were all Normans. ^ In the age immediately succeeding that of which we are treating, the distinc- tive badge of Earldom was a right to a, third part of the revenue arising from such pleas of the Crown as were held in the County or City whereof the Earl took title. But I suppose that Earl Roger's tenure in Shropshire was hke that of the Earl of Chester in his County, and will best be described by the term palatine. The chief features of such tenure were, that the judicial revenue of County, Hundred, and Borough Courts was not, as in Saxon, or as in subsequent times, divided between the Crown and the Earl in proportion of two to one, but belonged whoUy to the Earl. Pleas of the Crown, therefore, did ALNODESTREU HUNDRED. 23 estimated at £S, but that sum probably included the income of such portion of the Manor as was retained by the Earl in demesne. As regards the boundaries of the Domesday Hundred of Alnode- streu, they will best be understood by a perusal of the accompany- ing Map. It lay in a scattered form, being broken up by isolated portions of the Hundreds of Bascherch and Patinton ; nor was this a solitary instance of those eccentric territorial divisions which at the period in question must have been productive of great incon- venience. A thorough change in this respect was effected in Shropshire before the accession of Henry II (1154), but by which of hjs four predecessors cannot be determined on positive evidence. There are however some negative considerations, which it may be worth while to offer on the matter. The reigns of William Rufus and Stephen were not likely to have been productive of any great internal reforms of this kind. The last two years of William the Conqueror (or such part of two years as elapsed between the completion of the Domesday record and his death), left him little leisure for English affairs, to say nothing of the County of Salop being at that time exempt from aU subsidiary exercise of royal prerogative. On other grounds such a reform might have been expected, almost as a corollary of the Domesday Survey ; but then it would hardly have escaped the notice of those contemporary Chroniclers, who have dwelt so much on the adjuncts of that great territorial record. King Henry I inherited much of the administrative ability of his Father. Thirty years of his reign were years of uninterrupted tranquillity as regarded this County. His powers of interference in all its internal affairs were unlimited, and his ministers were men of great capacity and energy. To his reign then may be ascribed the change, which rearranged the divisional system of the County, as well as its external boundaries. The feature of this change, which we have at present to do with, is, that the Hundred of Alnodestreu was swept away, and came to not exist in Earl Roger's principality. Similarly, no writ of the Kiag would be cognizable, or, as the term went, "current" in any lauds of Earl Roger's tenure, except the "writ close," i.e., addressed to the Earl himself. Against a subject thus powerful, in case he were refractory ov rebellious, the King had no legal and summary remedy, tiU he had been tried by his peers, or refused to undergo such trial after due summons. Thus the fealty which the Earl of Shrewsbury owed to the King of England was much what was claimed from the latter, as Duke of Normandy, by the King of France. 4 24 ALNODESTUEU HUNDRED. be represented by portions of the Hundred of Stottesden, Brimstree, and Munslow, none of which had any existence at Domesday. A second but more partial change in the reign of Richard I assigned that part of Alnodestreu Hundred^ which meanwhile had been in Munslow Hundredj and one Manor (Badger), which had similarly been in Brimstree Hundred, to the then newly-created liberty of Wenlock. In the latter case (the assignment of Badger to Wenlock liberty), the anomaly produced was exactly of the kind which the first reform was clearly intended to remove. With regard to the Manors which appear on the face of the Domesday Record, as members of Alnodestreu Hundred, they are enumerated in the Table already given. Only one of them is of doubtfol identity, viz. Etone. The Domesday Survey does not specify the Hundreds of many Manors, which were of the Norman EarPs demesne. A probability that four of these unclassified Manors were in the Hundred of Alnodestreu will be stated under their respective notices. A fifth Manor, similarly of the Earl's demesne, and written "Bolebec" in Domesday, is not identified, and therefore its position in this hundred is matter of the merest conjecture. A seventh Manor, "Cerlecote," is assigned in the printed Domesday to the Hundred of "Recording" nor is the original record in this instance misrepresented. It is nevertheless quite clear that such assignment was in the first case, a mere scribal in- accuracy, which will be noticed in its proper place, and would not have been mentioned here, but to explain the appearance of the Manor of Charlcott in the annexed Map and Table of the Hundred of Alnodestreu. JHorbtlU. When the Domesday Survey was taken, the Manor of Membre- felde remained^ as in Saxon times, the caput or centre of the Hundred of Alnodestreu. Its relations in that respect have been already spoken of, and it remains further to describe its state as a Manor. Manorially then, at the time of Domesday, MorviUe was in a condition of uncompleted, but then meditated change. Beyond the transfers then contemplated, a lapse of twenty years brought about other changes of tenure and condition not then to be expected. No wonder then that a comparison of its Domesday state and limits with those of a subsequent date should involve much research in the first instance, some conjecture in the next, and perhaps little of positive conclusion in the last. Even the starting point — the evidence of Domesday as to this Manor, is in one respect obscure, in another false, and in a third silent. Much of this was doubtless a result of the condition of the Manor at the time ; but after thus deciding on the inadequacy of this paramount authority in the case in question, we have little other evidence to guide us except that which proves, though it does not correct, the errors of the greater record. That which Domesday ' tells us consistently is as follows : — The whole Manor of Membrefelde contained twelve hides of land ' The Domesday notice of MorviUe, with the contractions resolved, is as follows : — Ipse Comes tenet Membrefelde cum xviii berewichis. Bex Edwardus tenuit. Ibi xLi hidae. Una ex his berewichis, Calve- stone, de i hidi, est in Wirecestrescire. De hdc terra ini hidse sunt in dominio, et ibi ii carrucse, et vi aUse carrucse possent esse. Ibi ix villani et vi bordarii cum iii carrucis, et adhuc duae alise possent esse. Ibi iiii bovarii. Huic Manerio pertinet totum Alnodes- treu Hundredum, Duo denarii erant Eegis Edwardi, et tereius Comitis. Inter totum reddebat x libros. Modo, quod Comes habet valet iii libros. Ecclesia hujus Manerii est in honore Saneti Gregorii, quse tempore Eegis Ed- wardi habebat de hfic terrfl, viii hidas, et ibi serviebant viii canonici, Hanc ecole- siam cum v hidis terra; tenet ecclesia Saneti Petri de Comite. In dominio sunt ibi ii carrucffi et iiii alise possunt esse. Ibi ix villani et unus bordarius et iii pres- 26 MORVILLE. and involved eighteen "berewicks" or members, in the shape probably of villages or hamlets. Of these twelve hides, we are told first, that the Norman Earl heldfom- in demesne; but what appears to be a supplementary note, indicates that two out of the said four hides were held under the Earl by Richard Pincerna. The whole four had been, in the Confessor's time, of the King's demesne. The remaining eight hides had under the same Monarch formed the endowment of the Collegiate Church of St. Gregory of Mem- brefelde, in which " were ministering eight Canons." The Norman Earl had however imdertaken the duty, or business, of remodelling this ecclesiastical foundation. He had granted the Church and five of the eight hides of land to his recent monastic establishment at Shrewsbury; with the other three hides he had beneficed his own private Chaplains. Summarily then, in 1086, the Earl held this Manor and hundred in capite of the Crown. Of the Manor he retained two hides in demesne ; two hides were held under him by Richard Pincerna, five by the Monks of Shrewsbury, and three by his own Chaplains. The relative value, cultivation, and occupation of these respective portions, may also be gathered from Domesday. In demesne (two hides) there were two ox-teams and work for six more. There were nine villains and six boors with three ox-teams, and there was a capability of maintaining two more ox-teams. There were also four neat-herds. The annual value of this, including however the revenue of the Hundred-Court, was £3. The five hides, held by the Monks of Salop, employed in demesne two ox-teams, and might employ four more. But nine villains, one boor, and three priests, had nine teams thereon. There were also fom- neat-herds, and a Knight who held a whole hide under the Monks at a rent of four shillings per annum. The gross annual value of these five hides was £3. 17*. As to the three hides which the Earl's Chaplains held, they were underlet to five freemen (homines) . There was arable land suffi- cient for six ox-teams, but only two were in employ. The annual value of these three hides was £3. Is. 6d. byteri cum is carriicis, et iiii bovarii; et unus miles tenet i hidam,reddensim solidos monachis. Totum hoc valet Ixvii solidos. Keliquas iii hidas tenent oapellani Co- mitis et v homines de eis. Terra est vi carrucis. Ibi sunt ii carruoas. Totum Talct Ix solidos et xviii denarios. De ips^ terr4 hujua Manerii tenet Eicar- dus Pincerna ii hidas et ibi habet i car- rucam et ii servos et vii villanos emu i carruca, et molendinum reddens x sum- mas annonse. Ibi ix oarrucse plus possent esse. Valet xx solidos. — Domesd. fo. 253, a. 2. MORVILLE. 27 The two hides held by Richard Pincerna had in stock one ox- teanij but two serfs and seven villains had another team. There was work for nine more such teams. Hereon also was a mill rendering ten horse-loads of grain. The whole tenure was worth 20s. annually. Here we may notice that the land requiring most team-labour was that assessed as least valuable; also that the Monks applied more such labour to their tenement, in proportion to its require- ments, than did the Chaplains, and the Chaplains more than the lay-tenant. The Earl's demesne cannot be brought into this calculation, owiug to its precise value not being specified. It however required more team-labour than any of the other tenements, and received less in proportion to its requirements than the land of the Monks, but more than that of the others. Something must now be said of the locality of these respective tenures, a subject which will involve statements or surmises as to those eighteen berewicks, which were members of this Manor in 1086. Domesday itself supplies the name of one of these berewicks. It was " Galveston, in Worcestershire." This item of Domesday geography, though suspected to be far from accurate, is useful in its way, as confirming our accounts ^ as to the mode in which that survey was taken. There can be little doubt that the locality indicated was Cold Weston, a township very far to the south-west of Morville, yet at least eight nules removed from the nearest point of Worcestershire. The names of eight more of these berewicks may be gathered from an early and important charter of Salop Abbey, described in the monastic index as the charter ^ of Kiug WUliam I, and indeed confirmed as such by King Edward III. 2 The CommissionerB who travelled through the country to take the survey examined whom they chose ; such as Sheriffs, Barons, Beeves of Hundreds, Priests, Bailiffs, and even Villains, but the detailed information seems generally to have been derived from the answers of Jurors empanelled from each Hundred. Thus an inaccurate reply might very probably be given as to any locality which lay beyond the Umits of the particular Hundred then under notice of the Com- mission. — {Vide MSS. Cotton., Tib. A. vi, fol. 38.) ^ This charter stands No. 34 in the Abbey Chartulary, and as recited and confirmed by succeeding Kings, is given in the Patent BoU of 1 Hen. VIj part 5, memb. 19. The original Latin is printed iu the New Monasticon, vol. iii, p. 521, numb, s ; and a comment on its nature and contents may be seen in the History of STirevosbwry, vol. ii, pp. 15-16. It is very common to hear the term 28 MOEVIliLE. These berewicks were as follows : Astley^ Little Astley {alia Estleia), Norley, Crofte, Haughton, Kingslow, Harpsford, and Billingsley. The charter quoted also mentions the vill of Weston^ which probably was only the Cold Weston mentioned above. It further describes some other "possessions" of the Church of MorviUcj viz, Newton, Tugford, and Fertecote ; but, in so far as it the Court of William Eufus, at Gloucester, in July 1100. The document is offered to the royal consideration, perhaps aooom- " forgery" appKed to these early charters, and the historians of Shrewsbury, usually most impartial, speak of " the fabrication of charters" and " pretended charters" as common things, and as applicable to the document before us. It is because the evidence afforded by these early charters is either exeeedingly valuable or extremely delusive that I have given, at different times, great attention to the subject, and venture now to express an opinion in favour of their general honesty and truth, and condemnatory of all harsh terms what- soever as apphed to them. The truth is, that a later age has misimderstood the very nature of these early charters, and has consequently judged of them by a false standard. The charter before us belongs to a class very common at the time, and wliich may be called "recita- tory," and, if it may be allowed to speak for itself, will suggest the following idea of its formation. Certaia persons in- terested in the welfare of Shrewsbury Abbey (the Abbot, perhaps, and one or two literate monks), think it expedient, both for the security of their titles, and as an incentive to future benefactors, to draw up a written statement of grants which, within their knowledge, have been made to their house. In this work they partly rely on their own recollections, but chiefly on written documents which they have before them, and which relate to those benefactions in detail. The extracts from these vouchers are easily distinguishable, in such documents, from the explanatory or connective words employed by the compilers. When the whole is finished, an opportunity is sought for sending the digest to the King's Court, in order to secure the royal confirmation. Perhaps the Abbot himself is going thither, as did Fulchered, first Abbot of Shrewsbury, to panied by vouchers, but more certainly with a pecuniary recommendation. The routine was, that the King laid it before his Council, or referred it to his Chan- cellor. On a favourable report thereof, the King directs the latter to affix the great seal, and perhaps a sentence ex- pressive of the royal concurrence. The distinguishing feature of this mode of proceeding was, that the charter confirmed was drawn up by the grantees, not by the grantors, nor yet by an oflScer of the Court. The probability is, however, that some test of good faith was supplied, such as the production of vouchers. At all events, these charters were very com- mon, and their efiicacy admitted in the law courts of succeeding reigns, as well as in the great conveyancing department of Chancery. Such a document is No. 34 of the Salop Chartulary, and the critical mistake of the Shrewsbury historians is that they have treated it as a document in wliich they have assumed the King him- self to be the narrator throughout. Looking alone to the internal evidence of this document, I cannot omit to state a doubt whether the confirming sentence was by the Conqueror or his son Eufus. The monk who wrote the Index of the Salop Chartulary, more than 200 years after, attributed the deed to the former, and Edward Ill's inspeadmus calls the King who confirmed, his " progenitor," a term which hterally could not apply to Kirfns. Neither of these considerations would weigh with me against evidence of another kind, and that, which I think further affects the question, shall be offered in a place where it is more relevant to the text. MORVILLE. 29 describes tliem as possessions involved in Earl Roger's grant to Salop Abbey, it is probably in error as to circumstance. That at tbe time tMs charter was written, the Church of MorviUe had acquired an interest in each of those three vills is very likely, but that such interest was derived in two cases from other sources than Earl Roger's grant, and did not amount to possessions iu the thu'd, and that in none of the three was any interest of St. Gregory of MorviUe^ so existent as to warrant our inclusion of them among the Domesday berewicks of that Manor, are matters which will have to be treated of under the respective titles of those townships. As yet, therefore, only eight of MorviUe' s seventeen unnamed berewicks have been realized, with any show of certaiuty. Perhaps such places as Rode, Stanley, Dunvall, Colemore, may have been esteemed berewicks, and may be left under this conjectural head tUl in the following pages, they shall each receive a notice and the reader judge whether they or some others, such as Severn (now Severn Hall), Rucroft, Cantreyn, &c., best deserve a place among the uncertain berewicks of the Domesday summary. Five berewicks yet remain, and with something of a better title to be placed on this conjectural list. They are Underdon, Bridge- walton. Lye, Tasley, and Henley. And now, to apportion a series of half- conjectured berewicks so as to tally with the inaccurate, or deficient, or superfluous statement of Domesday, is a matter of extreme difficulty, but yet a necessary part of our professed plan.* It must first be mentioned, that the three hides, which at the time of Domesday were tenanted by Earl Roger's chaplains, had been by him granted in remainder to Shrewsbury Abbey, as part and parcel of the original Church of St. Gregory. This remainder was to, and did,^ take effect after the deaths of the then incumbents. Of course it is impossible ^ to distinguish now between the five hides, which in 1086 had already gone to the Monks of Shrewsbury, and the three hides, which under the same grant were shortly to revert * See Preface, page 14. 5 See page 32. ^ In the History of Shrewsbmy (vol. ii, p. 22) one of these reyersionary prebends ia conjectured to have been " MorviUe Home," and that Eicardus Oapellanus de Mo il nil Hermer, its supposed incumbent, was so entitled by some scribe ignorant of the meaning of " MorviUe Home." This is quite a mistake. Meihul Hermer is not the name of the Chaplain's prebend, but of himself, and it was very usual thus to insert a man's caUing between the two parts of his name. So Kicardus Oapel- lanus de Meilml Hermer means nothing more than Eichard de Meihul Hermer, Chaplain. Mesml Hermer was a Norman name. 30 MORVILLE. to that Abbey. The collective eight hides may however be esti- mated as thus involved : — One hide at Galveston (Coldweston) . Five hides in Astley, that is, in Astley Abbots and its adjuncts, viz. Little Astley, Nordley, Crofte, Haughton, Kingslow, Rode, Stanley, Dunvall, Colemore, Severn, Rucroft, Cantern, &c. One and a-half hides at Billiagsley. Half a hide in Morville itself (including, perhaps, Harpswood) . Such then were the eight ecclesiastical hides, supposed to be implied by the five and three hides of the Domesday Survey. There are yet four hides to be allocated. These are stated in the first instance to be held by the Earl in demesne ; but two of them, in a notice which appears to be supplementary, are said to be the tenure of Richard Pincerna. To deal with the latter first, it must be submitted, that no two hides within any supposable area of Morville Manor ever descended as a tenure, immediately under the Earl (or his ultimate repre- sentative, the Crown) to any imaginable heir of Richard Pincerna. But we know that Tasley was in the area of the Domesday Manor of Morville, that it has no distinctive notice ia that record, and that it constituted a Manor of two hides at a later period. We also know that in its adjunct, Henley, Warin the Sheriff had a seignoral interest before Domesday, and that in the usual course of Warin^s succession a correspondent interest to that which he had exercised appears, after Domesday, vested in Fitz-Alan, and this both in Henley and Tasley. At the intermediate period, viz. 1086, this interest was almost uniformly represented by Rainald, the Sheriff, Warin's successor and Fitz-Alan's antecessor : ^ yet Domesday says nothing of Rainald being a tenant under the Earl anywhere in Morville Manor. It may therefore be presumed, that the two hides, said to be held by Richard Pincerna immediately under the Earl, were ia Tasley and Henley, but that they were held by the said Richard, of Rainald the Sheriff, and by Rainald of the Earl. * ^ I use the word "antecessor" rather than " ancestor" adyisedly, because we usually associate a descent by blood with the latter term, an idea which, in the present instance, would be erroneous. ^ Similar as to Cold Weston. — The Knight who held one hide of the Monks might have been under-tenant there. The same Jury however which said that Cold Weston was in Worcestershire was pro- bably not in a condition to give very accurate information to the Domesday Commissioners as to how it was held. MORVILLE. 31 To conclude with the two hides which, in 1086, were stiU of Earl Roger's demesne, they must be allocated as follows, that is to say, partly in Astley (if Hugh, son and successor to Earl Roger, be truly stated to have granted tithes of his demesne of Astley, to Salop Abbey) ; partly in Aldenham, Underdon, Bridgewalton, and Lye, and even in Morville itself, as will appear hereafter. Earl Roger's demesne in this Manor will also have extended in a direction which then had no specific name or occupancy. North- ward of Morville, and surrounded by localities which either were members of Morville, or else had a distinctive notice in Domesday, there was a wide, barren rock, somewhat elevated above the sur- rounding country in general, and naturally fortified on three sides by ravines and valleys of greater or less depth. On the fourth or eastern side, it overhung the channel of the river Severn, at a stUl more commanding height. This rock or platform, then so in- significant, had once perhaps been the site of a Saxon fortress, but if so, its importance was only traditionary, and the fortress itself a ruin. Yet was this unnamed locality destined, within twenty years after Domesday, to become the scene of great local and national events. First, it was to be the site of a Castle of uncommon strength, the work of the last Norman Earl of Shrewsbury, whose engineering skill was as famous as his cruelty and ambition. Such a combination it was, which served to fortify Bridgnorth in a space of time otherwise incredibly short. The result proves how judiciously the site was selected, and how efficiently occupied, for there, within the same period of twenty years, the chief power ^ of the kingdom, though marshalled under the eye of an able and war- like Monarch, was to receive a sturdy though temporary ^° check, from the foresight of the rebel Earl, and the valour of his depen- dants. This spot, naturally unnoticed in Domesday, as part of the Earl's demesne in Morville Manor, will, in regard of its subsequent importance, demand a separate and more prominent notice in the sequel. Having now sketched the presiimed area of the Domesday Manor of Morville, it is necessary to speak further of its details. — The chief feature here was The Church. ' "Totius Aiiglioe legiones" are the words used by Ordericus. — {Vide Nor- mannormn Scriptores, page 807 A.) '" The siege of Bridgnorth lasted thi-ee weeks. — {Ordericus, ibmJ) 3;^ MOEVILLE. THE CHURCH. A Collegiate Churcli of tte usual Saxon character," had existed at Morville in the days of King Edward the Confessor. It was in honour of St. Gregory. Its endowment was eight hides of land, and it was served by eight Canons. The forfeiture of the Saxon Earls, Morcar and Edwin, a. d. 1071, was probably in the first instance subversive of this foundation, but before a. d. 1086, the Norman Earl had devoted the whole of these possessions to an ecclesiastical purpose. He had bestowed the Church and five hides on Shrewsbury Abbey, and three hides on his domestic Chaplains ; but with a proviso as regarded the latter, "that as fast as the Clerks (or life-tenants) died ofi", the Abbey should appropriate their Prebends." Thus undoubtedly did Shrewsbury Abbey become at some time possessed of the Church and eight hides which had formed the Saxon establishment. We are fortunate in having a record of the lapse of one of these Prebends, and of some difficulty which the Abbey experienced in establishing its reversionary claim. Between the years 1108 and 1113, Richard de Meilnil Hermer, a Chaplain, died, having been first shorn a Monk of Salop. His son, Hubert, claimed his father's Prebend as his inheritance, but King Henry I enjoined Richard, Bishop of London, then Viceroy or Steward of this County, to hold trial thereupon. The consequence was the defeat of the claimant, the King himself apparently sitting in Court, and attended by the chief Barons of the County. "We learn from this, that Earl Roger's Chaplain was, as might be ex- pected, a Norman, Mesnil Hermer being a Norman town and giving name to a Norman family. It also would appear that celibacy was at this period either not incumbent on the Norman Canons, or that these Morville Chaplains of Earl Roger were not esteemed regular Canons or amenable to the rules which governed such collegiate bodies. Besides the lapse of these Prebends, the Church of Morville had at this period been otherwise endowed ; or, at least, grants which had been made to Salop Abbey, were considered appanages of its subject Church of Morville. Such were the grants of a great part 1' Tide Hist. Slvrewsbwy, vol. ii, page 2; and Archce,ologia Camibrensis, New Series, No. xiv, page 100. MORVXLLE. 33 of Tugford (perhaps including Fertecote, a vill not at present traced) by Warin the Sheriff, and his successor Raiijald, previous to 1086. Such also was the grant ^^ of tithes of his demesne in Astley, by Earl Hugh de Montgomery^ if indeed this were the origin of that undoubted right of the Abbey. Moreover, Warin's grant of the tithes of the whole vill of Weston, and of two-thirds of the tithes of his demesne of Henley, and Earl Hughes grant of two-thirds of the tithes of his demesne of Neuton, and perhaps of Lye, will belong to the same category. Consistently with the above, a suit which, between 1108 and 1113, arose between WUham, son of Rainer de Tangelanda (Thong- lands) , and the Abbey, about the continuance of a lease of Fertecote, will have primarily been a question as to the Abbot's rights in a part of his Morville fief. So also the suit which, between 1113 and 1121, arose between the Abbey and Rainald, son of Turstin Buich, as to the right of the latter to hold, in fee and iuheritance, land near Bridgnorth and the Severn, of which his father had had a life-lease. The latter suit ended iu the sickness and retractation of Rainald, his being shorn a Monk of Salop Abbey, and dying not long after his father. ^ The Charter here quoted stands No. 5 in the Salop Charttdary, and is printed in the New Monasticon, vol. iii, p. 520. I have quoted it, though beHeving it to be one of the most unfortunate pieces of evi- dence which remains on the folios of a most valuable record. That it was framed to establish an unfounded right to any one of the various gifts which it recites is not, I behave, the case, and so far the. term "forgery,'' though applicable to it on some grounds, should be explained. There can be httle question, from other evidence, that Earl Hugh granted or confirmed, or sanctioned, all that the Charter conveys. Nor is the alleged attestation of Warin the Sheriff, who was dead long before Earl Hugh's succession, a material objection, seeing that attestation of these early Charters does not imply the then presence of the witness, so much as an assertion on the part of the vmter of the Charter that that witness had been a witness, or a party to the transfer, all of it or part of it, at one time or other. But the main objec- tion to this Charter is that Earl Hugh is made to speak in the first person through- out, and ends by professing to seal it with his own seal, while it is quite certam that no such Charter was written in his day, or sealed with his seal, while hving. This point is settled by internal evidence. The Earl talks of his demesne of " Astley, near Bruge," whereas Bruge was a nameless and barren rook in his day, and probably involved in the very demesne of Astley, wliich he is speaking of. He also grants other tithes as of his own demesne, where demesne he never had, though the Abbey certainly had other title to these veiy tithes, and Earl Hugh may have con- firmed such title, and I beheve did. The formula too of "Hiis testibus," which introduces the witnesses' names, is of a later age than Earl Hugh's. The best and the worst to be concluded of this Charter is that it is a clumsy attempt of some Monk to improve a title which needed no such fortifying ; and if any seal of Earl Hugh was ever attached to the document (which I doubt), such affix was only not a great fraud because it was a greater folly. 34 MORVILLE. At this period, or more precisely a. d. 1118, the Monks of Salop had built a new" Church at Morville; and Geoffry (de Clive), Bishop of Hereford, attended to its consecration. We should neither have known this fact nor its date, but for an awful accident which followed, and which drew the attention of contemporary Chroniclersi* to the circumstances. The day had been unusually fine, and those who had flocked to the ceremony of consecration were on their way home. A tremendous thunder-storm came on. Seven of the travellers, tAvo of them females, were sheltering in one spot. The women were struck by the lightning and kiUed ; the men had a narrow escape with life, and five horses belonging to the party perished. After the rebuilding of the Church for a period of twenty years, we can trace nothing directly of the Church of St. Gregory, its possessions, or its interests; indeed the whole history of the County is involved in a similar obscurity. In the year 1121-3, or else in 1126-7, King Hemy I, being then at Norton (near Cundover), issued a general precept" to Richard (de Capella), Bishop of Hereford, commanding him that he cause the Abbot of Salop to enjoy all such Churches, lands, &c., iu liis Diocese, as the Abbot's predecessors had enjoyed. This precept may have been connected with the following circumstances. It would seem that ever since the foundation of Salop Abbey, the Norman Abbey of Seez had laid claim, if not to the house itself as an affiliation, yet to certain of those possessions, whereto the latter exhibited an independent title. This probably arose from Shrewsbury Abbey, having been built and first occupied by Sagian Monlis, imported from Earl Roger's Norman fief. The two first Abbots of Shrewsbury came also from Seez, and no one can read Earl Roger's foundation Charter, a document of indubitable authority,^* without seeing that it was framed in antagonism to some such claim 13 The architectural notice of the preaent Church of Morrille, with which I am faTOured by the KeT. J. L. Petit, and which is given below, renders it probable that nothing whatever of this structure of 1118, beyond the materials is now existent. " Vide Flor. Contin. n, 72. 15 Salop Chartulary, No. 47. '8 This Charter stands No. 2 iu the Chartulary, and is printed in the Nem Monasticon, vol. iii, page 519. In the Sistory of Shrewsbwry, vol. ii, pp. 11-15, an opinion generally favourable as to its genuineness is expressed, but some objec- tions are also stated. I can only say, with regard to the latter, that, after a careful comparison of the document with Domes- day, and other evidence in the Chartulary, I cannot find grounds for one of them. It win be time to answer these objections when the specific subjects on which they MOaVILLE. 35 as that of Seez^ actual or prospective. As regards the possessions of MorviQe Church a claim had thus been made on its Manor of Billiagsley ; and successfully too, for the foreign Abbey appears to have been seized thereof, when about a.d. 1147 the claims of both houses were adjudicated upon by Robert de Betun, Bishop of Here- ford. The composition ^^ which ensued left Billingsley in possession of the Abbey of Seez. Thus Salop Abbey will have lost a Manor of about one and a half hides in extent, and so, nearly a fifth of the eight hides to which it had been entitled by force of Earl Roger's original grant of MorviUe Church, and its appurtenances. The manorial possessions of the latter, or at least what remained uncontested of them, will about this time, or rather sooner, have become more immediately subject to Salop Abbey, in consequence of arrangements which must now be mentioned ; and we may here dismiss any detailed account of separate Manors or townships, leaving to such as demand it a future and distract notice. The more comprehensive subject which now arises is a jurisdic- tion, rather parochial than manorial, and which MorvUle Church had doubtless exercised in Saxon times, and contrived to retain or regain afber the Conquest. In all Alnodestreu Hundred, Domesday tell us but of one Church then existent, viz. that of St. Gregory. Whatever qualification^^ we may put upon this feature of the record, it is certain that the parish of St. Gregory extended far beyond its manorial iuterests, and involved a very important spiritual jurisdic- tion. It was about the year 1138, that Robert de Betun, the Diocesan, sympathizing, as he said, with the necessities of Salop Abbey, granted ^9 to that house an appropriation of its Church of Momerfeuld, enjoining however that it should be colonized with Monks from Shrewsbury, changeable at the Abbot's discretion. are raised come under review. The objec- tion which is made as regards MorviUe is, that the Earl grants the Church of Momerfeld, with all the land which the Clerks held. He means by the Clerks his own Chaplains, not the Saxon Canons, as the historians of Shrewsbury have pre- sumed. On this ground they attack the Charter as contradictory to Domesday, which speaks only of five-eighths of such land having been granted to the Abbey. This is however merely saying that Domes- day is silent as to the directions of the Earl with respect to the other three rever- sionary eighths, to which I reply that Domesday had nothing to do with such matters. It treats of possessions, not remainders. " Salop Chartulary, No. 337. '8 The mention of a priest at G-lazeley and Chetton may perhaps be taken to imply the existence of Churches, and if there were not Churches at Tong and Donington in 1086 (as Domesday imphes), there were vrithin ten years of that date. >3 Salop Chartulary, No. 334. 36 MORVILLE. The object of the latter proviso was ostensibly, " a full discharge of the duties of hospitality there, in proportion to the local means." Morville thus became a Priory, and subject most directly to Salop Abbey. Its ecclesiastical rights, with which alone the Bishop had to do, were no longer matters of local concern or exercise. They were transferred to the Chapter-House at Shrewsbury. The Bishop's Charter proceeds to specify what they were, and they must be enumerated here. 1. A pension of 6s. 8d. from the Chapel of Bdlingsley, and half the corn- tithes of the same vill. Thus, though the Manor belonged to Seez, the parochial jurisdiction remained with Morville Church, and was now to be transferred to Salop Abbey. In other words, a Chapel had been some time built and endowed at Billingsley, in the parish of St. Gregory. St. Gregory had probably given up half the corn-tithe as an endowment, retaining however the other half, and exacting a pension of half a merk as a token of subjection to the Mother Church. 2. A pension of 5s. from the Chapel of Oldbnry ; an acknowledg- ment of parochial subjection quite independent of any territorial right. 3. A pension of 6*. 8d. from Tasley Chapel, a case like the last. The Charter then mentions certain pensions accruing to Salop Abbey, from other sources {alias debitas), i. e., such as did notarise from the appropriation of the rights of St. Gregory. But it further confirms the tithes of Astley, both of the Abbot's own demesne there, as well as those granted by others (seemingly an allusion to Earl Hugh's grant), also two-thirds of the tithes of the Lords of Henley, Neuton,™ and Upton,'" all which were probably appurtenant primarily to the Church of Morville, though the Charter does not say so. So then, at this date (1138), in the parish of St. Gregory, three subject Chapels had been founded since Domesday, viz. at Billings- ley, Oldbury, and Tasley. Within a year or two Robert Fitz-Aer founded 2> another at Aston Aer, endowing it himself with sixty acres of land, a house, and all tithes of his demesne. Within ten years two other such Chapels had been built, viz. at Aldenham and " These places I take to be Neenton and Upton-super-Edge (afterwards Tipton Cresset), but I cannot trace the original grant of tithes in either. At Neenton howerer Salop Abbey possessed a subse- quent ecclesiastical interest of a kind which was not unusually a result of a primary possession of tithes. ^' Salop ChartuUiry, No. 346. MOBVILLE. 37 Underdon, with different endowments ; and the same Bishop again confirming!!^ to Salop Abbey, and addressing his Dean and Chapter of Herefordj tells them that he has consecrated so many Chapels as a " protection for the poor, and having respect to the warlike troubles of the time," and he enjoins that all these Chapels "be still subject to the Mother Church of Morville, so that, on great festivals, the people shall attend the latter, and the Priest of the latter shall, if he so wills, have the bodies of the dead carried thither for burial." The Bishop further stipulates that the endowments of these Chapels (the lands and tithes given to them) shall alway be at the disposal of the Mother Church. He also charges his own successors not to require more than he had ap- pointed ia the way of Episcopal dues, " lest," says he, and the expression is significant, " what I have done in defence of the poor prove an injury to the Monks." Again, the same Bishop consecrated on October 14th ^^ (the year unmentioned), a new Chapel at Astley Abbots, for there seems to have been one before, but probably disused ; and this Chapel was endowed, by the Abbot of Salop himself, with half a virgate of land (30 acres), a house and assart-land, worth 4«. per annum. No tithes were given up for this endowment. Here then were seven Chapels in one great parish, nearly all of them consecrated by a single Bishop, and their endowments and relations to the Mother-Church definitely settled. And this was in the stormy reign of Stephen, a time little likely, one would imagine, to have excelled in works of peace and charity. Without forgetting the great influence which is ever assuaging human evil with some correlative of good, we may classify the subordinate agents in this local change, and judge of each by his conduct. The Bishop was the prime mover of the work, and he was one who has been chronicled in other and independent records ^* as a friend of the poor and oppressed, the opponent of power whenever associated with wrong, and a great personal sufferer for such his integrity. Then there are the Abbot and Monks of the great Benedictiue House, at Shrewsbury, yielding a not very ready sympathy to the movement, and carefully protecting their own interests throughout. Lastly there are the Barons and Knights of the County, endowing 22 Salop Chartulaiy, No. 333. 23 " The day of St. Calixtus." 2^ See his life printed in the Anglia Sacra; also the History of Lanthony Abbey (in the Monasticon) and the Gesta 38 MORVILLE. Chapels out of their own means," when the spiritual superintendence of the district was directly acknowledged to be the charge of an establishment already endowed. Morville, simply as a Cell or Priory, and shorn of all its original influence, remained subject to Shrewsbury Abbey till the Reforma- tion. Its ancient dependencies, as the Church of St. Gregory, rendered whatever allegiance was due, substantially and probably immediately to the Abbot, who held his privileged Court at Astley, without interference of the Prior of Morville, other than as a subordinate. The names of no Priors =^ of Morville occur, where they might be most expected, ia the Salop Chartulary. In Michaelmas Term, 1230, John Prior of Momerfeld appeared in the Courts at West- minster as the Abbot's Attorney in a law-suit. In 1255 the jurors, empanelled to answer certain questions as to tenures and privileges in the Hundred of Stottesden, reported as follows: — that the Abbot of Salop was Lord of part of Momerefeld; that his share was one carrucate, which he held ia demesne; that he owed no suit for the same (to County or Hundred Court) ; that he had thereof the King's charter, and that his feoffor was Earl Roger. '^'^And," say the jurors, " the said vill was never hidaged," by which they must have meant, never assessed according to any separate hidage, which was likely enough, as it was subject to no assessment of those which were chargeable on the hidage of manors. We may however estimate the carrucate which Salop Abbey had in MorviUe itself, as something like half a hide, and this both with reference to the previous survey of Domesday and a subsequent statement ^^ as to acreage. 25 The Chapels of Billingsley, Oldbury, Aston Aer, and Aldenham, were founded or endowed by laics, and probably Tasley. The great injustice which resulted in such cases was that in process of time the Abbey engrossed the greater share of these en- dowments, leaving but a slender pittance to the Incumbents, whereas of course a local benefit was the. primary object of the Founders. ^ May 28th, 1253, JohuWallensis, Prior of Momerefeud, connived at the introduc- tion into his Priory of part of a hind which Walter Baldwin, of Norley, and Roger Dunfowe had unlawfully taken. Before the case came before the Justices of the Forest, viz., Feb. 3d, 1262, this Prior was dead. Flacita foreste apud Salop, 46 Hen. Ill, memb. 4. John Perle occurs as Prior, June 16th, 1353 (Vide infra). " The carrucate itself is never once men- tioned in the Shropshire Domesday. The word abbreviated thus, car, car, is always carruca, an ox-team. Elsewhere in Domes- day (as fol. 269 b.) the word, similarly abbreviated, stands oftenest for carrucata, and in one entry is so written in full. But car, as an abbreviation of carruca, is used on the very same page. As regards MORVILLE. 39 In 1280, the Abbot of Salop was receiving a pension from the Church of Morville, as distinct from the Priory, under the usual system of exaction. It was two merks {£1. 6s. 8d.) per annum, and John Archbishop of Canterbury sanctioned it, by deed^ of August 23d in that year. In 1291, the Church of Morville, with three of its Chapels, Astley, Aston Aer, and Billingsley, was valued as realizing to the Incumbent .£17. 6s. %d. per annum ; but how this valuation was made up, and what were the services thus remunerated, does not appear. The pensions deriveable, at the same date, from the Chapels of Oldbury and Tasley, were estimated as part of the iacome of the Prior. In 1341, the parish of Morville was assessed as follows : its taxation or ecclesiastical value, including Chapels, was 26 merks (£17. 6*. 8rf.) ; but the assessors of the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, in the same parish, rendered account only of £10. 3s. 4<^. ; " so much less than the Church valuation, because there had been a common murrain in this year ; and because small tithes, offerings, and other profits go to make up the higher taxation and are not comprised in this ; and because many tenants have thrown up their holdings through poverty; and because there are two carrucates, and one noke of land (within the parish), which belong to the Chapel of St. Mary Magdalene, of Brugg, and pay nothing towards said ninth. But in the said ninth are included the temporalities of Salop Abbey, which are taxed like other (tenures) within the parish." INCUMBENTS OP MOEVILLE. Of the early incumbents of this Church I can say but little. I have only found two of the 13th century, and both of them have merely the title of Chaplain. Roger, the earliest of these Chaplains, was Father of that Richard, whom I shall mention hereafter as Shropshire, I do not suppose that any inTariable or ascertained ratio can be established between the Domesday mea- surement by the hide, and the later com- putation by the carrucate. The computa- tion, given History of Shrewslury, vol. ii, pp. 8-9, proceeds on the erroneous sup- position that the carrucate occurs as » land-measure in the Shropshire Domes- day. ^ Salop Chartulary, No. 62,— but the sum was probably made up by the pen- sions from subject Chapels. 40 MORVILLE. marrying Sibil, the widow of Kobert de Teneray, and confirming her grants to this Church. Later in the century, Richard, Chaplain of Morville, attests a grant by Hugh, Lord of Upton (Cresset), to Morville Church, which I shall have occasion to notice hereafter. The earlier Registers of Hereford exhibit no instance of a pre- sentation to this office, neither is it mentioned in the Valor of 1535. In 1545, as will presently appear, the officiating Minister here is styled merely Curate, and his stipend, chargeable on the Priory, was j65. 16*. 0\d. per annum. Finally, to show the ever varying combination which, under the monastic rule, confased both territory, tithes. Church, Chapels, and Priory, we may add an account of the state of thiags, such as the Reformation found and left them, here. Previous to July 30th, 1529, Richard Marshall, alias Baker, twenty-eighth Abbot of Shrewsbury (if the Hst ^' be correct) had resigned, for on that day the election of his successor Thomas Boteler, twenty-ninth and last Abbot, received the Royal assent. The resigning Abbot had a pension of £40 per annum assigned him by his Convent. To make up that sum a deed^" under the Convent seal, passed 22d October, 1529, granting to him, inter alia, for term of life, the Cell or Grange ^^ of Morfield, with all its lands, meadows, pastures, and other hereditaments, both temporal and spiritual. We learn from a valuation of subsequent date (June 16th, 1545), and made by Royal Commission, both the gross and net value of the premises thus conveyed, and further, in what they consisted. This last record or "extent" of Morville Priory must be briefly given. It was on this wise : — ^ Mist. Shreimhiiry, ii, 130. ^ Vide Collectanea Topographica et Qenealogica, ¥ol. ii, pp. 289-291, where those particulars are printed from records in the Augmentation Office. ^' Morville was still sometimes called a Priory, and the retired Abbot its Prior. Leland, who travelled this way from Wen- lock at the time, says, "I sawe a litle Priory or Cell called Morfeilde on the right hand as I entred this village." {Searne's Itinerari/, vol. ii, p. 102.) For the title of Prior, as appUed to Marshall, and other particulars about him — (See Hiat. Shrewsbwry, vol. ii, p, 134, note 3.) MORVILLE. 41 s. d. Rent of the site of the Cell or Grange with all its houses, kitchen^ pasture, barns, stables, buildings, &c., in a state of utter ruin, with one small garden, one orchard, four stews, and the land and soil within the site and precinct of said Grange, per annum ..,.,... Rent of 92 1 acres of arable, meadow, grass and pasture land, in diverse fields and enclosures Rent of two tenements (in one of which Richard Marshall seems to have resided) ^^ Rent, or farm, of the tithes of grain and hay in" Moreifeld, Walton, Lye, Kyndesley, Aldenham, Harpsford, Haughton, Crofte, and Underdon, and Rent of the tithe of wool and other produce of the whole parish of Morfeld . . . . J 10 7 17 5 13 4 21 £m 9 £. s. d. The outgoings ^s were : Salary of the Curate of Morefelde Salary of the Curate of Wheaton Aston . Bishop of Hereford's visitation fees Sinage and proxes (synodals and procu- rations) ...... Comissary of the Diocese So that the net annual value, as stated in the document referred to, was .... On December 4th, 1545, the reversion of these premises was granted by the Crown to John Dudley, Viscount Lisle, and Lord Admiral of England, but such reversion would not, in the ordinary course, have taken effect till May 1558, on the 7th day of which month Richard Marshall was buried at St. Leonard's, Bridgnorth. The Lord Lisle had however sold the reversion long before, and 5 16 01 5 16 04 17 9i 13 4 6 8 1 Q 9 lOi !um 16 doc ent • £16 10 lOf ^ Kiohard Marshall however lived at Bridgnorth for a time before his death, if I rightly interpret the somewhat ambi- guous notice of him last referred to, hut which is explained differently hy the his- torians of Shrewsbury. *• Yet in a return of the income of his Abbey, for the year ending Michaelmas 1534, the Abbot of Salop includes an annual pension of £8 received from the Prior of Morville {Valor Eccles. iii, 190), which, if correct, wUl have been a farther charge on Marshall's income. And indeed, when Salop Abbey was surrendered (Jan. 1540), a pension of £10 was allotted to him by the Crown, as if his pension of £40 were not yet made up elsewhere. — (Vide Sist. Shrewsb. ibm.) 42 MORVILLE. perhaps Marshall, his life interest, for there is an entry on the originalia^* returns of 37 Hen. VIII (1545-6), as to "Eoger Smyth, of Brydgnorth, doing homage for the premises." ABCHITECTTTRAL REMAINS OP THE OLD CHTJECH. The earliest architectural features appear to helong to the latter part of the 12th century. The tower has very thick walls, and the Norman flat buttress or pilaster at the angles. Its upper part is of a much later date. The arches which separate the nave from the aisles are semicircular : their mouldings indicate a transitional period, when the pure Norman style was beguming to make way for the Gothic which succeeded it. We have many buildings which may be referred to this interesting epoch ia architecture ; they sometimes exhibit the tendency to change in the form of the arch, as at Bmldwas ; and sometimes in the mould- ings, while the arch continues to be semicircular. Sometimes it is shown both by the arch and its mouldiags, but then some mark or other rarely fails to occur by which the date may be detected. Here we find a convex moulding, the section of which represents the form of a pointed arch ; this I think does not occur in earlier work. The piers are of a somewhat uncommon plan, namely, a square, in the sides of which are engaged shafts, or semi-shafts whose section is an ogee-pointed arch ; the form of the abacus is octagonal. The Chancel-arch is semicircular ; its western face exhibits a shaft with an enriched capital, and two double rows of bUlets, those of the inner row being smaller than we usually find in Norman work. On the north side of the chancel is a door or porch, with a semi- circular arch under a plain gabled canopy. Above the arch is a stone, bearing the date 1683; but as there can be no doubt that the string-courses, from which the arch springs, and the sculpture in its head, are as early as the 13th century, this date probably refers ^ Originalia, 37 Hen. Till, rot 23, quoted Monast. iii, 517, note (e).— The Record itself has since been examined. It is Orig. 37 H. VIII, p. 3, Sot. 23. The King, for a fine of £4. lis., grants to John Viscount Lisle, that he may, by fine to be levied at "Westminster, grant the pre- mises before recited, and the reversion of Marshall's Hfe interest therein, to Koger Smyth, of Bridgnorth, to hold to said Roger and his heirs, of the King and his heirs, by accustomed services. Given at , Westminster, 18th February, anno 37 (154&). CHANCEI, DOOB, SOUTH SIDE, JIORVILLE. • . ^ill \ \- Aft\a \ ^ i y ' -■■) ! N 1 -, Rev. J. L. Fetil. PILLAR AND CAPITAL, MORVILLE. Rev J L Petit CHANCEL ARCH, MORVILLE. MORVILLE. , 43 to some general repair of the Church, or to the re-arrangement of the door itself, the opening of which, beneath the old arch, is evidently modern. The Font, which is circular and without any shaft, is covered with rude scidpture, to which I do not see any reason to assign an earlier date than to the oldest parts of the Church, though it is just of that character that might induce an antiquary to class it among very old specimens, without any fear of being met by a decided proof to the contrary. It is a curious and interesting relic, worthy of careful preservation. J. L. Petit. We have now treated of MorvUle as the caput of a Saxon and Domesday Hundred, as centre of a great Manor, and Mother- Church of a still greater Parish. We have seen it lose all these dignities and become ecclesiastically a very mean Priory or Cell of Shrewsbury Abbey, manorially a small tenement of less than a hundred acres, and as a seat of provincial government, nothing. We may now dismiss the subject and revert to its manorial adjuncts, if our identification of them at the time of Domesday may, for the present, be accepted as probable. First on the list will stand Astley, sometimes called Astley Brug, but with a better note of distinction. — ASTLEY ABBOTS. This township engrossed to itself at a very early period the manorial dignity of Morville, as far as the interests of Salop Abbey were concerned. When spoken of as a Manor of five hides, as in 1255, it must be taken to involve a great proportion of the seventeen unnamed berewicks of Domesday. Little Astley, Norley, Croft, Haughton, Kingslow, Road, Stanley, Dunvall, Colemore, Severn Hall, Can- treyn, Rucroft, and BunewaU, ^ are hamlets, messuages, or tene- ments found at diverse period as members of this Manor, and some nine or ten of them will have been of the Domesday berewicks. Of them more in detail hereafter. If Earl Hugh granted to Salop Abbey tithes of his demesne of ^ The Haye, Deei^clale, Haseldene, also occur, and others of still less note. 44 MORVILLE. Astley, as alledged, that demesne will probably have lain in the direction which was afterwards occupied by the town of Bridgnorth. At the northern extremity of its Manor of Astley, the Abbey seems to have early made an acquisition of some importance in those days. Between the years 1135 and 1141 (because subsequently to the death of Henry I, and previously to the Empress^ comfirmation ^^ thereof) J Hamon Peverel granted the "fishery and passage" of Sutton. This will have been a right of weir and ferry in the river Severn, 'probably at the point where the Manors of Apley and Sutton Maddock now converge on the eastern bank of that river. About the same time ^t Robert, Bishop of Hereford, appropriating Morville Church to Salop Abbey, includes a pension of eight shillings arising from its subject Chapel of Estley. He also con- firms all the tithes as well of the Abbot's demesne of Estley, as those " anciently given by others in the same parish." About the year 1160,'* Robert, Abbot of Salop, with consent of his Chapter, granted to Philip Fitz- Stephen and his heirs, the fishery of Sutton (piscariam de Sutuna) and the land, of which Richard and Hugh were tenants, near the fishery. The annual rent reserved was Is. 4c?., payable at Michaelmas. The witnesses of this feoffment have reference to the locality. They were Richard the Priest of Hestlee (Astley), Hugh Piscator (Fisher) of Brugg, Alexander the Forester, Ralph son of Ordric, Aldxiin de Harpesfort (Harps- wood), and Bermer de Norlee (Nordley). In 1180, among those amerced ^9 by the Justices of the Forest, then visiting this County, were several of the Abbot of Salop's tenants at Astley and Norley. The subject of these amercements was certain purprestures and tillages within the limits of the King's forest of Shirlet. Among the names are Albinus, Robert de Bonewell, Reginald de Halcton, William de la Rode, Andrew, Richard the Provost, and Robert Wendac, each of whom was more or less connected with the local history of the Manor. The Provost named was probably the Bailiff of the Abbot of Salop. About the year 1225 a grant *" to Morville Church is fortified by oath of the grantors, taken " before Brother John de Egeton, then ^ Salop Chartulary, No. 40. There was at this period no bridge over the Severn between Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth. One at Atcham was made early in the next century. 37 Salop Chartulai-y, No. 334. ^ New Monasticon, vol. iii, p. 522, No. xiv. 5' Placita Foresta (Chapter-House, ■Westminster, No. i.) ■>» Salop Chartulary, No. 104. MOKVILLE. 45 Seneschall, and Brother William de Penkridge, Monks, and before the full Court of the Lord Abhot of Salop, at Astley." In 1255 the Jurors who took inquisition *i of the tenures in Stottesden Hundred, before the King's Commissioners, say that the "Abbot of Salop is Lord of Astlegh by gift of Earl Roger. Therein are five hides of land which the said Abbot holds, nor does he any suit ; and he has the King's warrant." Hugo de Kynsedel (Kinslow), one of the Abbots feoffees, was himself of the Jury on this occasion. 21st May, 1256. The Abbot had the King's charter *2 of free- warren in all his demesne lands. " Astley" is mentioned among them. November 30th, 1274. Another tenant of the Abbot here, viz. Simon de Sabrina, was of the jury*' which attended at Salop to make report to a Royal Commission on several matters relating to Stottesden Hundred. There is a record ^' written apparently about the end of the thirteenth century, and which takes note of certain villages, woods, &c., pertaining to the custody of the King's forest (hayse), of Schirlet, and which had been disafforested by perambulation made thereof" Among them are Colemore, Stanleye, Rucroft, Medewe- grene, Contreyne, the messuage of Simon de Sabrina (now Severn HaU), Northleye, Astley Abbots, La Dunfowe (now Dunvall), La Rode (now Road or Rhodes), Kinsedeleye (now Kingslow), Tasley, Crofte, Haleygton (now Haughton), Momerfeld, Lee (Lye), Un- derdone, Walton (now Bridgewarton), and Harpesford. About the year 1267,*^ Philip, Lord of Baggesovere (Badger), for the sum of four merks, sold to William Abbot, and the Convent, of Salop, all the land which he had in their Manor of Astlee, with all his rights in rents, homages, reliefs, escheats, &c., which land he held (of them) at 5s. rent. The object of this sale or surrender, though itself of some interest, is not to our present purpose. Suffice it here to say that this Philip, Lord of Badger, was also Forester of the fee in the King's forest of Shirlet, and lineal de- scendant of that Philip Fitz-Stephen, whom we have seen becoming the Abbot's tenant here a century before. Whether the premises "^ Hundred Molls, vol. ii, p. 81. ^ Salop Chartulary, No. 53. This docu- ment, which ought to appear on Rot. Car- tanm,, 40 Hen. Ill, ia thus preserved, the Charter Eolls of that year being lost. ^ Hund/red Rolls, vol. ii, p. 107. ''"' Forest Rolls, Westminster, Salop, No. iii. *^ Salop Cliartulary, No. 145. 46 MORA'ILLE. granted to Philip Fitz-Stephen were identical with those suwendered, or, what is more probable, part of them, we cannot decide ; but a glance at the Map will show how relevant to his official duties must have been the ferry of Sutton to that Forester of Shirlet, whose residence and lands were at Badger and Ackleton. In 1284 there was an inquisition 46 of the kind afterwards classified as "ad quod damnum," relating to the Abbot of Salop, as Lord of Astley juxta Brug, making assarts in Shirlet forest. In 1291 we have a valuation of the Abbot's temporal interests here : — He had four carrucates of land (in demesne), £ s. d. estimated as annually worth (at 13s. M. per carrucate) ....... He had a parcel of meadow-land worth . A mill , In rents ....... In pleas and perqtdsites (of the Manor Court) His revenue here will therefore have been . £15 6f 2 13 4 3 4 13 4 11 2 Oi 8 6 We have other valuations of this Manor, which, though made more than two centuries afterwards, may be given here if only for com- parison. In the year*'^ ending Michaelmas 1535, this Manor appears to have realized to the then Abbot a net revenue of about =€27. lis., but 14s. of tithes are among the receipts, whilst a chief-rent to the Crown of 2s. 4i Ibidem, No. 99. MOHVIILE. 53 formerly Chaplain of Morvllle, joins her said husband in confirming"! and increasing former grants, and the Monks are to pay 2 pence annually towards specified lights in the Church, and 2 pence more to Richard and Sibil, or their heirs. This was the grant before alluded to, as confirmed by oath of the grantors in the Abbot's Court at Astley, and in presence of his Seneschal. It is further possible, that this Sibil may be she who enfeoffed ^^ Master Walter le Palmer here, as mentioned tinder Croft ; but, if so, that grant will have been in her second widowhood. KINGSLOW OR KINSLOW. A family of some wealth and importance, in the 13th century, held here under the Abbey. Geoffry de Kynsedel stands high in a list ^s of the Abbot's Court at Astley, which dates about 1215. November, 1221. — He was gainer of the suit^* of novel disseisin, by which Robert de Teneray (before mentioned), and Albinus de la Rode, sought to establish a right of pasturage here. About the same period, either singly, or with Hugh his son, he is witness to a number of charters affecting the Manor of Astley. About the year 1226,^^ Hugh de Kynsedeleg attests a charter to Salop Abbey singly. In Michaelmas Term, 1230, he was under prosecution,^^ ^g ^ partizan of Walter de Clifford, in an assault on the men of the Priory of Wenlock. He is a very frequent witness of deeds in the Salop Chartulary at this period, and one ^^ of which is dated 1252. In 1255, he was one of the jury who made inquest ^ as to the state of the Hundred of Stottesden, before the King's Commissioners. In January, 1256, at Salop Assizes, he fined^' half a merk for some replevin, Bertram de Burgo being his siirety. On January 20, 1257, a writ^" of the Crown directed inquest to 81 Ibidem, No8. 102, 104. One of the lights mentioned is the "rota," or great chandelier, and hence Mr.Blakeway argues the existence of some ecclesiastical splen- dour in the Priory Church of the period. (Parochial Notices, vol. ii, p. 48, in Mil. Bodl. Oxon^ ^ Charter in the possession of the Rev. J. Brooke, of Haughton. 83 Salop Chartulary, No. 137, quoted aboye, page 51, note .70. ** Salop Assize Roll, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 4 recto. .85 Salop Chartulary, No. 280. 88 Placita apud Westm. Mich. Term, 14 & 15 Hen. Ill, memb. 10 recto. 87 Salop Chartulary, Nos. 141, 149, &c. 88 Rot. Sund. Tol. ii, p. 81. 8' Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 recto. ^ Inquisitiones post mortem, 41 Hen. Ill, No. 37. 54 MOaVILLE. be made as to his property, whether it was sufficient to oblige him to take Knighthood. The Jurors reported his land as worth 100 shillings yearly, less 14s. Id., his quit-rent to Salop Abbey, but they understood that he had lands in Norfolk, worth £10. per annum, but they knew not for certain. In February, 1363, having been amerced »> by the Justices Itinerant, for having hounds within precincts of the Eoyal forest without warrant, he is pardoned. September, 1373. — He is reported by the Stottesden Jurors, as not duly attending ^^ the Assize-summons. On June 6th, 1300, a second Geoffry de Kynsedeleye occurs,93 as a Verderer of the King's forests, and on March 29th, 1303, the same Geoffry attests a Charter 9* of Salop Abbey, which concerned Astley Manor. ROAD OR RHODES— Was another member of Astley, and gave name to a family who held therein under Salop Abbey. Of this family, Albinus 9' and Williamss occur in 1180, Nicholases 1199, and against in 1202, when he had been amerced for disseisin by Geoffry fitz Piers, Chief Justice of England. Albinus occurs ^ in 1321, and towards the middle 99 of the century. He attests one 'o" deed as Dominus Albinus, which probably shows him to have been a Knight. Richard, "William, and Simon, also attest deeds ^"^ relating to Astley, or are mentioned therein. Some Albinus of this family will have given name to the tenement called The Albynes, which in the thirteenth century had in turn given a surname " de Albynes " to a resident there. '°^ "1 Forest Pleas at Salop, No. iv, memb. 5 recto. ^ Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 49 dorso. " Non Tenit primo die." S3 Salop Chartulary, No. 279. »* Ibidem, No. 274. ^^ Placita Forestce, No. i, memb. 1. ^ Final Concord, 1 John. ^ Mag. Hot. Pip. 4 John, Salop. '^ Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 4. '' Charter in the possession of the Eev. J. Broote, of Haughton. i"" Salop Chartulary, No. 143. ™ Ibidem, Nos. 140, Uld, 103, 274.— And Charters at Apley Park. i»2 11 Apl. 1258. There was a suit of mortd'ancestrem progress between Adam de Albyns andWalter deBruges about land in Astley {Sot. Pat. 42 H. 3. dorso). It was to be tried by Giles de Erdinton, &c., specially appointed for the cause. See also Salop Chartulary, No. 274., dated Meh. 29, 1303, the grantor being John de Albyns. MORVILLE. 55 STANLEY,— Now Stanley Hall, was once a hamlet appurtenant to tlie Abbot's Manor of Astley. The holder hereof, Stephen de Stanley, sur- rendered 1°' his tenancy to Salop Abbey in the end of 1352, he and his wife Juliana becoming, in consideration thereof, "guests'"* of that house." Stephen's surrender is in terms importing a consider- able transfer. He conveys " lands held by him at that present as well as those which he had set to ferm to others, also his men and rents, and his wood, in the hamlet of Stanley, within Astley Manor." On his death some time after, his widow Juliana quitted aU claim i"* of dower in the premises, as she was indeed bound to do by the terms of the former covenant. Thus then Stanley will have become demesne of the Abbey. DUNFOWE. This member of Astley must be treated of under its ancient appellation, as its identity with Dunvall is not quite a matter of certainty. A few members of a family taking name from hence shall be mentioned in the way that they are variously written. October 1st, 1203, the King's Justices being in Eyre ^"^ at Salop, Richard Dunfow essoigned himself by Alexander Dunfow, for non- attendance at the common summons (to serve on juries, &c.) About 1315, Henry, son of Edric de Eewin, with his wife Sibil, daughter of Richard le Dunfou, became life-tenants of a part of the Abbot's demesne at Astley.^"' Simon Dunfothe attests an Astley deed,i°8 which passed soon after; and in September, 1231, Simon de Dunfawe had been amerced half a merk for vert}°^ '»3 Salop Chartulary, No. 149 i. "" For an explanation of this term I refer to Hist. Shrews, ii, 100, 101, 102, where also will he found a transcript of the deed (No. 141 a, of the Salop Chartulary) which iises the terms of the Abbot's grant . for maintenance of Stephen and JuHana, and a very sufficient commentary on the whole transaction. Stephen's surrender stands No. 149 h of the Chartulary, and his widow's quit-claim, No. 141c, though I incline to date the latter somewhat later than the Historians of Shrewsbury, and thint that Stephen and JuKana enjoyed the hospitality of the Abbey jointly for near twenty years. i<» Salop Chartulary, No. 141 c. i"^ Salop Assizes,5 John, memb.ljdorso. i»? Salop Chartulary, No. 137. ™ Ibidem; No. 146. 109 Pipe KoD, 15 Hen. Ill, Salop. Viride or vert was any trespass on the material of a forest, such as cutting trees, boughs, or turf. So venacio (venison) was a trespass on the game. 8 50 MOBVILLE. November 12th, 1340. Simon le Dunnowe, as tenant of a messuage and five acres in Astley, liad been impleaded "o under writ of mort d'ancestre by Milisent, daughter of Alexander de Dunnowe, who now remits her claim for two merks. May 25th, 1298. Richard de Donfowe attests a deed »" at Astley which speaks of Richard de Deonewall (Dunvall) being a tenant there, and it is by no means impossible that the same person should have been thus variously written in one deed. In a, final concord ^^"^ of November, 1258, the place is written Dunfowe, and, in the deafforestation '^^ described under Astley, La Dunfowe is named between Astley and Rode. If Dunvall were a different place the only indication thereof has been already submitted. There were in the thirteenth century several tenants of the Abbey at Shrewsbury, who were of this family and whose name is written with similar variations. COLEMORE. Of this adjunct of Astley Abbots, little more can be said than that at one time it was held by a family of some importance, and which will have to be noticed elsewhere. About A.D. 1215,11* Thomas de Bardeley appears as attendant on the Abbot's Manorial Court at Astley, and some years later Thomas de Berdelei sold "^ to the Abbey for eight merks, " all the fee which he had in the Manor of Estleg, viz. in Colemer." May 25th, 1298. John, son of Simon de Colesmere, appears "^ as a purchaser in Astley from Simon del Hay. SABRINA OR SEVARNE,— Now Severn HaU."^ The earliest tenant of this member of Astley, who has occurred, was Stephen.- — ^Stephen de Sabrina was in attend- ance at the Manorial Court of the Abbot above mentioned."^ After this the tenancy seems to have descended through three or four genera- tions,ii9 all bearing the Christian name of Simon. At Salop Assizes, i^" "° Pedes flnium, 25 Hen. Ill, Salop. ™ Salop Cliartulary, No. 274 h. "2 Pedes finium, 43 Hen. Ill, Salop. 1'^ Forest EoUs at Westminster, Salop, No. 3. "' Salop Chartulary, No. 137. ™ Ibidem, No. 144. "» Ibidem, No. 274. "' Called in tlie Forest Perambulation before quoted, " the messuage of Simon de Sabrina." Forest KoUs at "Westminster, Salop, No. 3. ™ Salop Cliartulary, No. 137. "3 Ibidem, Nog. 153, 141 6 & 27 Salop Chartulary, No. 137. ^ Ibidem, No. 99, i. '^ Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 12, recto. 150 The deed is as follows: — Stephen, son of Godith de BTortleg (Norley), sells to Eog. Fitz-Simon, of Brug, for 43*. five acres in Noi-ley Fields, bounded by lands of the Lord Abbot of Salop, Master Walter Palmer, Henry de Haverbaohe, &c. Kent id. Witnesses, Sym de Sabrina, Wm. de Cantrene, Hen. de Colemor, Wm. f. Galf de Cantrene, Eich. de Nortle, Eeg*. de la Rode, &c. The seal, of green wax, re- presents a hind. The legend gives the name of the grantor's Father. It is " Sigill' Stephani £11 Hem-ioi." {CAarter at Apley Park.) MORVILLE. 59 Caiitreyn,»3i is mentioned^ and in 1273 Philipj son of Alexander de Cantreyn/32 was a proprietor within the Borough,aad in. 1297 Robert, son of John de Cantreyn,!'^ within the Manor. With regard to the perpetuation of the name of Wendac, — WUliam, Roger, and Nicholas 1^2 occur successively within and without the Borough, and the last before a.d. 1251, when Reginald le Gaugy, his fellow- witness, had been murdered ; of which more elsewhere. Also William, son of WiUiam Wendac, occurs "^ about the middle of the century. These, or some of them, I suppose to have repre- sented William Savage, the litigant of 1194. RUCROFT. The land called Rewin, or Runin, was the subject of a decision,^^^ about A. D. 1215, by the oft-mentioned Abbot's Court at Astley. The land was thereby assigned to the Abbot, as of his demesne, whilst Henry Fitz Edric,i^* the claimant, was to enjoy it for life, with remainder to his wife, for her life. For this he paid a fine of 16*. 4c?. for entry, and was to pay a rent of 4*. id. during the term of tenancy. Whether this place were identical with that afterwards called Rucroft, or not, little remains to be said of either. William, son of Daniel,^^^ of Brug, was chief owner in the latter (spelt Ruiecroft), about 1275. He grants a croft therein, but with a special warrantry, which shows both an insecurity of title, and that he had other land " within the fee of Brug" (the Borough liberties), by which he could amend any defect thereof. The witnesses are persons having interest either in Astley Manor or the Borough, or both, e. g., William de Kantrey, Nicholas Palmer (nephew of Hamon before mentioned), Symon de Sabrina, Nicholas del Hay, Nicholas de Stanley, &c. All I can say further of this tenement is, that Rucroft and Medow- greeu ^^^ foUow Stanley, and precede Cantreyne in the enumeration of vills, &c., which pertained to the custody of Shirlet forest, and which were exempted by the perambulation before alluded to. 13' Charter at Apley Park. 1^ Charters at Apley Park. 133 Salop Chartulary, No. 137. 134 In 1180, one Edrio had fined with the Justices of the forest for an imbldde- ment, apparently in this district. (Forest EoUs at Westminster. Salop, No. 1.) He may have been Father of this Henry. 13= Charter at Apley Park. ■2' Forest Eolls at Westminster. Salop, No. 3. 60 MORVILLE. BUNEWALL, now BINNALL. The early history of this vill involves the quotation of a series of charters^ highly illustrative of each other, and throwing some light both on the conveyancing practice of the period, as well as on the system of nomenclature which described the same person by sundry names in different, and even in the same, documents. Robert de Hastings, alias Hedding or Hedinges, was some time Rector of Oldbury. As Robert de Halecton, AUechtone, or Aluhton (a name probably derived from some Haughton in Shropshire, where he may have resided), he occurs almost as frequently as under his first designation. Like other Ecclesiastics of wealth and position, he seems to have been involved in secular affairs, and like other Priests, bound to celibacy, to have observed his vow at the expense of his morality. The first local notice which we have of him is in a deed''^ whereby John Smith (Faber) sells to Robert de Eddinges all the land which he held by inheritance in the Manor of Estleg, for 16 shillings. The witnesses of this deed are Hugh de Lacy, Abbot of Salop, and Roger de Begesour (Badger), whose attestations, com- bined with evidence now to be offered, will mark the document as having passed probably in the last five years of the 12th century. Becoming thus a tenant of Salop Abbey, this Robert appears interested in the concerns of that house as follows : — About A.D. 1197, as Robert de Hastinges, he attests a certificate ^^^ of Bishop William de Vere, as to the admission of a Chaplain, at pre- sentation of the same Abbot Hugh, to theChapel of Eston (Aston Aer). At the same time, or, more precisely, between the years 1193 and 1204, as Robert de Hedinges, he attests a composition ^'■^^ between the same Abbot and John de Kilpec touching the Advowson of Norbury (Staffordshire). Again, between the years 1197 and 1213, as Robert de Heding, he attests a grant ^*° of Robert, Bishop of Bangor, to Salop Abbey. Further, when Thomas de Costentin confirmed, about the same period, his ancestors' endowments of Oldbury Chapel, he (Thomas) adds the grant i*i of a croft, whereon Robert de Hedeng, Rector of '^ Salop Chartnlary, No. 150 c. •^ Salop Chartulary, N"o. 342 ; and the original document in the possession of Mr. George Morris, of Shrewsbury. "9 Salop Chartulary, No. 81. 1* Ibidem, No. 185. "> Ibidem, No. 299 h. MORVILLE. 61 the said Chapel, had built a house ; and the first witness of this confirmation is the Rector himself, under the designation of Robert, Clerk of Halecton (i. e. Robert de Halecton, Clerk) .1*2 But to return to his local interests in Astley Manor : Having purchased the inheritance of John Faber therein, as above, he enfeofl'ed '^ one Hugh Knight (Miles) in the same, for an entrance- fine of 8s., and an annual rent of 3s. 6d. The witnesses of this deed of "Robert de Hasting" were Geofixy de Kinsedeleg(Kinslow), Nicholas de la Rode, &c. Again, as Robert de Allechton, he is described as having con- ferred, i** on his son Richard, land which he held in the Manor of Estleg, of John Faber, at a penny rent j the meaning of which is probably, that John Faber's original sale involved a covenant for the payment of a penny rent, and also that Robert's conveyance to his son Richard was not of the fee-simple, but of the rent and other rights accruing from the previous grant to Hugh Knight. Such rent and seignoral rights, the said Richard, describing him- self as son of Robert de Allechton, sold ^*^ to Salop Abbey, for 24 shillings, reserving the penny rent due to John Faber and his heirs ; and this grant, purporting to be simply a transfer of the land, rather than the grantor's claims thereon, was attested by Geofiry de Kinslow, Hugh his son, and Richard and William de Cantreyn. And Robert de Alechtone, the Father, confirmed ^^ this sale by Richard his son, in a farther deed, tested by Geoffry de Kinslow, Richard and William de Cantreyn, and Simon Bungi. The sum of 24< shillings thus expended by Salop Abbey was part of a bequest left by Henry de Norton, a Monk, for the special service of the Altar of St. Mary in the conventual Church of Shrewsbury. We have seen that the annual product will have been a rent of 3s. 6d. payable by Hugh le Knight, the tenant. Whatever the revenue, it became, between the years 1223 and 1228, the subject of a peculiar bargain,^*'' the parties to which were, ostensibly, Henry, the then Abbot of Salop, and the previously endowed Altar : in other words, the Abbot, by formal deed, assigned a rent of 3 shillings elsewhere, to furnish altar-lights, and took in exchange (and I suppose for more general purposes) " the land purchased from Richard, son of Robert de Aluhton, parson of "2 For this usual transposition, see p. 29, note 6. "3 Salop Chartulary, No. 151 b. »* Ibidem, No. 142. "s Salop Cliartulary, No. 142. i« Salop Chartulary, No. 154. "7 Ibidem, No. 209. 62 MORVILLE. Aldeburyj in our manor of Estleg, with the money bequeathed by Henry de Norton to same Altar." The Abbot's object in this ostensible exchange was evidently to increase his demesne in the Manor of Astley. This appears from a further deed,i« whereby Hugh le Knight (the tenant) granted to the Abbey all his/ee in Bunewell, which he bought from Robert de Hastings, to hold for ever. The witnesses of this deed are as of the last, except that Simon Bungi is exchanged for, or called, Simon Dunfothe. The whole of these transactions will have passed between the years 1195 and 1228; and we thus obtain the names of several persons contemporarily interested in the Manor of Astley, and further, a well-authenticated instance of the method by which a seignoral Lord might contrive to reassume a tenement, though alienated by a double subinfeudation. But there was also a family resident here which took name from the place. At \h.e forest-pleas i*^ of 1180, Robert de Bonewell was fined \2d. for a purpresfure ^^^ in Norley. In 1209 Richard de Bernewell is named as paying for imbladement^^^ within regard '*^ of Shirlet forest. Again, early in the same century, Henry de Bunewell granted-'*^ to Joseph, son of Heniy Chaplain of Astley (already mentioned under Haughton), half a vivary in said Henry de BunewelFs garden, and 2id. rent receiveable from Richard de Wichard and Andrew de Northleg. These premises the grantee trans- ferred^^* to Salop Abbey, calHng the former Vendor " Henry Fitz- Richard de Bamewell;" a transfer which was followed by a further grant i** to the same house by Henry Fitz-Richard himself, viz. of land on each side the said vivary, ^^ "with the fountain which was below his house, reserving to himself hberty to drink thereat." In February, 1262, Simon de Bonewell ^^^ was convicted of "8 Salop Ohartulary, KTo. 146. '■" Placita forestce, Salop. No. 1. ^50 J'urpresture was any encroachment on royal demesne, whether forests, waters, or roads. The forest purpresture occurs most frequently. ^^^ Imbladement was the sowing, with any kind of grain, lands within bound of a royal forest. It might be with license, and for a stipulated rent per acre. ^"^ Regard — was the view or jurisdiction of those officers of the forest who were called Regarders. ^ Salop Chartulary, No. 149 a. 1" Ibidem, No. 138. '55 Ibidem, No. 148. 156 "Vivarium," — a place where any animals were kept alive for occasional use. Hence the word may sometimes be trans- lated a paddock, but most frequently it signifies a fishpond or stew. The syno- nyme, Servarimn (a preserve), is used in the case before us. ^1 Forest Pleas, Salop, 46 Hen. Ill, memb. 4, recto. MORVILLE. 63 forest trespass perpetrated nearly nine years before^ viz. in May, 1253. Later in the century an exchange between William Fitz-Henry de Bunewall and Walter Fitz-Richard de Bunewall mentions the adjoining land of Nicholas Fitz-Richard de Bunewall and is tested finfer alios) by Richard de Bunewall. Also Margery of the Fount of Bunewalle, widow, sells to the same Walter Fitz-Richard a house and croft in the viU of Bunewall, and this deed is likewise tested by Richard de Bunewall. On October 25th, 1293, the above-named Nicholas Fitz-Richard grants to Walter, his brother, two acres in the fields of Bunewall, towards Harebache, rendering a pepper-corn to the grantor, yearly, at Easter, and ^d. rent to Richard de Balle de Bunewalle, whom I take to be the person elsewhere called Richard de Bunewalle and holding over the grantor. Attestations by the same Richard dated May 25th, 1298, is** and May 27th, 1302,"9 and another grant from Nicholas to his brother Walter, dated November 14th, 1311,'^^ are all that I have further to mention with reference to this name and locality. THE HAYE. This member of Astley gave name to a resident family, of whom Alan de Haya occurs in 1226 ; Nicholas de la Hay frequently in the middle of the century ; Robert de la Hay, in 1297 ; and Simon del Hay, in 1298. Nicholas appears to have held under the descendants of one Gilbert Sadoc, a man largely interested in the concerns of Salop Abbey early in the century, and of whom I shall have to speak elsewhere. The interest of his representatives in the Haye seems to have been bought up by the Abbey about a.d. 1270, when Nicholas de Hay will have become the immediate tenant of the chief Lords, the Abbot and Convent of Salop. DEEPDALE. A few deeds in the Salop Chartulary show the reassumption by the Abbey of a small tenement thus named, the first tenant of which was one Roger Dod, whose son Richard ^^° occurs as exchanging his inheritance in Astley Manor for the inheritance of Thomas Dod. Again Thomas Dod exchanges ^^^ eighteen and a half acres in Astley '58 Salop Chartulary, No. 274 b. I ™ Salop Chartulary, No. 150 b. '°9 Charters at Apley Park. I '" Ibidem, No. 152. 9 64 MOEVILLE. Manor -with Salop Abbey, receiving eighteen and a half acres in Northley. A grant ^^"- from Emma, daughter of William Faber, to Richard her brother, is followed by one '"^ from the same Richard to Richard de la Rode, son of Alan de Erdinton, wherein the locality (viz. Deepdale) and Roger Dod, the former owner, are mentioned. The last grantee sold^^* the premises, or rather his interest therein, to Salop Abbey, before the year 1258. About the same period one Nicholas de Deepdale ^^ appears attesting manorial deeds. There were other and probably still smaller tenements appertain- ing to this Manor of Astley, such as Haseldene, Kakeweche, Haverbache, alias Harebache, and Medowgrene, but of which I have neither ascertained the locality nor know of any point of interest connected with them. BILLINGSLEY. The signification of the last syllable of this name depends on its origin, whether British or Saxon. The British lie is identical with the French lieu and Latin locus, a place ; the Saxon ley signifies untiUed ground. The termination is found associated with words of either language, as Ar-ley which is British, and Billiags-ley which is Saxon. The Dulces of Saxony, from the tenth to the twelfth century, were descended from Billing, a noble of Lunenbtirg. Herein 1055,'^^ or at least at a place written 5i%e«fe«^e, Byliges- leage or Bylgeslege, Harold, as general of King Edward, came to conference and peace with Grifiin, Prince of Wales, and Algar, the rebel Earl of Mercia. The Manor has already been spoken of as a member of Morville, and involving one and a half of the eight ecclesiastical hides mentioned in Domesday. Its transfer to the Norman Abbey of '"2 Salop Chartnilary, No. 141 I. ira Ibidem, No. 141 d. is^ Ibidem, No. 140. '*' Ibidem, No. 149, and Charters at Apley Park. 166 yiije Flor. Wt/gorn. Sim Dunelm, and the Saxon Chronicle, sub anno. The learned editor of the latter identifies the place withBUsley, Gloucestershire. Harold came to the conference from fortifying Hereford j Griffin apparently from South Wales. Earl Algar had in pay a fleet of Irish pirates, which after the con- ference sailed down (devecta est) to Lege- ceastra, which (being Chester) will make it probable that the said fleet was in the Dee. BiUingsley in Shropshire will there- fore have been more central with reference to all these locahties than any other place of similar name. MORVILLE. 65 SeeZj with other alleged possessions of Shrewsbury Abbey about A.D. 1147, has also been noticed. With respect to the justice of these claims of Seez, the Salop Chartulary of course supplies partial information, but that they were not quite unfounded may be inferred from the fact that Earl Hugh de Montgomery, as well as his brothers Earls Robert and Roger, did at some time make English grants to the Norman Abbey, and that such grants were confirmed ^^^ by Pope Innocent II, on May 3d, 1139. It is further noticeable how the Bishop of Hereford's adjudication^^^ on the subject followed the Papal Bull within eight or nine years. The immediate tenants of this manor under the Norman Abbey were a femily named de Beysin or le Beysin,iS9 of knightly degree, and possessed of considerable property elsewhere in the County. We need here therefore only mention such points as connect them with the place. In 1255, the jm-ors '^^ of Stottesden Hundred made the following return as regarded Byllingelegh ; that Robert de Beyssin was Lord ; that he was a minor in ward to Sir William Freville, by grant of Sibyl GifiFard, to whom, after death of her husband, Adam, the King had given the wardship; that the Manor contained one and a half hides, owed suit to the Hundred Court twice in the year, but not to the County Court, nor was it liable to stretward or motfee. ''And the said Robert de Beyssin holds it in capite of the Abbot of Sesse for six merks (£4.) annually." This wardship had fallen to the Crown eleven years before, viz. on the death I'l of Adam de Beyssin, December 13th, 1243. The right of the Crown thereto arose from a tenure in capite by the deceased at Wrickton and Walkerslow. 10th July, 1260. Robert de Beysin had a suit of novel disseisin however, the printed book has the Abbot of " Messe" as chief lord. This arose from the initial S and M, in use at the period, being very similar. '^' Ingnisitiones post mortem,4:5 Hen. Ill, No. 4T ; and 47 Hen. Ill, No. 26. Hence it wiU be seen that the printed Calendar of Inqmsitiones post mortem, is by no means a safe guide as to the date of death. In the present instance, it would lead to errors of 17 and 19 [ years ^respectively, besides leaving it supposable that two deaths were the subjects of inquiry. w Bwrl. MSS. No. 3764, fo. 15. Char- tulary of Lancaster Priory. «» Salop Chartulary, No. 337. 169 ^ letter of Mr. Langley, the Anti- quary, among the muniments at Willey, insists on the propriety of writing the name "Le Beysin," signifying "The " Blind." Brdeswick' s etymology is quoted, and very properly discarded in a notice by Mr. Blakeway {Sheriff's of ShropsMre, p. 48). I have found the name written as Mr. Langley suggests in coeval docu- ments, — ^but only twice. 17" Mundred Bolls, vol. ii, p. 82, where. 66 MORVILLE. against William de Ebroicis (Devereux) and Matilda his mfe, con- cerning this ]\Ianor. Egidius de Erdinton and other Justices were deputed by letters patent, of that date, to tiy it. By inquisition ordered :\Iay 4th, 1261, the jurors reported the age of Robert de Beysin, the heir, to have been 19 years on February 2d preceding ; and a second inquisition, wliich sat March 3d, 1263, reports him as of full age, gives the date of his Father's death (as above) and the same statement as to wardship, and mentions the tenure of Billingsley under the Abbot of " Ses," by rent of six merks. In 12 Edw. I (1284), Matilda de Ebroicis ^^- (Devereux) had an assize of novel disseisin against Walter de Beysyn which concerned a tenement here. In 3 Edw. II (1309-10), Walter de Beysin had died ^'^ seized of an interest here. In aiarch, 1316, the feodary ^'^ of 9 Edw. II gives Alice Beisyn as Lady of Billingsley. THE CHUECH Was originally a Chapel, subject to Mor^dlle, as being, though at least six miles distant, within the boundaries of that extensive parish. The lay founder of this Chapel was Herbert de Castello, Lord of Castle Holgate, who endowed ^^^ it in the beginning of Stephen's reign with twelve acres of land and a mansion. What interest the Lords of Castle Holgate could have here, I cannot determine. None descended to their successors either in this or any adjoining Manor. Possibly Herbert might have been tenant here under Salop Abbey before the j\lanorwas lost by that house; possibly being of the dominant political party, as there is other reason to believe he was, he may have had a temporary jurisdiction in a case of disputed territory. When, about a. d. 1138, Robert, Bishop of Hereford, appro- priated Mondlle Church to Salop Abbey, he mentions "^ a pension of half a merk, and half the corn-tithe of this viil, as due to the mother-Church from this Chapel. In another deed,!'^ he mentions 172 Slakeway MSS. in Bibl. Bod]. '^ Inquis. post mortem, 3 Ed. II. ''■* The document usually called Nomina 1'illarum (vide page 7). Parliamentary WHts, vol. 4, p. 398. "^ Salop Chartulai-y, No. 333. i'« Ibidem, No. 334. •" Ibidem, No. 333. MORVILLE. 67 its subjection agaiiij and that it was one of those Chapels which he had consecrated to meet the existing troubles. His arbitration,'^^ which subsequently awarded the Manor to Seez, did not aiFect the Church or its endowments. But a document/^9 which must date within the earlier half of the 13th century, exhibits this Church or Chapel as portionary. Within that period, there was a dispute between Adam de Beysin and Salop Abbey, relative to the right of presentation to this Chapel. The result was, that Adam was to present to the portion of Robert de Beysin whenever vacant, saving to the mother-church of Mo- merfield half a merk annual pension, and half the tithe of wheat and other ecclesiastical dues, and twenty pence of the pence of St. Peter. Pope Nicholas' Taxation,i^o about a. d, 1291, values Morville and its subject Chapels, in gross, at £17. 6s. 8d. The Vicarage of BiUingsley was not assessed, as not being of £4. annual value. No distinctive mention of the Church occurs in the taxation ^^^ of 1340, it being probably assessed under Morville. The first admission ^^^ of an Incumbent which occurs on the Hereford Registers, is of date February 27th, 1332, when Ralph Sagon, Priest, had been pre- sented by the Abbot and Convent of Salop. COLD WESTON, alias WESTON. This place probably derived its name as lying west of the Great Clee HUl, as did Aston Boterell, formerly Eston, from lying to the east thereof. The omission ^^\ or use of the first part of the name seems to have been arbitrary. Its meaniag and reference to the locality are obvious. The evidence regarding this Manor and Parish is so extremely inconclusive, that I venture only to give such notices as I am con- vinced belong to it, without distinguishing them from those which may possibly refer to another locality. The study of a later epoch i?8 Salop Chartulary, No. 337. •7' Salop Abbey. Leiger Book, fo. 239. 1*1 Tax.P.Nich. p. 166, where one entry spells the place B jlyteleye. '^1 Inguisitiones Nonarum. 188 Blakeway MSS.ia'&m.'Bodl.Oz.on. i»3 So the BiiZ described Hatton in 1211 {Testa de Nevill, p. 56) is identical with the mil called Colde Hatton in 1255 {Sot. Hund. ii, 55). Also the uiH usually written Norton, in Oxfordshire, is in 1218 written Calde Norton, and is now Cold Norton. So too the vill now called Coalbrook dale was Caldebrokin 1301 (Salop Chartulary, 279). 68 MORVILLE. may resolve all doubt. At present I can only advance a series of quotations, leaving all inferences to those who may choose to draw them without such further evidence. ^^ In 1086, Calvestone, a berewick iss of one hide, appurtenant to ]\Iorville, is said to be in Worcestershire. At the same time a certain Knight held a MorviUe hide under the Monks of Salop, paying them a rent of 4s. King William's charter i^s mentions Westona, after Tugford and Fertecote, as one of the possessions of Morville Church iavolved in Earl Roger's grant to Salop Abbey. There was some time a charter, i^? by Osbert de Tugford, to Salop Abbey, relative to five nokes of land in Coldeweston. January, 1256. Richard Tyrel had disseized iss Richard de Possethorn of a water-mill ia Cold-weston, but having improved the said mill, damages are not given. 20th May, 1259. Giles de Erdinton, &c., are Justices assigned to try a cause of navel disseisin, prosecuted by Thomas de Thong- lands against "WiU le Enfant and others. A tenement in Cold- weston was the subject of litigation. August, 1367. Roger Tyrel had disseized '^^ WiUiam de Forde of two merks annual rent in Coldeweston. November 12th, 1272. A fine 19° was levied between the Abbot of Salop, plaintiff, and Roger Tyrel, of four years' arrears of one merk annual rent, whereof was suit at law. The Abbot remits the arrears, Roger covenantiag to pay for the future. 26th October, 1291. The inquest i9i on the death of Philip de Bagesover (Badger) returns, inter alia, that he held half a carrucate in Coldeweston under Laurence de Ludlow, at a penny rent, and it was worth 10s. per annum : also that he held in the same a place of land of the honour of Castle Holgate at a rent of \s. 6d., which was its ftdl value. 18^ Warm the Sheriff gaye before 1086 tithes of the whole vill of Weston to Salop Abbey (Salop Chartulary, TTo-S), and these tithes are ooufirmed by subsequent deeds of two Bishops of Hereford. I cannot think that Cold Weston was the locality of these grants, neither can I suggest an alternative. I merely mention the fact here lest I should lose an opportunity of stating it at' all, or appear to have overlooked it. 185 Domesday, fo. 253, a 2. 185 jjTgjj, Monasticon, iii, 521, x. '8' Salop Chartulary. Index. '88 Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 7, recto. 189 piacita coram Rege, apud Salop, 51 Hen. Ill, memb. 4, recto. ™ Pedes finium, 57 Hen. III. Salop. '" Inq. post mortem, 19 Bd. I. MOEVILLE. 69 In 6 Eic. II (1383-3), among the items assigned '9* as dower to Joan, widow of Sir John de Ludlow, a rent of 6s. 8d. in Cold- weston, receiveable from Richard de " Weston," was included. THE CHURCH. There was some time a quit-claim '^^ by Roger Tyrel to Salop Abbey, relative to the Church of Coldewestone. In 1291, the Church of Coldewestone,^^'* in the Deanery of Ludlow, was unassessed, as being of less than £4. annual value ; but the Abbot of Salop received therefrom a pension of 3s. per annum, which was decimable (assessable to the tax) . In 1340, the Church of Coldeweston stood taxed at £4. 3s., but the assessors of the ninth '9* (of corn, wool, and lamb) render account of only 4s. ; so little in proportion to the taxation, " because the said Chapel is in a waste place. There was once abun- dance of cattle there, but they had long been decreasing by reason of the murrain which prevailed in the district. Moreover there are only two tenants there, living by great labour and in want, and others have absconded to avoid the tax, as many throughout the country have done ; and the said Chapel has been presented, within this very year, to four Parsons, but none of them would stay." The first Incumbent mentioned in the Hereford Registers ^^^ is Walter de Ireon, Acolyte, admitted January 24th, 1310, at pre- sentation of the Abbey and Convent of Salop. MORVILLE {continued). Having now completed a notice of all that was involved in those eight hides of MorviUe, in which Salop Abbey is presumed to have been interested, either in possession or remainder, at the time of Domesday, we proceed to the two hides which are concluded to have been, at the same period, of the Norman EarFs demesne. These are supposed to have been involved in part of Astley, in >92 Ibidem, 6 Bic. II. Calendar, vol. iii, p. 49. The original is nearly illegible, but Mr. Sharpe, who, at the time I made this extract, was "locum teneus" of Mr. Hardy, at the Tower, took much pains to decypher the passage for me. The point is of course that Cold Weston was written occasionally, "Weston," at a compara- tively late period. '"3 Salop Chartulary. Index. IS* Pope Nic. Taxation, p. 166. 1'* Imquisitiones Nonarum, p. 188. "« BlaJceway MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. 70 MORVILLE. the site of Bridgnorth and in Underdon, Walton, Lye, and Morville itself; perhaps also in Harpsford, and in Aldenham. What was thus held in Astley has been already treated of. What was held in Morville enabled the Earl himself, when a.d. 1086 he founded the Collegiate Church of Quatford, to grant two-thirds of the tithes of Membrefelde to that establishment. What remained in Lye perhaps enabled Earl Hugh to grant i9' two-thirds of the tithes of his demesne of Lia to Salop Abbey, and it is possible that some such grant conveyed a similar proportion of the tithes of Underdon and Walton, perhaps also of Harpsford. No further diminution of their demesne of Morville, than by these grants of tithes, was made by the Norman Earls. On their forfeiture, a.d. 1102, whatever they had held in demesne became thenceforth demesne of the Crown.i^s Such parts of this land as stood in Morville, Underdon, Walton, Lye, and perhaps Harpsford, were at some early and unrecorded period granted, by the Crown, to the CoUegiate Church of St. Mary Magdalene,^^^ in the Castle of Bridgnorth, and continued to form the three prebends of Morville, Walton, and Underdon in that establishment. Of these we will now speak, first collectively and then separately. In 1355, the tenure^™ of these Canons of St. Mary Magdalene in Morville Manor was estimated at &| virgates, and they were free of all suits of Court. In 1341, their tenure ^''i in Morville parish was stated as 3carru- cates and 1 noke, and it was free from the tax of the ninth then to be levied. 15' Salop Chartulary, No. 3 ; but another locality is, with equal probabUity, in- tended. ^'* Sometimes called " vetus domini cum Coronse," Bometimes " Escacta Eoberti de Belesme." The presumed palatine power of the Norman Earls will probably make the former expression most accurate as far as affected the practical exercise of the Crown's jurisdiction; nerertheless, it is not verbally correct, for ancient demesne of the Crown was really what in other counties was classified as " Terra Regis "in Domesday, but of which there was none in Shropshire. i» To which the CoUegiate Church of Quatford was transferred. »» Hot. Sund. ii, 82. 2" Vide supra, p. 39. MOKVILLE. 71 PREBEND 2«2 OF MORVILLE. 23d January, 1204. King Jdim, at Westminster/''^ informs the Dean and Chapter of Brug, that he has conferred on his Clerk, Master John de Leicester, that Prebend in the Church of Brug which had belonged to the Prior of Mount-Walter in Champagne, and they are to receive him as their feUow-Canon. 30th November, 1205. King John presents ="* H., Archdeacon of Stafford, to the Prebend which was Master John de Leicester's. 23d March, 1208. H., Archdeacon of Stafford, having resigned, Walter de Castello is presented ^^ to his vacant Prebend ; and the Dean and Chapter are to assign him a stall in the Choir, and a seat in the Chapter. 11th July, 1233. Bernard de Grimesby is presented -o^ to the Prebend in the Church of Brug which Roger de Lacoc had held, and the Constable of Brug is to induct him. 20th April, 1246. Henry de Langele is to have^^^ Osbert de Maidenestan's Prebend in the King's Chapel of Brug. The Con- stable is to induct him. In 1255, Henry de Langele is Prebendary ^os of Momerfeud, and his preferment valued at ^5. per annum (7^ merks) ; but another "^ Though the Prebendaries named in this and the subsequent Hsts were un- doubtedly Dignitaries of the Collegiate Church of St. Mary Magdalene, I cannot affirm, in each case, that they have been rightly classed under their respective Pre- bends. Where precise evidence was unat- tainable I have been guided by probabUity, but a confusion of the Prebendaries of Morville with those of Walton may very possibly remain, as well as other errors of tliis kind. 203 Sot. Pat. 5 John, memb. 3. 2M Sot. Pat. 6 John, memb. 6. This was Henry de London, who from his arch- deaconry was promoted in 1213 to the Archiepiscopal See of DubUn. He was presented to Worfield Church by King John on the same day as that on which he was collated to the Prebend of Brug. He had been earlier (13 Aug. 1203) made Dean of St. Mary's, Salop, a dignity which he held with his Archbishoprick till 1226, contrary to the axiom laid down, MM. Shrewsb. ii, 325. (Vide Sot. Clans, ii, 161.) He occurs repeatedly as a Justiciar, sitting in the Curia Segis, during the first ten years of King John. ^ Sot. Pat. 9 John, memb. 2, and Sot. Cart. 9 John, memb. 1. This Wal- ter de Castello had been derk to Bobt. de Vipont, Sheriff of Notts, in the previous year. {Sot. Claus. i, 91.) 2"« Sot. Pat. 17 Hen. III. Master Roger de Lacoc was a physician, and occurs as receiving favomrs from the Crown in 1223 and 1224. (Sot. Clams, sub annis.) ^ Sot. Pat. 30 Hen. Ill, sub die. Os- bert de M. was probably a relation of Balph de Maidstone, who, from being Dean of Hereford and Archdeacon of Chester, became Bishop of the former in 1234. ™ Sot. Sund. ii, 59, 83. 10 72 MORVILLE. valuation at the same time^ by di£Ferent jurors, rates it at 14 merks (-€9. 6s. 8d.) 22d August, 1263. "William de Fiscamp, the King's Physician, is to have that Prebend of Brug which Henry de Langley, deceased, lately held.^os In October, 1272, "William de Feckham" is returned ^^o as holding the Prebend of Momerfelde, in the King's free Chapel, in the Castle of Brug. The value of the said Prebend is stated to be ten merks {£6. 13s. M.) 17 Edw. I (1288-9). Nicholas Brun is presented to a Prebend here.2" In the valuation ^^^ of 1291 (when Nicholas Bruyn waa holding this Prebend) its income was ostensibly as follows : — At Momerfelde, thirty acres of land, worth 4d. per acre per annum .... Meadow-land, averaging in six years the annual value of ...... . Rents and " operaciones " . Total s. d. 10 4 5i 13 10 £1 8 3i But this valuation includes only the temporalities of the Prebend. At the Salop Assizes,^!^ Michaelmas, 1292, " Nicholas le Breyn" was returned again as holding this Prebend, and its value estimated at ten merks {£Q. 13*. M.) 35 Edw. I (1306-7). The Prebend of Morville is given to W. Bedewine.^^4 11 Edw. II (1317-8). The Prebend of Morville was granted ^is by the Crown to H. de Luthgarshal. In 1535, one named Fisher was possessed of this Prebend.^i^ Its value in glebe-lands and other things is put at £Q. ^ Rot. Pat. 47 Hen. Ill, siib die. ^'^ Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 49 dorso. 2" Hot. Pat. 17 Ed. I, memb. 11. 212 Pope NicAolasi Taxation, p. 162. 213 Placita de Jwratis et Assisis, 20 Ed. I, memb. 37 dorso. 2" Sot. Pat. 35 Ed. I, memb. 43. 21° Sot. Pat. 11 E. II, pt. 1, memb. 8. 21° Valor Ecclesiasticm, toI. iii, p. 210. MORVXLLE. 73 PREBEND OF WALTON, BRIDGE-WALTON OR BRIDGE-WARTON. The earliest notice of this Prebend occurs in a very ancient document 217 preserved in the Chartulary of Salop Abbey, wherein G. (probably Geoffry) Dean, and the Chapter of Hereford inform Roger Canon of Brug, that they have received a mandate of the Apostolick See, in form following, &c. The Papal Instrument alluded to and quoted is probably of Pope Alexander III (1159- 1181), who has heard that the Abbot of Salop has been despoiled of the tithes of Walton without sentence (judicio) or reasonable cause, and that Roger Canon of Brug unjustly detains the same. The Dean and Chapter are appointed Commissioners to investigate the case, and they order the said Canon to appear in the Chapter- House at Hereford, on -idus Febr. (the year unmentioned) . About A.D. 1173, William de Petraponte sis (Pierrepoint) was presented by King Henry II to one of the Prebends of the Church of Bruges. His subsequent dispute {circa 1180) with the Lord of Tasley as to a question of boundary, will be detailed here- after, but must be mentioned here, merely to show that the Prebend of William de Pierrepoint must have been either Bridge-Walton, or Morville, as none other abutted on Tasley Manor. In October, 1203, William de Pierrepoint still holding ^'9 this Prebend, the dispute was renewed, when amongst the defendant's 21? No. 349, which I date between 1159 and 1173. Mr. Blakeway has, however, referred the transaction to the papacy of Alexander IV, who sat from 21 Deo. 1254 to 25 May, 1261, during the whole of which period Anceline, or Anselm, was Dean of Hereford, and Peter de Aubucun Prebendary of Walton. (Vide Slakeway MSS. in Bibl. Bodl.) 218 fpjjjg WiUiam de Perepnnt is last witness (about 1175) to a very curious deed or certificate, in possession of Mr. George Moms, whereby John le Strange (the first) notifies his remembrance of (the first) William Fitz- Alan's grant of Wroxeter Church to Haghmon Abbey, in 1155. This deed is also transcribed in the Haghmon Chartulary, and will have to be noticed hereafter, not only from its interest in other relations, but because the date I assign to it is very diS'erent from that hitherto received. (Vide Hist, of Shrewsbury, i, 79.) About 1176 the same Wm. de Petra- ponte attests a charter of Q-uy le Strange, then Lord of Badger. This document, in possession of B. H. Cheney, Esq., wQl also be often alluded to hereafter. Suffice it here to point out that these attestations of the deeds of the Stranges probably arose from a relationship to Simon de Pierrepoint, who was John le Strange' s contemporary feoffee at G-lazeley. In 1180 this Wm. de Pierrepoint was amerced 10 merks by the justice of the forest. (Plac. Forestm, No. 1, Salop.) 219 Salop Assizes, 5 John,memb. 4 dorso; but vide infra under Tasley. 74 MOKVILLE. statements is one to the effect ttat he was presented to his Prebend thirty years before^ by Kiug Henry II. (Hence the date of his induction given above.) This cause was adjourned sine die and we hear no more of itj but the Prebendary in question will have survived eleven years longer, for it was not till January 7th, 1215, that King John presented--" John, son of Peter Saracen, a Roman Citizen, to the vacant stall of William de Perpunt. Letters ordering his admission were, in this instance, addressed to the Chapter and Proctor. On 15th August, 1238, John de St. Amand was presented ^^^ by King Henry III to the vacant Prebend of John Sarracen, and the Constable of Bruges is to induct him. In 1255, the jurors for the Manor (Liberty) of Bridgnorth, and those for the Hundred of Stottesden, made different presentments ^^^ as to the value of this Prebend, the former returning it at ten merks annual value, the latter at fourteen. The Incumbent at this period was Peter de Albescun (though one return gives his name as Avelun) . Aug. 13th, 1256. Peter de Aubucun, at Mamerfeld, renounces ^as all claim to the great and small tithes of Walton, in the parish of Mamerfeld, which were in dispute between him and Salop Abbey, the latter claiming them in right of Morville Church. In February, 1262, Peter de Abisun, Canon, was amerced--* by the Justice of the Forest, then visiting the County, in the sum of 40s., for default. At the Assizes 225 of October, 1272, the same Peter de Abezun ™ Eot. Pat. 16 John, memb. 8. Peter Saracen occurs in King John's pay, inl214 (Rot. Pat. 16 John, memb. 15), and on August 17 in that year the King had ordered Peter, Bp. of Winchester, to as- sign to John, his son, the first vacancy of 25 merks annual value, which should fall to the King's gift. On the 27th July, 1215, the same John was presented to the Church of Skenefrith, Heref. Dioc. (Kot. Pat. 17 John, memb. 18) ; and on 16th Aug. 1216, had letters of protection from his Royal Patron, dated at Brug (Ibm. memb. 5) . The Father con- tinued in the favour and pay of Hen. Ill, and the son become Dean of Wells, (in 1242, says Le Neve, but) before January, 1238 (Eot. Pat. 22 Pen. III). 221 Rot. Pat. 22 Hen. Ill, suh die. John de St. Amand was probably related to Almaric de St. Amand, a person of some note in this reign, and for some years Sheriff of Herefordshire, (Dug. Bar. Tit. St. Amand). 222 Rot. Hund. ii, 59, and 83. 223 Salop Chartulary, No. 98. 224 Plaoitaforestm, Salop, No. 4, memb. 5 dorao. 225 Salop Assizes, 56 Henry III, memb. 49 dorso. He is reported on the same roll as non-attendant at the Assizes. MORVILLE. 75 is returned as holding this Prebend^ which in this instance the jurors valued at fifteen merks per annum. In 1284, John de Henedon is returned on a Roll ^"^ of tenures in Stottesden Hundred, as holding Walton of the King in capite. He was, I presume,^^' the Prebendary. In 1291, Robert de Turbervile had^^^ this preferment. The value of its temporalities in land, meadows, rents, &c., is stated at £\. 45. Id. At Salop Assizes ^-9 (Michaelmas, 1292), the same Prebendary was returned as in office, but his Prebend Talued at eighteen merks (j612.) I Edw. II (1307-8). The Prebend of Walton is granted =^0 to the Dean of Brug. In March, 1316, John de Ker occurs ^^^ as Lord of Walton, in the Hundred of Stottesden. I suppose him to have been the Pre- bendary thereof. II Edw. II (1317-8) . This Prebend is granted 2^2 to William de Sheynton. 1st January, 40 Edw. Ill (1367). Richard de Reverie was pre- sented 2'^ by the Crown to this Prebend. In 1535, one named Mubber ^3* was holding it. Its value in glebe-land and other things is stated at £Q. PREBEND OE UNDERDON OR UNDERTON. About A.D. 1138, Robert, Bishop of Hereford, had consecrated a Chapel 23S here, which one Gilbert (probably the Prebendary of the time) had endowed with half a virgate of land and a mansion. About the same time that Roger, Prebendary of Walton, was at issue with Salop Abbey, as to the tithes of that vill {i.e. between 1152 and 1173), one Reginald will have held this Prebend ^^^ and ^ Kirby's Quest, sub himdredo de " Stoteresdon." 22? I now find his presentation, dated 3 Sep. 1275, as John de Hoveden, Clerk of the King (Edw. I), who gives him the Prebend late Peter de Abbezoun's. Vide Kot. Pat. 3 Ed. I, memb. 10. 2^ Fope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 162. One Robert de Turberrill was lately dead in 9 Ed. II (1315-6), and the King's Es- cheator beyond Ti-eut ordered to seize his lands. Vide Originalia, sub anno. 229 Plac. apud Salop, 20 Ed. I, memb. 37 dorso. 23" Eot. Pat. 1 Ed. II, memb. 18. 31 Parliamentary Writs, vol. iv, p. 398. 232 Rot. Pat. 2 Ed. II, pt. 1, memb. 19. 233 Bot. Pat. 40 Ed. Ill, p. 2, memb. 6. ™ Valor Bcclesiasticus, toI. iii, p. 210. Heref. Dioe. Stottesden Deanery. 235 Salop Chartulary, No. 333. 236 Ibidem, No. 350. 76 MORVILLE. been involved in a similar dispute ; for Thomas, =^7 prior of Here- ford, certifies that he was present in the Chapter of Hereford when Reginald, Canon of Brug, acknowledged the right of the Monks of Salop to tithes of the demesne of Hundredon, and gave them up to G. the Dean,238 who, with his Chapter, acting as delegates of the Apostolick See, invested ^'^ therewith William, Prior of Salop, in name of said Monks. 24th June, 1200. John de Gray, Archdeacon of Gloucester, having resigned his Prebend in the Church of Brug, King John, then at Chinon, to make up an annual rent of fifty merks, assigns^*" it for life to Master Thomas de Argentol, Clerk to the King himself, and to "the King's most illustrious Lord, the King of France." This Thomas was also presented, by King John, to the Church of Salkeld (Cumberland), but probably lost both preferments on the rupture with Philip Augustus. His successor, at Salkeld, was Master Matthew, the King's physician, presented ^^ by King John on 6th March, 1205. The same Matthew will probably have suc- ceeded, with a better title, to this Prebend, for on 13th February, 1209, the King presents ^^^ "William de Sancto Maxentio, his Clerk, to the Prebend held by Master Matthew. On 12th December, 1222, Henry III presents =*^ Robert de Alrecumb to the Prebend of Underdun, in the Chapel of Brug, which Joceas, Chaplain of Ranulf Earl of Chester, had held. The Constable will induct. 27th February, 1238. The King presents «^ William de Burgo ^ Thomas Carbonel, Prior of St. Guth- lao's — chosen Abbot of G-loucester, Oct. 1179. 2^ Geoffry, Deauof Hereford, I suppose. He occurs 1173. ^' Perhaps this was during the vacancy caused by the death of Robert Abbot of Salop, in 1167, at which time also the See of Hereford was entering on a seven years' vacancy. ^ Rot. Cartarum, 2 John, memb. 29. John de Gray was consecrated Bishop of ISTorwich in September following. He was an eminent Justiciar, and being elected Abp. of Canterbury in 1205, was set aside by the Pope. 2« Rot. Pat. 6 Job. memb. 3 & 2. The first instrument says that the Church is vacant, the second only bestows its reve- nues on Master Matthew ; and long after (viz. 12 Sep. 1214) King John restored it to Thos. de Argentol, "whoeverbe in pos- session," the King being exonerated of all obhgation to account for the receipts ad interim, (Vide Rot. Pat. 16 Joh. memb. 12.) 2-^ Rot. Pat. 10 Joh. memb. 2. Wm. de Saint Maixent was probably a Poitevin. He occurs in 1213 as in employ of Peter Bishop of Winchester, Chief Justice of England (Pat. 18 Joh. memb. 9), and fre- quently on the Close Rolls from 1205 to 1214 (Rot. Olaus. vol. i, passim). ^ Rot. Pat. 7 Hen. Ill, sub die. Joceas had probably been presented by the Earl, during his Shrievalty, and in succession to Wm. de St. Maixent. 2« Rot-Pat. 22 Hen. Ill, sub die. MOBVILLE. 77 to the Prebend which R. de St. Alban had had ; and the Constable of Brug is to induct him. In 1255, Master Guy de Palude is Prebendary 2*5 here, and its value rated by the two juries, before mentioned, at 12 or 21 merks. Part of the income belonging to this Prebend was tithe of a merk value, arising from Walter de Clifford's demesne of Corfham, 246 which tithe, with 16 pence more, WiUiam de Ros, Rector of Diddlebury, had withdrawn for 7 years past. 21st May, 1256. Reymund Massan is presented s*^ to the Prebend which Guy de la Palude had held. In October, 1272, Adam de Fyleby is Prebendary^*" of Underdon, and his preferment valued at 15 merks. In 1291, John Bruyn has this Prebend, 2*^ and its temporalities are valued as follows : — 15 Acres of land at Underton, value, at 6d. per acre ....... Meadow-land, worth ^62. in 6 years, and so averaging, per annum .... Rents assized, and MiU .... £. s. d. 7 6 6 11 Total value J2 5 4 At Salop Assizes 230 (Michaelmas, 1292), " John le Breyn " (the same Prebendary) is returned as in office, but his preferment valued at 18 merks (£12.) In 8 Edw; II (1314-5), Theobald de Tretis, Prebendary ^si of Underdon, in the Chapel of St. Leonards, ^^^ has a suit of novel dis- seisin against Thomas Dunstan, about a tenement in Underton. In March, 1316, William, Parson of " Quatorp," 253 is Lord of the vill of Underdon, in Stottesden Hundred. '245 Eot. Hund. ii, 59, 83. ^" Earl Roger's foundation of Quatford Church included some tithes at Corfham and Culmington. (Transcript in posses- sion of the Kev. Or. L. Wasey.) 2W Hot. Pat. 40 Henry III (sub die). ^-"^ Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 49 dors. He is also absent from the said Assizes. He had been presented in 1257 to the Church of Chelemodeston (Norwich Dioc.) by Hen. Ill (Rot.Pat. 41 Hen. III.) '« Pope Nick. Taxation, p. 162. ™ Plaeita de Juratis et Assisis, 20 Ed. I, memb. 37 dorso. 251 BlaJceway MSS.'m'mh\.'BoSi..O-^on. 252 Sic, — but read St. Mary Magdalene. 253 Parliamentani Writs, vol. ir, p. 398. The word printed " Quatorp" is probably so written in the very inaccm-ate document which is there edited. It may be doubted whether Quat or Quatford is the place intended. I should hare said the latter, had not Quatford Chm-ch been generally connected with another Prebend. 78 I Edw. Ill (1337-8). to Ralph Blunt. 5 Edw. Ill (1331-2). 6 Edw. Ill (1332-3). 9 Edw. Ill (1335-6). II Edw. Ill (1337-8) London. 17 Edw. Ill (1343-4) 23 Edw. Ill (1349-50) MORVILLE. This Prebend is granted ^e* by the King It is granted ^^^ to Walter de London. It is granted 25" to Nicholas de London. It is granted ^^^ to G. Chilchehethe. It is granted ^^^ apparently to Walt de It is granted iiss to John de London. It is granted^eo to WiUiam Lambhethe. In the year 1535 the name of the Prebendary here was * * * Barley. Its value is returned ^^ at £6. per annum. THE CHAPEL. No mention of the Chapel of Underdon, other than that above quoted, has occurred. Its foundation on Prebendal lands, held immediately of the Crown, will probably have been nugatory, unless confirmed by the King. We have no evidence of such confirmation, and even if it were obtained from King Stephen, his act, of this kind, win hardly have bound his successors. HARPSPORD, ALIAS HARPSWOOD. This vill is mentioned in King William's charter sea to Salop Abbey, as one of the adjuncts iavolved ia Earl Roger's grant of Morville Church to that house. The attestation of Alduin de Harpesfort to a very early deed of Salop Abbey (c. 1160), already quoted, ^^' seems to favour this assumption. If thus involved, we miss any subsequent notice of the place, probably as being comprised in that part of MorviUe itself which remained in connexion with the Church, and was not transferred to Astley Manor. But it must be noticed that the situation of Harpsford associates it much more with that district, which having been demesne of the Norman Earls became the endowment of the Church of St. Mary Magdalene. Its tithes appear,26* in time of Henry VIII, as belonging to Salop Abbey, but are mentioned in such connexion as to leave it un- certain whether they were tithes of the Abbot's own territory or not. ^* Kot.Pat.lEd.III,pt. l.memb. 24. ^^ Eot. Pat. 5 Ed. Ill, pt. 2, memb. 18. and 25. s»6 Rot. Pat. 6 Ed. Ill, pt. 2, memb. 13. 257 Kot. Pat. 9 Ed. Ill, pt. 1, memb. 14. ^' Index of presentations apud Turrim Lond. — but Qucere. 253 Rot.Pat.l7Ed.III,pt. l,merab. 30. »» Eot.Pat.23Ed.III,pt.l, memb. 32. 2^' Valor JBccledasticus, vol. iii, p. 210. Heref. Dioc. Stottesden Deanery. ^2 New Monasticon, iii, 521, x. 263 Tide supra, page 44. 2" CoU. Top. and Gen. vol. ii, 289,290. Vide supra, page 41. MORVILLE. 79 The tithes of the vill of jMorefiFeldj of Walton and Leye, of Kyndesley, Aldenam, Harpisford, Haughton and Crofte, Underton, and of Morfeld parish, are enumerated in the order quoted ; and Walton, Leye, Aldenam, and Underton, were not of the Abbot's fee, whilst Morville (part), Kinslow, Haughton, and Croft, were. No inference can therefore be drawn from this source as to the owner- ship of Harpsford. LYE, aliaa LEYE, now LYE-EARM. Though this was doubtless of the Prebendal lands of St. Mary Magdalene of Bridgnorth, it is not quite clear that it belonged wholly to one particular Prebend, or, if it did, which that Prebend was. The vill is usually mentioned next to Walton, a circumstance which, as well as its situation, would associate it with that Prebend. However, in 1291, part of the temporalities of the Prebend of Under- don consisted of a mill ; ^^^ and this I think must have been Lye MiU. AH that has further occurred relative to the place has been mentioned above. ALDENHAM. As Aldenham was undoubtedly in the Domesday Parish of Mor- ville, so also was it in all probability a member of the Domesday Manor, and part of those two hides which the Norman Earl retained in demesne. Its isolation in respect of other lands so retained is remarkable, and may be accounted for by its proximity to Shirlot ^^^ Forest, which I suppose was as great an object of interest to the Earls in their day, as to the Kings who came after. The family of Baskerville were, from the earliest times, the immediate tenants of the Crown in this Manor, but as they had other lands ^^^ in Shropshire with which they were more personally connected, we will here treat of their feoffees at Aldenham, a 265 Vide supra, p. 77. 2^ Neither this nor any other of the (afterward Boyal) forests of Shropshire is mentioned in Domesday ; yet I conclude that they all existed and were of the demesne of the Earl. Domesday was chiefly an estimate of the productive capa- bilities of land, its population, and the live stock which it did or might maintain. Therefore forests, in their very nature, were alien to the chief objects of the Sur- vey. Hence the omission. The woods mentioned in the Shropshire Domesday are appurtenances of particular Manors with which they descended, and whose value they increased. 2"' Vide infra under Pickthome, North- wood, &o. 11 80 MORVILLE. family which took its name from the locality. The older name of the place was "Aldreham/' from two Saxon words^ the first of which signifies an aider-tree, the last a home. or sheltered habitation. About A. D. 1138, Fulcoins, whom I take to have held here under BaskervDle, endowed -^^ a chapel at Aldreham with sixty acres of land and a mansion. It was in " the parish of the Church of Mamerfeld," and was consecrated by Bishop Robert de Betun, like other Chapels, because of the troubled state of the country. About the same time and on occasion of a similar foundation by Robert Fitz-Aher in the neighbouring village of Aston, Fulcaius de Aldreham appears among the witnesses of the Charter ^^9 of endowment. In 1180 amongst those in this quarter who were fined -^0 for imbladements by the Justice of the King's Forest the name Folqui appears. Early in the 13th century William de Aldeham attests one of Sibil de Teneray's Charters ^^^ to Morville Priory. September 29th, 1231. William de Aldenham had fined =" with the Crown in a sum of 100*. It was for purchase of five acres of the wood of Chirlet (Shirlot) which he had assarted by license of the Verderers of the Forest. He will also pay 5 shillings annual rent for the same, and already renders account of two years' arrears of such rent. This annual rent would seem to have varied, for at Michaelmas, 1253, I find the Sherifi'273 accounting (on behalf of William de Aldingham) 7s. Qd. for rent of five acres of the " King's demesne in Aldingham," and, it is added, that the said William is " to be quit of waste and regard." In 1255, the Jurors of Stottesden Hundred reported ^74 of this vill as follows : — William de Aldenham is Lord, and there is here one virgate of land which the same William holds in chief oi Walter de Baskerville, rendering one merk yearly to the same Walter, who is in custody of Sibil Giffard by grant of the King. And the said William owes suit ^ts of Court to the Hundred twice in a year, viz. at the tourn of the SheriflF. ^ Salop Chartulaiy, No. 333. 260 Charter in the possession of Mr. Gr. Morris. ^J'" Forest Soil at Westminster, Salop, No. 1, memb. 2. ^'■i Salop Chartulary, No. 103. Vide supra, p. 52. 272 Pipe Roll, 15 Hen. Ill, Salop. 2?3 Pipe Roll, 36 Hen. Ill, Salop. " Waste " was the fine for destroying un- derwood. '?* Hot. Murtd. vol. ii, p. 82. Stottesden. 2'* Attendance at the Sheriff's tourn was ohligatory on the freeholders of a Hundred in general. Exemption was matter of special grant or prescription. The Toums were the Com-t-Leet of the County as the County Court was the Court- MORVILLE. 81 Further^ he holds one assart under the haye ^76 of Schyrlet ren- dering to the Exchequer 7 shillings yearly. In January, 1256, William de Aldenham was one of the Jurors of the Hundred ^"^ who sat at Salop Assizes, and again in January, 1257, he was on the inquest^'S as to the property of Hugh de Kinslow. At the Forest-pleas of February, 1262, he appears 27a as one of the Regarders of the forests of Morf and Shirlet, and was, like many others, fined half a merk by the Justices for making a bad return?^ At the same time William le Wauwar of Aldenham, who ought to have been at the Assizes, was essoigned, because dead.^^^ On March 13th, 1262, William de Aldenham sat with the Ver- derers and Foresters of the County on an Inquisition ^sa held at Bridgnorth, and which was to decide some forest question relating to Middleton Priors. At Salop Assizes, August, 1267, Adam Fitz-David, the tenant, having been impleaded, ^^^ under writ of mart d'ancestre, for a noke of land in Stevinton, loses the cause; but he having called to warrantry William de Aldenham (his feoffor, I suppose), and said William, being of full age and having come forward with such warrantry, the Court decided that the latter was to make good the loss of the former. This William I take ^^* to have been son of the William before named. Baron. The Sheriff presided, and made circuit or tmm through the Hundreds, holding this Court in each. The juris- diction of County and Hundred Courts was the same as to causes and offences, but different as to territory. The Sheriff in early times might hold his Tourns when and where he chose. He was in- terested in the amount of fines which were levied on non-attendants. Therefore Magna Charta Hmited the Sheriffs' Tourns to two in a year, one after Easter, the other after Michaelmas. ^' Haya (Uterally an inclosureor hedge) is the term usually applied to some smaller forests, such as Shirlet was. ^ Pladta Coronm, 40 Hen. Ill, Salop, memb. 12 recto. 2?s Inquisitions, 41 Hen. Ill, No. 37. Vide supra, page 53. 279 Pladta ForestcB, 46 Hen. Ill, Salop, memb. 12 recto. 2*' Ibidem, 5 recto. " Pro soripto suo male facto." I suppose the duty of the Regarders was to draw up a report of imbladements, pm-prestures, cSic. in their district, and present it to the Justices of the Torest when the latter visited the County. ^' Ibidem, 1 recto. The KoU contains a long Ust under the title " Essonia Mor- tis." Among the names is Roger Corbet of Hadley, and one or two others whom we know to have died shortly before this circuit, otherwise I should not have guessed the nature of this peculiar hst. 282 Esch. 46 Hen. Ill, No. 31. 2^ Salop Assizes, 51 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 recto. 2** At the same Assizes there was a trial, whether William de Aldenham and Wil- liam his son had disseised Michael, son of Henry G-eune, of a messuage and 9 acres in Aldenham. The verdict was in the affirmative. Salop Assizes, 51 Hen. Ill, memb. 8 recto. 82 MORVILLE. At the Assizes of September, 1272, he was of the Stottesden Jury"'*** and under the name of William Fitz-William de Aldenham was impleaded"'^" by Robert Jude, William Wychard, and Michael Geime, for three parts of a messuage and three carrucates (save one and a half virgates) in Aldenham. William Fitz-William failed to appear, and so the land was to be seized into the King^s hand, and the cause adjourned till the morrow of St. Martin (November 12th). Afterwards, however, he appeared, but not being able to excuse his former default was adjudged to be in misericordia.^^ At the same Assizes the above-named William Wychard was sued ^^^ by Richard Wychard for a tenement in Aldenham. This prosecution was however withdrawn. On November 12th, 1272 (the day of adjournment of the former case), a fine "^9 was levied at Salop between Malcolumb de Harley,^ complainant, and Robert Jude, William Wychard, and Michael Geune, deforciants, by Richard de Acton (their attorney, I suppose). The premises were those before recited in Aldenham, and the suit, thus terminated, was one of warrantry. The deforciants acknowledged the right of Malcolumb, as arising by their own gift, and he was to hold the premises, to himself and heirs, rendering to Robert Jude and his heirs one rose yearly, and one rose to William and Michael, and doing accustomed service to the Lords of the fee. For this fine, Malcolumb gave one sore sparrow-hawk.^s" On November 27th, 1274. WiUiam de Aldenham sat as a ^ Salop Assize-Roll, 56 Hen. Ill, Flacifa Coronce, memb. 21 recto. 286 Salop Assize-Roll, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 4 dorso. ^ Misericordia, amercement, and fine are terms nearly allied and often con- founded, but having, I beUeve, a, tech- nical distinction. An oifender was said to be " in misericordia" (at the mercy of the Court) when couTicted of an ofFenoe, th« penalty of which was yet to be settled. The term amercement (originating in the same idea of merci) indicates a fiirther process, viz. the penalty, as assessed by the Court or other competent authority. The term, fine, when apphed to a pecuniary penalty, and as distinct from amercement, indicates a penalty, not arbitrary, but already fixed by statute. The " misericordia " above by no means impKes sentence in the suit, but only a liability to penalty for non-appearance. ^ Salop Assize-Roll, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 recto. ^ Final Concords, 56 Hen. Ill, Salop. I imagine that the deforciants having found it difiicult to prosecute their claim against William de Aldenham, disposed of their interest to Malcolumb de Harley, who, I think, was a lawyer. ^'' An acknowledgement very usual in oases, like the above, where the fine levied was the termination of a fictitious suit. I suppose the payment of the hawk was as imaginary as the suit. A sore hawk was however one in its first plumage (from the IFrench sor or saiir, Enghsh, sorrel, i.e. reddish-brown) . A stag in its fourth year was also called sore — a similar allusion to its colour. MORVILLE. 83 Juror 291 on the Inquisition into the state of Stottesden Hundred, A.D. 1278, the Sheriff of Shropshire is to seize ^^^ into the King's hand all lands whereof William de " Audeham" died possessed, he having held of the King in capite. John de Aldenham, successor of William, occurs very soon afterwards as attesting a Quatford Charter.^s^ About 1284, the same John is returned ^8* as holding Aldenham under " Walter de Baskerville, of the fee of Pickthorn." At the Assizes of October, 1292, he sat as a Juror 29s for Stot- tesden Hundred. Aldenham was one of the vills entered ''^^ as disforested in the latter part of the 13th century ; and in the great perambu- lation =97 of A.D. 1300, some parts of the boundaries of the King's Haye of Shirlet, have reference to what has been said above. — The forest was limited in one direction by the " assarts which John de Haldenham holds at a rent of the Lord the King," in another by " Wichardesok," that is, Wichard's Oak. THE CHAPEL. I have already mentioned the only notice which we have of this early foundation. It existed in all probability for a very short time, even if it was completed ; nor can I make out that Shrewsbury Abbey ever appropriated any part of the endowment of, or received any pension from, this Chapel. The Abbey's possession, in 1529, of the tithes of grain, hay, and other produce in Aldenham, was probably the result of Earl Hugh's long antecedent grant of the tithes of his demesnes. We have had former hints ^9^ that such grant must not be limited by the express words of Earl Hugh's Charter as preserved in the Monasticon. BRIDGNORTH. Of the two Domesday hides which constituted the demesne of the Norman Earls iu MorvUle Manor, it only remains to notice that tract of land which afterwards was occupied by the Castle and 291 Rot. Hund. Tol. ii, p. 107. 292 Originalia, 6 Bdw. I, Rot. 21. 293 Charter at Dudmaston. 294 Xirly's Quest. Stottesden Hun- dred. Vide infra under Piokthom. 2^^ Placita de Jwatis et Assizis^ 20 Edw. I, memb. 51 recto. 296 Forest Soils at Westminster, Salop, No. 3. »? Salop Chartulary, Wo. 279. 298 Vide pp. 44, 70. The Charter was a forgery, but I have said before that the gifts it alleges were really made by Earl Hugh or others. 84 MORVILLE. Borough of Bridgnorth, and which indeed was all that ultimately continued in demesne of the Crown. As, however, the foundation of Bridgnorth was subsequent to Domesday, it may be consistent to postpone this subject for the present, not by any means that its importance is to be underrated, but rather because it affords matter for most diligent and exclusive consideration. Something, however, may here be said as to a Saxon foundation of the 10th century, variously described as a borough or a fortress, and assigned by very equally divided opinions to two localities, viz., Bridgnorth and Quatford. The claim of Bridgnorth has been already alluded to,^^' but only in such a way as to leave the question open. This, however, is the proper place to give some account of the said Saxon foundation, if Bridgnorth were indeed its site ; but I must again postpone the subject, thinking, indeed, that Bridgnorth has a better claim than Quatford, but convinced that a third locality, Oldbury, was after all the real one. TASLEY.300 Lost among the Domesday contingents of Morville Manor come the two hides alleged to have been held by Richard Pincerna imme- diately of the Norman Earl. A probability, that, at the time of that Survey, Rainald the Sheriff was mesne tenant between the Earl and Richard Pincerna, has been fully stated before,^°i as also that the said two hides were in Tasley and Henley. Rainald's presmned interest here, like all his seigneuries, whether in Shropshire, Staffordshire, or elsewhere, descended to Fitz-Alan. In what course this happened is nowhere positively and authen- tically stated, and any conjecture on the subject must remain tiU we come to speak at large of a house whose vicissitudes are an integral portion of the History of England, and whose power and influence in ^' Vide supra, page 31. ^"^ The termination of this name has abeady been explained. The word tas signifies a heap or bundle. It is still used in Kent for a mow of corn. It has its equivalent both in Saxon and French. Chaucer uses the word taas for a heap (of dead bodies). Another word, iasel, I take to be the original of tassel, teazle, and probably thistle. Prom the old way of spelling " Tassele " I should judge this to be the word thus compounded with le or ley. Some plant of the teazle, or thistle tribe wiU, in that case, have giren name to the locality. *" Yiie supra, page 30. MORVILLE. 85 Shropshire have never been equalled by any other since the forfeiture of its Norman Earls. Of Richard Pincerna, assumed to have been Rainald^s under- tenant in 1086, nothing further occurs. The next, in his rela- tive position, and as tenant of Fitz-Alan here, should be one of those who are named in the Liber Niger (1165) as holding by service of one muntator '"^ (equal to half a Knight's fee) of the said barony of Fitz-Alan. Which of those, thns holding, was Lord of Tasley, is not apparent ^°^ either from the list itself or any other forthcoming evidence. We have it however upon record that the tenant, thus holding Tasley, died during the minority of young Fitz-Alan, that is, before a.d. 1175, and that the heir, Roger Corbet, was then tmder age. The wardship of this heir, and custody ^"^ Vide Liber Niger, vol. i, p. 142 — where Hearne has a long note, attempting to define, but more suooessfiilly obEOuring the peculiar nature of this tenure under the Barony of Fitz-Alan. His affectation of expounding, in classical and idiomatic Latin, a matter difficult in itself and every way unclassical in its associations, is but a pedantic substitute for the explanation which he was unable to supply, and, as transcriber of a record. Was not called upon to offer. The question is of course the etymology of the word " muntator," which Hearne will hare to be equivalent to " mundator," and to mean primarily, a moundman, miner, or pioneer, and he even suggests a tenure of about 200 acres as the muntator's fief. He then talks about the term as referable to naval mat- ters, and finally proposes it as synonymous with " vir montanus" a mountaineer, — "a signification," says he, " most aptly squar- ing with that part of Shropshire which is recovered from the Welsh and abounds in mountsiins." Passing the question whether any of Fitz-Alan's tenants in the Welsh Marches are registered in the Liher Niger, I shall not, at least after quoting Hearne, seem superlatively absurd if I hazard another-etymology. I suppose the word to be equivalent to munitator and coined from munitio — a fortress. If so, its meaning will be — one whose service was to do ward at his Lord's Castle. We shall see how apposite such an interpretation win be in case of many a tenure under Fitz-Alan, the caput of whose barony was Oswestry. ™ There are three names on the list of Fitz-Alan's tenants, whose lands, held in 1165 by service of 1 muntator each, I have nothing which enables me to identify. They are Koger Walensis, Nicholas Mau- covenant, and John de Hanewode. The first of these I should conjecture to have been Lord of Tasley, had not the Histo- rians of Shrewsbury (vol. i, p. 80, note 3) suggested that he (Roger Walensis) was identical with Roger de Powis. The latter was certainly never Lord of Tasley ; nor yet can I find that he or his descendants ever held anything under Fitz-Alan. On the other hypotliesis (that Roger Walen- sis was a different person from Roger de Powis, and, if so, possible Lord of Tasley in 1165) it will still remain unsettled whether he were the father of Roger Corbet and himself a Cadet of the Baronial House of Caus, or whether, dying without issue, his estate passed to Roger Corbet as his nearest of kin. Certain it is that Roger Corbet had Tasley by inheritance, but whether through his Father or Mother we cannot say, nor can we point out his degree of connexion with the House of Caus. Contemporary with him was ano- ther Roger Corbet, I say another because the latter was a younger brother of Richard Corbet (of Wattlesborough, I suppose), and could not in the ordinary course 86 MORVILLE. of his landsj fell to the Crown in virtue of its temporary seizure of Fitz-Alan's barony. King Henry II granted it to Thomas Fitz- Odoj otherwise called Thomas de Chabbenour, and, iu one 2"* instance (as having this wardship), Thomas de Tasley. Of this Thomas much more will be said elsewhere, but here only that which he had to do with Tasley. During his custody thereof, a suit about thirty acres of land arose between him and one who was officiating as Priest of the Pre- bend, then held by William de Pierpoiat ia the CoUegiate Church of St. Mary Magdalene, in Bridgnorth Castle. King Henry II issued a precept ordering perambulation to be made between the lands of the Prebend and the lay-fee of Tasley. Thomas Fitz- Bemard, then Chief Justice of the King's Forests, had it in charge to effect this perambulation, which, with other evidence, will decide the date of the transaction as having been in 1180 or 1183. The result was in favour of the Church, as might be expected, seeing that the Crown had a permanent interest iu the integrity of its own Prebend, but only a temporary one in Roger Corbet^s Manor. Twenty years afterwards, when Eoger Corbet, then of age, attempted by process of law to oust the same William de Pierpoint, the latter, inter alia, alleged this earlier settlement of the question. Corbet's rejoinder was to the effect that Thomas Fitz-Odo (called Thomas de Tasley) had not rightly represented him (or had wronged him) in the former cause. The case was dismissed sine die. This trial took place at the Salop Assizes in October, 1203 ; but Corbet had attained his majority some time previously, and had increased his importance by marriage with an heiress, who brought the Lord- ships of Hadley and High Hatton, in Shropshire, of King's Bromley, in Staffordshire, and the patronage of Wombridge Priory, to him and his descendants. His career was short, but it wUl not be inconsistent with the importance of his successors if their descent, and a few notices '"^ both of him and them, be here inserted. His marriage with Cecily^ daughter and sole heir of Alan de inherit such a fee as Tasley. Yet these two brothers, Eichard and Eoger, may have been sons of different mothers, and the mother of Roger, the youngest, may have been heiress of Tasley. 3<" Vide infra. *>* Mr. Blakeway's conjectures on the early history of this family {see Sheriffs, p. 42) are putforward with confessed doubt and under a deficiency of documents. They are not fortunate. One page of Shaw's History of Staffordshire, on the same subject, contains at least nine contro- vertible errors. Erdeswick says little, but that httle involves its own contradiction. MORVILLE. 87 Hadleyj was the advancement above alluded to, and will have taken place about a.d. 1190. This Lady was as notable ia her ancestry as in her inheritance. Paternally she was descended ^°^ from the Peverels, and her mother was a Pantulf. Her husband, Eoger Corbet, occurs first (and probably in his capacity as Patron of Wombridge Priory) in a deedj^o? which must have passed about a.d. 1194, whereby Walter de Dunstanville, Lord of Ideshal, makes a considerable grant to that House. Again, about a.d. 1195, Roger Corbeth attests an agreement ^°^ between the Abbot of Shrewsbury and John le Strange, and which evidently passed in the County Court at Salop. Soon after, and in a most prominent position, Roger Corbet attests a grant ^os to Wombridge by John de Cumbrey ; and another ^^° by GriiSn, son of Gervase Goch, Lord of Sutton, to the same house. At the Salop Assizes of October, 1203, Roger Corbet sat as a Juror ''11 with others of his rank, and on several important trials. But his chief concern on this occasion wiU have been in the cause ^i^ mentioned above, and which, as far as a translation will allow, shall be given as it is recorded : — ■ " There is venue of assize to take cognizance (assisa venit recog- nitionis) whether thirty acres in Tasseleg, which Roger Corbet claimeth against William de Petraponte, be the lay fee of said Roger, or frank almoign appertaining to the aforesaid William's Church of Bruges. And William appeareth and saith — that the said land is appertaining to his Prebend which he has in the Church of Bruges, and which he holds by gift of King Henry, Father of the Lord the King, and has held for thirty years past ; and that, before he was presented to said Prebend, the said Prebend was seized of the premises, so that, in his opinion, this assize neither can be nor ought to be taken without the Lord the King (being a ^^ Flacita apud Westm. Michaelmas Term, 37 Hen. Ill, memb. 6 dorso. ^' This deed stands No. 46, under the title ' Prior's Lee,' of the Wombridge Chartulary. The witness's name is writ- ten in the Chartulary, " Mohert Corbet de Hedleia'' — a mere scribal error, and of a kind in which, unfortunately, the whole of that Kecord abounds. 303 Salop Chartulary, No. 16, but this Boger Corbeth may have been the younger brother of Richard Corbet, of Wattles- borough. ^"^ Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Lega Prioris, No. 43. John de Cumbrey was Lord of the neighbouring vill of Loe, which took its distinctive name of Lec- Cumbi-ey (now Lee-gomery) from his family. 310 Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Broc- ton. No. 87. Sutton Maddock was so called afterwards, from Madoc, son of this Griffin. 311 Flacita apud Salop, 5 John, memb. 4 recto, &c. 312 Ibidem, memb. 4 dorso. 12 88 MORVILLE. party) . Moreover, the same William saith that he has no Church in Bniges, but only a certain Prebend in the Church of Bruges. Further he saith, that, by precept of the Lord King Henry, there was sometime perambiilation made, between one Thomas de Tassele and the Priest of the said William, in presence of Thomas Eitz- Bernard, thereunto assigned, and in presence of many others, and that in virtue of such perambulation the aforesaid land remained with his Prebend ; and if, after this (statement), the trial ought to proceed, he (William) will not decline it [non refutabit earn)." — "And Roger (Corbet) saith nothing to contradict the statement of said William, nor saith he anything but that the forementioned Thomas, between whom and William the said perambulation took place, was his wronger ^is i^fult ablator suus)." The decision of the Court on this cause was " remanet sine die." We hear no more of the suit, and little more of the plaintiff, who died within a few months, leaving Cecily his widow and an infant son, Thomas, surviving. Before May 9th, 1204, Cecilia de Hadley had offered si* to King John sixty merks and a palfrey, by way of fine, for having seizin of the Manor of Bramley (Bromley Regis, Staff.), whereof she had been disseized by Geoffry Fitz-Piers, the Justiciar (Chief Justice of Eng- land). And she covenants to render for the same £4 per annum, and the service of a tenth part of a Knight (as the King's Charter, which she has, specifies s'^) . Her fine also was, that she might marry at her own pleasure, and "have custody of her son and his mar- riage, so that he be not disparaged." The King's charter ^^^ alluded to bears date at Southwick (Hants) and is as follows : — " John D. G., &c. Know ye that we have restored and conceded, and by this present charter confirmed to Cecily de Hedley, the whole Manor of Bromley, with its appur- tenances as her right and inheritance, to hold to her and her heirs, of us and our heirs, for ever, rendering thereof, to us, four pounds yearly and performing thereof, to us, service of the tenth the 5th year of John, in which the trans- action took place, are lost. ^'^ These words were no part of the original fine, which, of course, preceded the Charter, but only a part of the sub- sequent record of debt. Therefore they are put in parentlieses, ^^^ Hot. Carta/nim, 6 Jolin, memb. 4. Page 129 of the printed volume. 2'^ It does not seem quite clear what this expression implies — whether that Thomas de Tasley was at the time («'. e. circa 1180) unjustly occupying the whole Manor to the exclusion of the heir, or that he sacrificed the rights of his ward in this particular matter. 3" Pipe Roll, 6 John, Salop. Inter. Nova oblala. This fine is thus only pre- served, for the Ohlata or Fin^ Rolls of MORVILLE. 89 part of one knight's fee^ for all service^ custom^ and demand, per- taining to that Manor. Wherefore we will, &c. Dated 9th of May, in the fifth year of our reign." (May Qth, 1204.) Within four months after the granting of this charter, a fine ^^'' appears on the RoUs whereby " Baldwin de Hodnet gives (to the King) sixty merks for having to wife Cecily who had been wife of Roger Corbet, with her land. And the Sheriff (of Staff.) has mandate to take security from him (Baldwin) as to the payment of the said sixty merks." Here the record is abruptly broken oflF, and there is a mark of cancellation added, for which a reason or reasons are sub- joined in two contemporary notes. The first of these notes says briefly : " Because above by the Wife herself;" the second more fully : " It is cancelled here because the same fine is elsewhere (entered), viz., in the RoU of Fines of the fifth year." These fines of the fifth year, we have already said, are lost ; nor do we in this instance need them. The truth is, that Cecily had married to Baldwin de Hodnet, and the latter had assumed her liabilities to the Crown. On the 8th of September, 1204, King John granted a further Charter ^^^ to Cecily de Hedley, owing to some misunderstanding or informality about the first. This second Charter is dated at Oseney, and is generally as the first, but omits all correspondent mention of knight's service, and substitutes the following: — "And let it not be to the injury of William Fitz-Alan, of whom said Cecily holds a knight's fee, that we have given her to Baldwin de Hodnet, and that our former Charter (granted to her about Bromley) hath expressed the aforesaid service (£4 rent) and also a service of one tenth of a knight's fee. On September 29th, 1204, Cecilia de Hadley is entered on the Sheriff's account ^'9 as owing £4 of the rent of the Manor of Bromley (her first year's rent) . On September 29th, 1205, Baldwin de Hodnet is pardoned ^^o ten merks of his wife's debt to the Crown, and she is charged £8 for two 317 Mot. Fin. 6 John, memb. 14. Printed Tolume, page 214. 3'* Sot. Carta/rum, 6 John, memb. 11. Page 137 of the printed volume. I have done the best I can to give a translation of thia Charter, which is not grammatical in its construction. Its meaning is more obvious. The tenure of Bromley under the Crown was by a fee-farm rent, not by knight's service, whereas Cecily's tenure at Hadley, under Fitz-Alan, was of the latter class. Her remarriage therefore and the wardship of her heir belonged to Fitz- Alan, and the acceptance of her Fine by King John, as well as his consequeiit Charter, was an injury to her suzerain. Fitz-Alan's remonstrance probably pro- duced the second Charter, which is merely a memorandum lest the first should con- stitute a precedent. 31' Pipe Boll, 6 John, Salop. 32» Pipe Roll, 1 John, Salop. 90 MORVILLE. years' rent of Bromley ; but a memorandum is added to the latter entry, stating that she is answerable to the Sheriff, and that he accounts (in his general receipts) " in corpore comitatus." Bromley Regis thus continued to be held of the Crown by Cecilia and many generations of her heirs ; — but we must revert to the more immediate history of Tasley. At Salop Assizes, November, 1221, Margery de Chabbenour names ^^i an attorney in her suit about dower against Baldwin de Hodnet and his wife. At the same time Baldwin de Hodnet and Cecilia his wife namc^^- their attorney against Margery de Chabbenour. The cause between them is also stated, as follows : ^-^ Margery, widow of Thomas Fitz-Odo, sues Thomas Corbet for a third of two parts of the Manor of Tasseleg, and sues Baldwin de Hodnet and Cecily his wife for a third of the third part of the same Manor. Her suit is for dower. It proves that Thomas Corbet was of age, and had succeeded to Tasley, his paternal inheritance ; while his mother Cecily was still living and holding her dower therein, as derived from Roger Corbet, her former husband. For a third of their respective interests they are impleaded by Margery de Chabbenour, and the progress of the cause will show on what grounds. Baldwin and Cecilia, on their parts, called Thomas Corbet to warrantry. He appeared, vouched the warrantry, and, on the part of himself and them, further called to warrantry John Fitz-Alan (his suzerain) . A day was given to the parties at Warwick, on the morrow of St. Hilary (January 14th, 1222) . On the said day, at Warwick, ^2* John Fitz-Alan essoigned himself in the plea of dower against Margery de Chabenour, in which Thomas Corbet called him to warrantry. The cause was adjourned to fifteen days of Easter, then to be heard at Westminster. Some frirther and unrecorded adjournments wiU have taken place, but we have fortunately a record of the final hearing as it took place at Westminster in Hilary Term, 1223. The process was as follows : ^^^ " A Jury comes here to say, if Thomas Fitz-Odo, formerly husband of Margery de Chalbenour, held, on the day he espoused her, the Manor of Taslegh in fee, so that he could dower her in one-third thereof or not ; or if the said Thomas held it of the bailiwick of the ^' Salop Assize-Roll, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 2 dorso. Something is added to this entry, which, except that it contains the name of Corbet, is unintelhgible. ^^ Ibidem, memb. 3 recto. ^^ Ibidem, memb. 7 recto. ^^ Esson a/p&. Warw. in crast. Sti HU. 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 1 recto. ^^ Placita apd. Westm. de termiuo Sti Hillarii, 7 Hen. Ill, memb. 12 dorso. MORVILLE. 91 Lord King Henry, the King's grandfather, whilst Wniiam Fitz- Alan, father of John Fitz-Alan, was nnder age, and in custody of the King, together with that land. Because both John Fitz-Alan, against whom the aforesaid Margery claims the said third in dower, and she herself have put themselves on this Jury." "The Jurors do not understand that Thomas cotdd dower Margery, because he did not so hold as that he could dower her, for he had no ingress except through the Bailiffs of King Henry when William Fitz-Alan was under age." It was decided (by the Court) that John be herein quiet and Margery in misericordia. We must again revert to the Salop Assizes of November, 1221, when Thomas Corbet was party to another suit.^^^ The Abbot of Shrewsbury sued him for a quarter of a virgate in Kinslow and a similar quantity of land in Midwele (Meadowley) in right of his Church. Thomas pleaded that he ought nor to answer, because, in Kinslow, he neither held nor claimed anything ; and this the Abbot could not deny. So Thomas was declared quit. It is probable that very soon after this time Thomas Corbet's mother died. Her inheritance did not, however, immediately devolve to him, for having been also a mother by Baldwin de Hodnet, her second husband, the latter wiU have held it for life. He, however, was dead also before January 21st, 1225.^^^ At this juncture the question naturally arose as to who was Cecilia de Hadley's heir. The Sheriff of Staffordshire had the King's precept to hold inquest thereon, which being done and returned to Court, the King issued a mandate ^^^ to the same Sheriff ordering him to give Thomas Corbet seizin of Bromley, taking security from him for his relief, which was £4<. This mandate bears date 19th February, 1225. There is abundant evidence not only of Thomas Corbet having held Bromley,^-^ but also of his succession to Hadley, High Hatton, and the patronage of Wombridge Priory. He stands first witness of a grant ^^° to the latter house which bears date about 1228-9. There are three lists of John Fitz-Alan's Barony in the Testa de Nevill,^^^ nearly contemporary with each other and of date about 1240-1. In one of these Thomas Corbet is entered as holding Tasley by service of half a knight; in the other two, Thomas Corbet of ™ Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 7 recto. 327 Mot. Fin. Tol. i, pp. 124, 125. 328 Ibidem, p. 125. 329 Testa de Nevill, p. 52. 330 Wombridge Chartnlary. Tit. TTpin- ton. No. 182. 331 Testa de Nevill, pp. 44, 47, 49. • 9:2 MORVILLE. Tasley is returned as holding Hatton and Hadley by a whole knight's fee. It would seem to be he who in 1242^ having been fermor of Hintlesham (Suffolk), and being put in charge at the Exchequer for £50. on that account, gave the King a palfrey to have judgment thereupon. ^'^ • He died in 1247, holding the Manor of Bromley, in capite of the Crown, at a fee-farm rent of £4. The said Manor was worth £11 . 10s. per annum. His next heir was his son Roger, then twenty-five years of age.^^^ On the 28th of August, 1247, the King, at Windsor, received the homage of the said heir, audit was enjoined to Henry de Wingeham and his co-escheater in Staffordshire to give him seizin of Bromley, taking security for a relief of ten merks (£3. Qs. 8«?.), to be paid at Easter and Michaelmas, 1248.^3* Roger Corbet, immediately on his succession, seems to have been involved in a dispute ^^^ with the Prior of Wombridge as to the right of patronage of that house. The details belong to another locality; but it may be here stated that the right under certain limitations was conceded to Corbet. In 1255, the status of the Manor of "Tassele" is thus set forth by the Jurors of Stottesden Hundred. ^^^ "Roger Corbet is Lord, and there are here eight virgates (equal to two hides) of land. They do no suit either to County or Hundred nor pay stretward or motfee the Jurors know not by what warrant. And he holds in chief of John Fitz-Alan for half a knight's fee." These immunities are paralleled in no other of Fitz-Alan's neighbouring Manors. Doubt- less they arose from the original tenancy of Richard Pincerna having been in the privileged demesne-lands of Morville Manor. At the Salop Assizes of January, 1256, the Jurors for Bradford Hundred returned Roger Corbet among those who, being of fuU age and holding a whole knight's fee, were not yet knighted. ^'^ teuanoe of the King's highways ; the lat- ter a contribution to the follc-mote, or Hundred Court. The non-habUity of a Manor, as regarded suit, or actual atten- dance at County or Hundred Court, did not necessarily involve freedom from either impost. ^7 Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III. Flacita CoroncB, memb. 7 dorso. His name is omitted in the similar list given in Mr. Dukes' Introduction, page vii ; but in 3^ Originalia, 26 Hen. Ill, Mot. ii, sui. tit. Salop and Staiford. ^^ Inquisitiones post mortem, 31 Hen. Ill, No. 31. '^ Mot. Fin. vol. ii, p. 18. ^' Pedes finium, 33 Henry III, Salop. ^^ Mot. Hundred, ii, 82. StreUoard and Motfee were both taxes, due to the Crown, and assessed on the hidage of Manors. The former was probably a rate for main- MORVILLE. 93 On the 15th of May, 1359, he was deceased, and the inquest^^^which sat on that day reported his tenure in capite at Bromley as well as that his son and next heir, Thomas, would be eleven years of age on the vigil of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (September 13), next coming. On October 10th, 1259, the King's Mandate ^^s to the Sheriff of Salop afiirms, that, because of Roger Corbet's tenure in capite and death, first seizin of all his lands, of whomsoever held, pertains to the Crown: and therefore the Sheriff is to seize them into the King's hand and commit them to custody of the King's Escheator in the said County till the King command otherwise. At the Forest Assizes of February, 1263,^*" and therefore during the minority of young Thomas Corbet, there was an Inquisition by the Vederers, Regarders, and Foresters of the County, as to "whether the wood of Tasley, which is called The Hoc, and is 'within the bounds of the King's Forest, be within regard or not." The decision was that it was out of regard, and always had been, and that the Lord of Tasley sold the vesture '*^ of the said wood in portions, whenever he willed, and that the said wood is now being sold [modo revenit) . At the same Assizes, and apparently in conse- quence of this verdict, several persons who stood on the list of amercements^*^ for vert, instead of having the usual fine of a shilling placed opposite their names have the words " extra regard " written instead, signifying their acquittal. Of these are William de Fraxino, of Tasley, Henry de Tassewood, William Granger de Tasley, Philip de Tassewood, and three others who seem to have been their pledges. At the same Assizes, ^^^ Roger Corbet, of Hadley (having died nearly three years before) , appears on the list, entitled " Essonia Mortis," as before alluded to. Also Duce Corbet, of Hadley, and Hugh Corbet, of Tasley, appear on the list of common essoigns. Lastly,^** Edelina, widow of Roger Corbet, of Hadley, is put in Shaw's List {Sist. Staff., vol. i, Appendix to Oen. Hist., page xy) he is returned as holding £60 of lands by Knight's service. ^^ Inquisitiones post mortem, 43 Hen. Ill, No. IV. 333 Mot. Fin. vol. ii, page 312. 34" Flacita Foresta, 46 Hen. Ill, Salop, No. IV, memb. 6 dorso. Tasley is one of the vills disforested in the perambulation of this period (vide swpra, p. 45), but is not named in the greater perambulation of 1300 (Salop Chartulary, No. 279). ^^ Vestures were the proceeds of the soil whether cuttings, crops, or fruits. The original idea seems to have considered woods, com, and grass as the clothing of the earth. The secondary idea is before us. The third coined the term investiture, that is, endowment with profits. 3*2 Flacita Forestce (ut stipra), memb. 6 recto. 3^3 Ibidem, 1 recto. Vide supra, page. 81, note 281. ^'^ Ibidem, memb. 6 dorso. 94 MOKVILLE. charge for imbladement within regard of the Forest of Mount Gilbert (the Wrekin). In 52 Hen. Ill (1267-8), Thomas Corbet, of Tasley, had the King's Charter ^*» of free- warren in the Manors of " Hatton " and " Chuhinethe," Salop, if we consult the printed Calendar; but pro- bably the original charter only specifies the single Manor of Hatton super Hineheth (as High Hatton was sometimes called) . At the Forest Assizes 3*5 of November, 1271, Thomas Corbet, of Hadley, was convicted of taking one stag, near Clotlegh (under the Wrekin). At the County Assizes ^^'^ of October, 1273, Thomas Corbet, of Tasley, acknowledges a debt of ^65 as due to Adam de Chetwynd. At the same time he is returned ^*^ by the Stottesden Jurors as one of those who, being of full age and holding a knight's fee, was still not knighted ; and he was also a defaulter in due attendance at the said Assizes. About 1284, Thomas Corbet is returned ^^^ as holding Tasley of Richard Fitz-Alan of the honour of White Minster (Oswestry), by half a knight's fee, and said Richard holds of the King in capite. Shortly afterwards, Dominus Thomas Corbet is witness to a Wombridge Charter,^^" which prefix to his name is usually taken to be equivalent to a title of Knighthood. At the Salop Assizes of October, 1292, he stood as pledge ^^^ for John Fitz-PhUip, Lord of Bobington, then under prosecution of the Crown in a cause of Quo Warranto, and was himself made the subject of a presentment, which placed him in the same predicament.^^^ The Stottesden Jurors reported him as claiming to hold his free *•» Calendar Hot. Chart., page 96, memb. 6. 3« FlacitaForestm, 56 Hen. Ill, Salop, No. 5, memb. 1. *•' Flacita de Juratis et Assizis, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 1 dorso. ^^ Ibidem, Flacita Coronce, memb. 49 dorso. ^^ Kirly's Quest. Stottesden Hundred. '^"Wombridge Chartulary, Tit.Broeton, No. 61. ^^ Flacita de Juratis et Assizis, 20 Edw. I, memb. 37 doreo. ^^ Ibidem, memb. 20 recto. Eoger Corbet's right of holding his Manorial Court twice a year, and judging offences within that Manor, was the correlative of his freedom fi-om suit of the Hundred Court. The privilege of assizing bread and beer (emeudae assizse panis et cer- visise) was a right of prescribing a scale of weights and measures to those who sold such commodities within a Manor ; or, perhaps, it was only a right of assessing and appropriating the penalties of those who transgressed the general statute of 51 Hen. Ill on the subject. The hideous privilege, which follows in the text, requires no explanation, but will hardly have implied much at this period of history. Way f was a Lord's right to stolen goods abandoned, or wanied, by any felon, within his Manor. MORVILLE. 95 court twice a year, to have privilege of assizing bread and beer^ to keep gallows and have wayf in his Manor of Tasley. The trial of this right was postponed ; but he had another prosecution '^' against him, which is, perhaps, worth giving at length : — ■ " Richard de Prestone complaineth of Thomas Corbet, of Tassele, for that on the day of the Invention of the Holy Cross, in the eighteenth year of the King, he seized, or caused to be seized, by Peter de Tassele his servant, in Morfeld, sixteen ewe-sheep of 32*. value, and eleven wethers of 22s. value, and still unjustly detains the same, whereby said Richard says that he is damaged to the extent of 100s., and thereof he produceth witnesses [sectam), &c. The same Richard de Prestone complaineth of William Crasset that on Wednesday, in the feast of the Decollation of St. John Baptist, in the King's niueteenth year, he took two of said Richard's cows, of 20s. value, and one heifer of half a merk value, and caused them to be driven to the Manor of Thomas Corbet de Tasley, at Adlee (Hadley), and there detains them; whereby he (Richard) hath damage of 40s. ; and thereof he produceth witnesses." " And Thomas Corbet and William Crasset appear, and deny the violence and injury, &c. And Thomas Corbet saith that the sheep belonged to Richard Fitz-Thomas, his villain ; and that he seized them as his own proper chattels, and in his own demesne, as he was well entitled to do. And hereof he puts himself upon the Country (a Jury) ; and Richard de Preston likewise (puts himself) ." "And William Crasset saith that Richard de Preston impleaded the aforesaid Thomas Corbet in the County (Court) for unjust seizure of said cows and heifer, and the result was that they were adjudged to Thomas Corbet as chattels of Richard Fitz-Thomas, his villain ; and that under that decision he (William), as the King's BaUifij and by order of the Sheriff, seized them and delivered them to Thomas Corbet." (The sentence.) "Because William Crasset acknowledges the seizure, and now shows no warrant whereby he could have any authority to seize the said beasts or deliver them to Thomas Corbet, it is decreed that Richard de Preston do recover the cows and heifer, as against William Crasset, and his damages, which are taxed at two merks. And let William Crasset be kept in custody." " And as to the sheep (the Jurors find that) they were Richard Fitz-Thomas' s, and given by him into charge of Richard de Preston, and Thomas Corbet took them, the said Thomas not being seized ^^ Placita de Juratis ef Asdzis, 20 Edw. I, memb. 52, recto. 13 96 MORVILLE. of Richard Fitz-Thomas as of a villain by whom he could claim to appropriate sheep as his own proper chattels. And because it is found by the Jury that Thomas Corbet seized them^ &c., out of his demesne^ 8lc., although they were Eichard Fitz-Thomas' s, of whom he was not possessed, as of a villain- — it is decreed that Richard recover the sheep and his damages, which are taxed by the Jury at 30s., against said Thomas Corbet. And Thomas Corbet is in miser icordia." At Lichfield, on January 7th, 1293, Thomas Corbet was sum- moned by the Crown to show by what warrant ^^* he claimed to hold pleas of the Crown, and have free-warren, wayf, &c., in his Manor of Tasley. " And Thomas appears and says that as regarded pleas of the Crown, he claims two free courts in the year and to hold all pleas therein, which the Sheriff holds in his towns, and to have wayf in the said Manor, because he says that he and his ancestors from time immemorial have held the said two Courts, and had the said wayf. And by that warrant he claims the said liberties." And Hugh de Louther, who prosecutes for the Crown, says that Thomas cannot claim such liberties from so long a time, because that in time of King Richard, ancestor of the King, that is, the men of the aforesaid Manor used to come to the town of the Sheriff, and there be amerced for hue and cry and for bloodshed, and used there to present wayf and brewers in the said Manor, until Thomas's ancestors occupied said liberties over the King's ancestors." " Thomas rejoins with the assertion that both he and his ancestors, both before and ever since the time of King Richard, have had said liberties. And he asks that this may be inquired of (by Jury) ." " The Jury say upon their oath that Thomas and his ancestors from time immemorial have enjoyed the said liberties." " Thei-efore Thomas, sine die, &c. as regards this matter, saving the King's right, &c. And as regards free-warren Thomas claims nothing. So let it remain to the King." ^^ Flacito de Quo Warranto, p. 707. The privileges enumerated differ some- thing from those mentioned hefore. Free- warren was a privQege, arising either by prescription or royal license, and which conTeyed a right to certain animals, fercB natura, within a specified district. It did not extend to deer. The amercement for "hue and cry" means the fine assessible on a Village or Manor for neglecting, when summoned, to take part in pnrBuit of felons. Any ma- norial privilege connected with the sub- ject was not the liberty of neglecting it, but of being amerced at home for such neglect, the Lord receiving the proceeds. Similarly as regards lloocUhed, any quarrel or assault which ended in the drawing of blood was punishable by a proportionate fine, which, in this instance, the Lord of the Manor claimed to assess and appro- priate. MOllVILLE. 97 A similar prosecution ^^^ of Thomas Corbet was gone into at Lichfield for exercise of certain liberties in his Manor of King's Bromley. Here he pleaded King John's Charter of the Manor to Cecily de Hadley and her heirs, and that such liberties were always annexed to the said Manor both before and since King John's grant. Hugh de Louther denied that such liberties could attach to any Manor, or that any one could claim them without special warrant from the Crown, and whereas Corbet's Charter made no mention of such liberties, he asked judgment for the King. This cause was adjourned, to be heard before the King himself on the morrow of Ascension Day. About this time Thomas Corbet had a suit ^^^ against Robert de Turbeville, Canon of St. Mary Magdalene, of Bridgnorth, about lands in Tasley, which said Robert claimed in right of his Prebend. In 36 Edward I, 1398, a fine ^^"^ was levied between Walter de Langton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and Thomas Corbet, of Tasley, defendant, of the advowson of the Church and Manor of Tasley. The light remained to the Bishop and his heirs. This fine implies, I presume, the sale of all Corbet's interest here, though the distiactive name of Corbet of Tasley ^^* was retained by his family for some time after. We will follow the last, who properly bore that name, to the close of his career, which was near at hand. He accounts ^'^ as Sheriff of Salop and Staffordshire for half the fiscal year ending Michaelmas, 1398, and again, for the full year endiug Michaelmas, 1399 ; but dying in office, his son and heir Sir Roger accounts for the half year ending Easter, 1300; the King's precept ordering the usual inquisition ^^° on the death of a tenant in capite, issued May 10th, 1300. Two such were held, one at Hatton super Hyneheth, on June 13th following; the other ^» Placita de Quo Warranto, p. 712. ^^ Antiquities of Shropshire by T. F. Dukes, Esq., page 262. Knowing that this Kobert de TurbeviU had the Prebend of Walton, and that an ancestor of Thomas Corbet's had a suit about land in Tasley with a former Prebendary of Bridgnorth, it becomes probable that the same pre- mises were in dispute in each case, and that thePrebend concerned was in each case that of Walton. I shall therefore have rightly placed Wm. de Pierpoint in that dignity, a matter which, tUl now, was doubtful. Vide supra, p. 73. ^' Antiquities of Shropshire. Ibm. Surely there is a mistake in the precept of King Edward I there quoted, whereby in his 29th year he respites " the demand made by summons of the Exchequer on Rohert Corbet for the debts of Sir Thos. Corbet, of Tasley, his father, the said Hohert " (it ought to be Roger) "having been in the King's service in Scotland." ^^ Vide Farliamentary Writs, vol. iv, p. 717. ^^ Sheriffs of Shropshire, p. 9. ^0 Inquis.post mortem,iB'E:A.l, No. 17. 98 MORVILLE. at King's Bromley on June 9th. These inquests detail the whole property of the deceased, whether in Shropshire or Staffordshire, but of course Tasley is not on the list. His son and nearest heir was Roger Corbet, aged 27, at Michaelmas preceding (1299).— Both he and his descendants belong to a later epoch and another locality than those at present under notice. THE CHAPEL OK CHUECH OF TASLEY. About A. D. 1138, when Robert de Betun, Bishop of Hereford, granted to Salop Abbey an appropriation of the Church of Mor- ville, he included certain pensions due from the Chapels subject to the said Church. Among the said pensions was one of half a merk due from the " Chapel of Tasseley." ^^' There is a certificate ^^^ in the Salop Chartulary as to an agree- ment, which must have been arrived at about a.d. 1190, and to which Hugh Abbot of Shrewsbmy and the Lord WiUiam Fitz- Alan were chief parties. It concerned the land of Hinele (Henley) and the right of presentation to the Chapel of Tasley. It was agreed that William Fitz-Alan and his heirs should hold the land of Hinele with its appurtenances, paying a rent of 2s. per annum to the Abbot. It was also agreed that William Fitz-Alan was to have the right of presentation to Tasley Chapel, but that the Clerk then holding said Chapel, as well as his successors, was to pay an annual pension of half a merk to the Abbot and Convent of Shrewsbury, "that is to their Church of Momerfeld," and to do fealty to said Abbot, as regarded said payment, before institution. The Abbot granted to the said Parson of Tasley the tithes of Henley, the Parson paying Is. annually for the same to the Abbot, and undertaking for himself and successors to swear fealty (in this matter) to the Church of Salop. The witnesses to this agreement were W. (Wm. de Vere) d. g. Bishop of Hereford, Master Robert of Salop (consecrated Bishop of Bangor in 1196-7), and Warin de Castello. In 1293, the Church of Tasseleye in Stottesden Deanery was not of £■! value to the Incumbent.^^^ The portion (or pension) of the Prior of Momerfeld in the same is stated at 7s, 8d. (a remarkable verification of the document quoted above, which reserved two sums of 6s. 8d. and Is. to the Abbot) . 30' Salop Chartulary, No. 334. I ^'^ Tax. Pap. Nich. page 166. 3»2 Ibidem, No. 106. I MORTIUiE. 99 In 1341 J the Chapel of Tasseleye ^e* is taxed (valued) at 6 merks 7s. Hd. (£4. 7s. 8cl.) according to the old taxation (of Pope Nicholas), " but the Assessors and Vendors render account of 20s. for the ninth of grain, wool, and lamb in the same parish, so little in proportion to the taxation, because the grain is destroyed by great storms and a yery bad season, and because there are no sheep (consequently), no wool or lambs in the said parish, and because the small tithes, the mill,'^' the offerings, the heriots, and the glebe of the said Church and other spiritualities go to make up the great (taxation or) sum, and which have no relation (to the present ninth) as by inquisition (is determined)." INCUMBENTS OP TASLET. 6 id. Dec. (Dec. 8) 1277. Sir Robert de Staunford, Chaplain, was admitted, on presentation of Sir Thomas Corbet of Tasley. 2 id. Feb. (Feb. 12) 1305. Malcolm de Kynsedelegh (Kinslow), Acolyte, was admitted, on presentation of Nicholas de Ebroicis (Devereux) . 3 id. Oct. (Oct. 13), 1310. Geoffry de Kynsedel (Kinslow), Clerk, was admitted, on presentation of the same Patron. ^^^ It IS NOT ALWAYS that the generations of a family, of mere knightly degree, can be traced with certainty up to the begiuning of the thirteenth century. The latter half of the twelfth century is, in similar iuvestigations, a limit not often surpassed with probable truth, whilst its earlier half is only a field for the wildest conjecture. The following genealogy of the Corbets of Tasley, not trespassing either upon time or truth, will have the usual interest which attaches to the latter, and an important use beside. The alternate occurrence of two Christian names, and an unquestionable accuracy of date, render it peculiarly available for an ulterior purpose. — Many an undated charter, attested by some representative of this *"'' Inguisitiones Nonarum, page 190. 365 A mill is mentioned in Domesday as included in the tenure of Bichard Pincerna. 3™ Blakeway MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. Oxon. 100 MOBVllJ.E. house, will be quoted hereafter, and its date proximately ascertained by aid of the subjoined pedigree. — Corbet of Tasley, HADLEy, High Hatton, and King's Beomley. Eoger Corbet of Tasley, and jure =t= Cecilia, (?«»•. and s.S. =P 2dhusband,Baldwin uxoris of Hadley, High Hatton, and King's Bromley. Infi: cetat. 1180. Befs. May, 1204. of Alan de Hadley and Alice PantuK de Hodnet, Lord of Hodnet, and Senes- chal of Montgomery. Married to Cecily, circa Aug. 1204. Defs. Jan. 1225. Thomas Corbet of Tasley, Hadley, High Hatton, and King's Bromley. Infr. cBtat. 1204. Flena: Hat. 1221. Defs. Aug. 1247. Odo de Hodnet. jBf.ffiiai. Jan. 1225, ob. circa, 1284. Eoger Corbet of Tasley, &c. Born =p Edelina, dar. of circa 1222. Nondum miles, Jan. 1256. Defs. May, 1259. ***** Superstes,\262, and 1271. Thomas Corbet of Tasley, &o. Bom Sept. 13, 1248. Has free-warren at Hatton, 1268. Sheriff of Salop and Staff. 1298, 1299, and 1300. Defs. May, 1300. Eoger Corbet of Hadley,High Hatton, and King's Bromley. Born Sept. 29, 1272. Accounts as Sheriff vice patris defuncti 1300. Livmg 1349. AEMS OF CORBET, OS TASLEY, &c. The Arms prominently borne by this branch of the Corbets (either singly or as a first quarter) were charged with two bars, a canton, and sometimes a label. These are understood to have been the arms of Hadley, but, if so, were probably borne only by Cecily, the MORVILLE. 101 last of that house. The two bars (the chief constituent of the shield) were the hearing of Pantulf of Wem, of which family was Cecily's mother. Moreover, in Cecily de Hadley, we reach the earHest probahle period at which armorial bearings were adopted by families of only knightly degree. But the Corbets of Bromley bore occasionally, and as a quar- tering, what they must have held to be their paternal coat. It was charged with three ravens ; a circumstance which should have its weight in any future conjecture as to their cadency from the parent house, or their relations to any other branch thereof.^" HENLEY. Of this vill, as has before been hinted, Warin, the Sheriff, was Lord before the time of Domesday. He gave,'^^ towards the con- struction of Shrewsbury Abbey, two-thirds of the tithes of his demesnes of Hennele, &c. ; and this grant was recited and con- firmed by Earl Hugh, if we may so far trust a less suspicious Charter than that before ^^9 alluded to. About 1138, Robert (de Betun), Bishop of Hereford, confirming^^o to Shrewsbury Abbey, classifies under the head of tithes, which had been anciently given by great men in his diocese to the "sustenta- tion" of said Abbey, two parts of the tithes of the Lord^n (or demesne ^7i) of Heneleg. Between a.d. 1148 and 1164, G-. (Gilbert), Bishop of Hereford, confirming ^'^ to the same Abbey " tithes granted in his diocese to the construction of the Church by good men," includes tithes of the demesne of Heneleg. Ralph, the Dean, and the Canons of the Chapter of the Church of Hereford, inspected, recited, and confirmed ^^s the last deed. These tithes of Henley have already been mentioned as having been given up to the Incumbent of Tasley about a.d. 1190. The deed to Bishop Geoffry (1115-1119), but against strong internal evidence. The in- consistency seems to have been recognized by Mr. Blaieway, — but in attributing the deed to Bishop Giles (de Braose) he seems to have forgotten that, in that case, the initial letter E would have been employed in a Latin deed, Bgidius being the Latin of G-iles (Vide Hist. Shrews. ii, 92). 373 Ibidem, No. 332. 3*' Vide Shaw's StaffordsTiire, vol. i, pp. 143, 144 ; and Farliamentary Writs, vol. iv, p. 715. ^ Salop Chartulary, No. 3. ^^ Vide swpra, page 33, note 12. 3'» Salop Chartulary, No. 334. 371 The contracted form of the original does not apparently make the choice be- tween these two readings quite clear. 372 Salop Chartulary, No. 331. The Index of the Chartulary Assigns, this 102 MORVILLV,. Abbey was to receive in lieu thereof I*, yearly ; — and we must not forget that William Fitz-Alan, the then representative of the original grantor (Warin), was a party to this transaction. There is a further document ^t* on the Salop Chartulary, and one which probably alludes to a renewal of the dispute, between the Abbey and William Fitz-Alan, above mentioned. It is a certificate by Egidius (Giles de Braose), Bishop of Hereford, that disputed tithes of Weston and of the demesne of Henel belong to Salop Abbey. _ It must have passed in the beginning of the 13th century, and, as far as regards Henley, will constitute a further proof of the reality of certain early grants, which have (unfortunately for monastic reputation) been embodied in suspicious charters.375 ^* Ibidem, No. 352. 375 The Charter (No. 3), which is here alluded to, is in many respects an im- proTement on No. 5, (described page SB), but is by no means clear from suspicion. The Earl professes to seal it with his seal and speaks in the first person ; yet it is attested by Warin the Sherifi', who was dead at least eight years before Earl Hugh's succession, and by Kichard, Bishop of London, who was not consecrated tiU ten years after Earl Hugh's death. Mr. Stapleton's remarks {Sot. Norm. I, Itcxit) which excuse certain inconsistencies in the testing clauses of fearly charters will hardly extend to a case hke this. "There is a third charter of Earl Hugh (No. 4 in the Salop Chartulary) which is very different from the two others in many respects, and especially in having a consistent testing clause. It is remarkable that this third charter was confirmed in its own terms, both by Henry I. and Stephen, and was afterwards cited in the Law-Courts; circumstances whichlcannot find to have befallen the documents, which, from their internal evidence only, I have treated as suspicious. 103 tertitnatxin anti d^uatforlr. The first name used generally to be written Ardinton, a word compounded of the Saxon cun^ a town or inclosure, and Harding, its founder or early possessor, A place in "WarwiekshirCj which has settled into a similar modern form, stands in Domesday, with still greater etymological correct- ness, as Hardintone} The period and circumstance of Harding's interest here have no other record than is implied by his Saxon name. In King Edward the Confessor's time this Manor belonged to Saint Milbwrg, that is, to the Monastic House at Wenlock, which was dedicated to her memory. On the forfeiture of the Earls of Mercia in 1071, and the consequent revolution in this County, the rights of St. Mnburg at Eardington seem to have been disregarded, and the Manor appropriated by the Norman Earl himself. In 1086, like other Manors of the said Earl's demesne, its Hundred is not recorded, but situation and tenure are alone sufficient to place it in Alnodestreu. It is noticed in Domesday thus : ^ — " The Earl himself holds Ardintone. Saint Milburg held it in time of King Edward. Here are 5 hides. In demesne there is 1 ox-team; and 4 serfs and 9 villaias and 2 boors, with 3 ox- teams ; and there may yet be 8 ox- teams (more employed). Here is a MiU worth 5s? (annually). ' 2)ome«(?oy,fo.243,a.l. But Hardinges- tone (Northants), so written in Domes- day (fo. 228, b. 1) and still bo called, pre- serves the original name completely. 2 Domesday, fo. 254. a. 1. Ipse Comes tenet Ardintone. Sancta Milburga tenuit tempore Eegis Edwardi. Ibi v hidse. In dominio est i carruca et nil serri et ix villani et ii bordarii cum iii carrucis et adhuc viii carruese possent esse. Ibi molendinum de iii oris et nova domus et burgum Quatford dictum nil reddens. Tempore Kegis Edwardi valebat xl solidos. Modo XXX solidos. 3 Literally " a Mill of 3 ounces," tbat is, a Mill worth 3 ounces in money per annum. The ora, or nummulai-y ounce, was the twelfth part of a pound, and so of 20 pence value. 14 104 QUATl'ORD. and a Borough called Quatford paying nothing. In time of King Edward the (annual) value (of the Manor) was 40*., now it is 30«." The Borough or Town of Quatford, and the Earl's Castle there (which, in its early stage, might very possibly be set down as merely a house), were therefore, in 1085, part of the Manor of Eardington, and destined in a short period to much greater importance. There is a legendary tde about Quatford, which is so perfectly consistent with Domesday, that, while adding to that Eecord an unusual interest, itself becomes stamped with a grand mark of probability. To arrive at this coincidence in due chronological order, we must first speak separately of Quatford, a place whose history will, for the present, take us back to a period much earlier than Domesday. The name of this place is referable to the vast forest [coed) which thirteen centuries ago covered the whole adjacent district, and which has since been represented by the great, but never equal, Forest of Morf. The British Coed is remembered in the name of another village, viz., Quat,^ — where, however, the uncompoimded form has been curiously reassumed. The Saxon era had accurately distinguished these two locahties according to then existing circumstances. That part of the forest which was occupied as a village became Cpaccun (Cwattun, i.e. Quat-town) , and Quatone was accordingly the name of Quat when Domesday was written. Another part, not yet colonized, the Saxons called Cpatfopb (Cwatford), in allusion to an adjacent and passable part of the river Severn. In the autumn of 896, King Alfred and the men of London blocked up, or stranded, a Danish fleet which had ascended the Thames and the Lea. The Danes, despairing of their ships, forsook them, sought an asylum for their wives in East Anglia, and marched overland to a place (afterwards*) called Quat-bridge, on the Severn. ' Seethe Saxon Chromde, which says I Cpatbjiioje be Ssef epn (to Cwatbricge by (sub anno 896) that the Danes came £cC I Severn). See also Florence of Worcester) QUATFORD. 105 Here they intrenched themselves and passed the winter. In the following summer (897) they separated; part of them returning into East Anglia, the others going into Northumberland. No remains of this Danish fortification at Quatford are now traceable, and it may be doubted whether the exact spot occupied by their army was identical with the site of the present village. An adjacent ford of the Severn still retains the name of Danesford, and corroborates the story of their visit to the neighbourhood. In the year 913, ^gelfleda, Queen of the Mercians, built a fortress in a place which, in Florence of Worcester's time, was called Brycge.^ who says, " locum qui Quatbrycge dicitur pedestres celeri faga petunt." I refer to both these authorities, be- cause it is quite clear to me that though Florence of Worcester derived his infor- mation from a Saxon Chronicle, it was from a different MS. to any now extant ; and, I almost dare add, a more authentic one. I cannot subscribe to all which the Editors of the Saxon Chronicle have claimed for it. If indeed it was originally the work of successive annalists, each giv- ing the history of his own time, such original texts must in many instances have been interpolated by more modern tran- scribers. I believe we have a case before ns. I cannot suppose for an instant that in the year 896 there was a bridge over the Severn at or near Quatford, nor that, if there were, would a contemporary Saxon have described it as " Cwatbricge by Severn," words which are only referable to a period when there was both a bridge and a village in the locality. The word " bridge" is therefore an in- terpolation by some one transcribing the older document at a time when there was a bridge at Quatford, and which was probably not till the end of the eleventh century. Florence of Worcester, on the other hand, using the same original authority and vrriting, as we know, in the very be- ginning of the twelfth century, inter- polates the same passage much more truly and intelligibly. He describes the Danes as flying to the place (not town) which is called Quat-bridge — that is, called so af the time when he was writing. This is not the only instance which I have met with, where the ipsissimaverba of Florence convey a truth not deducible fi-om any extant copy of the Saxon Chronicle. Again, if Quatford were only Quat/brd in 1085, and if the next ford of the Severn still witnesses the cii-eumstance of the Danish visit in its name of Danes/brrf, how is it supposable that such local ad- vantages would have been memorialized, even in a name, at a period when (if we read the Saxon Chronicle literally) there was the adjacent and greater commodity of a bridge ? All we can safely conclude on this sub- ject is then, that the Danes in 896, having lost their fleet, came and wintered in the forest by the Severn ; and Florence of Worcester, two centuries after, understood the. place then called Quatbridge, to have been the site of their encampment. Their object in coming to " the forest by the river " when they had lost their ships is obvious. ' Vide Sax. Chron. sub anno 912, and Flor. Wigorn. sub anno 913. Where again Florence is the most accurate. In rejecting Quatford as the Brug of Ethel- fleda, we need not rely only upon a balance of conflicting testimony. Probability is also strongly in our favour ; for we have every reason to beUeve that Quatford, or rather its site, as involved in Eardington, was part of the original endowment of St. Milburg. If so, there is little hkeUhood that a Saxon Queen should have intruded her Castle upon the domain of a Saxon 106 QUA'iTORD. This foundation has often been identified with Quatford, so oftenj that, however erroneous the tradition be, it requires this passing mention. The best authority places Jigelfleda's foundation on the Western Bank of the Severn, and we must seek it there. The next notice which we have of Quatford introduces the Legend already aUuded to, and which, while it professes to tell how this spot was selected for the foundation of a great Collegiate Church, may inferentially be taken to account for the origin of both a Castle and a Borough. This story is contained in a Chronicle, either written or procured to be written by John Bromton, Abbot of Jorval, in the reign of King John. As the whole passage is to our purpose it shall be given at length, and, as nearly as a translation wiU permit, in the writer's words. The death of Earl Roger de Montgomery having been described, the narrative proceeds as follows :* — " This Roger in his lifetime and the said Adelissa his wife did build a church in honour of the blessed Mary Magdalene, in Quad- ford, in the county of Salop, one mile from Bruggenorth. Of which building the cause, as is said, was this : — When forsooth the said Lady Adelissa, at mandate of the said Earl her husband, was first coming to him from beyond sea into England, and was on her voyage, lo ! such a storm of wave and wind shook the vessel that she and her suite, when now the mariners were in despair, looked for nothing but shipwreck. And when a certain priest of the said Countess, wearied by over- watching, had fallen, as God willed, into slumber, he saw in his sleep a certain matron standing nigh to him and speaking thus — ' If thy lady would wish to save herself and her attendants from the present dreadful danger of sea, let her make a vow to God and faithfully promise to build a church in honour of the blessed Mary Magdalene on the spot where she may first happen to meet her husband, the Earl, in England ; and specially where there groweth a hollow oak and the wild swine have shelter.' ^ " And when the priest awoke he told each particular of the vision Saint, though the forest-loving Worman and the heathen Dane had less or no such scruple. ' Chron. Joh. Bromton inter x Scrip- tores, page 988. ' I take a liberty in the translation of this passage. The original is " Et pr£e- cipue ubi conoava quercus cum tigurio porcorum crescit." The visionary shed may have been an artificial one. Some occasional receptacle wiU have been neces- sary for the vast herds of swine which were driven into the greater forests during the season of pannage. I do not remem- ber that Oiirth had such accommodation, but the house of Cedric was near enough to afford nightly shelter to him and his charge. QUATFORD. 107 to his lady. Who, when she had heard and vowed to fulfil all things, the tempest being presently calmed, soon arrived with her attendants at the desired shore. And she, toiling through many days travel from the sea towards her lord, met him first at Quatford, which was then desert, in the spot where the very oak was growing and he hunting. And him she forthwith besought that he would aid her to fulfil the vow which she vowed in her danger as to building a Church in honour of the blessed Mary Magdalene. And he acquiescing in the vows of his wife built, with her, the aforesaid Church, which, though then he endowed it with great possessions, yet now with all its rights and appurtenances seemeth to be subject to the' free Eoyal Collegiate Chapel situate in the Castle of Brug- genorth and endowed with one Deanery and five Prebends out of the aforesaid possessions. The which Deanery and Prebends the King indeed conferreth of his own right and custom ; although, in nearly all other Collegiate Chapels, the Deans, being installed by the Sheriff at the King's coUation, and inducted into corporal possession of the Deaneries, confer all Prebends in the same Chapels and install, induct, and visit the Prebendaries. But, in the aforesaid Chapel of Saint Mary Magdalene, the Dean confers no Prebend, nor visits Prebend or Prebendary; but each, in the corps of his own Prebend, hath and exerciseth plenary jurisdiction as well in things spiritual as in things temporal." The whole of this narrative is credible in itself and minutely consistent with other ascertained facts ; nor need we take exception even to the Priest's dream, for who knows not that the feverish sleep of over-fatigue will invest our previous hopes and anxieties with some garb of life-like reality. Moreover this Priest lived at a time when Priests were taught to believe in and to expect such special revelations of the divine will. Parts of this story, nevertheless, require explanation; and the whole of it must be tested by other facts and dates before we admit it to that credence which the details of a legend most seldom deserve. Mabil, first Countess of Earl Roger de Montgomery, was mur- dered at Buris, a town on the river Dive in Normandy, and buried on Dec. 5, 1082, at Troam.^ The Earl's second marriage to Adelais daughter of Ebrard de Pusey, one of the chief nobles of France, must have followed immediately; for their only son, Ebrard de Montgomery, was old enough to frequent the Court of William * Ordericus Vitalis, page 578. 108 QUATFORD. Rufas (who died in 1100) and to attest (as Ebrard Fitz Count) a charter^ of Henry I^ which must have passed in June 1107. More- over Earl Roger mentions his Countess Adelais in a charteri" which dates in or before 1085. The arrival of this lady in England will therefore have been in 1083-4. At that time Quatford was desert^ and the Earl was hunting on the spot where afterwards stood the Church. This is in every way consistent with other facts, for we know that Quatford in after times, constituted a limit of the great Forest of Morf. That the Earl should found a Church at solici- tation of his second wife is only an instance of what Ordericus says generally of this lady in contrast to the Countess Mabil, — "■' for she excelled in understanding and in piety, and oft persuaded her Lord to befriend Monks and to relieve the poor." That the Earl, having resolved on such foundation, and in such a spot, should combine with it other plans, is most reasonable, for an isolated place of worship in Morf Forest would have been an idea little in keeping with a Collegiate Church, though well suited for a Hermitage or even a Monastery. Hence we have the Borough and incipient Castle of 1085, re- corded in Domesday ; hence also the bridge which, in Florence of Worcester's time, had caused the locality to be called Quat-bridge rather than Quat-ford. Domesday says nothing of the Church, but such an omission is perfectly reconcileable with the progress of a building not yet consecrated or endowed . We next come to the ceremony of consecration and the contem- porary charter of foundation. The very day of the former is fixed by an unvouched authority ,^i which is in itself of weight, and is supported by other evidence. The day thus given is July 22, 1086, and two independent facts corroborate it. Robert, Bishop of Chester, who (as we shall see) was present, was not nominated to his See till Dec. 25, 1085. It was also "in time of King William" (as the contemporary Charter declares), and this undistinctive appellation should mean the Conqueror rather than his son Rufus. These two considerations would reduce the date to 1086 or 1087. Moreover, July 22 (the day alleged) was St. Mary Magdelene's Day. When an unvouched date will thus bear testing, it would be absurd not to adopt it. ' New Monasticon, vol. ti, p. 144, II. '" Ord. Vit., page 579. " A MS. notice of Albrighton, lent to me by tlie Rct. G. W. Woodhouse, and understood to have been drawn up by the late Mr. Hardwicte of Bridgnorth — too good an antiquary to assign » date thus positively without sufficient grounds. QUATFORD. 109 The foundation-charterj which is of the recitatory kind^^ in use at the time, must now be given as far as I can collect it from the only copy ^^ ^hich has reached me, and in absence of the invaluable original. " In time of King William, Roger the Earl and Adelaysa the Countess, built a Chiu"ch in Quatford in honour of our Lord Jesus Christ and Saint Mary Magdalene, and all the Saints of God. They gave Ardintone,i* except the laud of Walter the smith and that land which lies between the water and the Mount nigh to the bridge, and except that land where the borough is built, a;nd all its hays and proper chaces quit of aU service and thing." (" Be it 15 known to all, that Roger the Earl gave MUiachope in exchange to St. Milburg for the claim which she had in Ardiuton. There are witnesses — Godebald the priest, Richard de Belmcis, Herbert Grammaticus, Raynald Bailial, Roger son of Corbet.") " And further, they gave the Church of Claverley and the land which pertains to it, with all the tithes, and the Church of Alvethleia (Alveley), * * * Strata via, ***** Norley (Nordley), and Bobinton, and of Laitonia the whole tithes, and the third part of the tithes of Membrefelde (Morville), Ceatintonia (Chetton), and Stotesden and Corf ham and Culminton and Ciratonia (Siefton) : And tithes of the toll of this viU and the holding of market quit (of charge) : And to serve the Church they established there six'^ canons. And all these things did the Earl by concession of his sons, viz. Hugh and Philip, who were there present on the day of dedication, and on that day did give Burechote,^^ as a foundation-gift,^^ qtdt of everything (charge). There are witnesses," fee- — ■2 Vide swpra, page 28, note 3. ^ Lent by the Rev. G-. L. Wasey, and understood to have been taken from a MS. of the late Mr. Hardwicke of Bridg- north. I have altered a few letters in the Latin copy, of no importance to the general sense, but only where the original had been manifestly mistaken. " One great fact in_ favour of this Charter is its extraordinary agreement with Domesday and with probability. It speaks of Quatford only as a part of Ear- dington. The spot between the water (the Severn) and the Mount, which secured to the Castle the command of the bridge, and is still to be identified, the site of the borough and probably the hays and chaces were aJl on the Quatford side of the river. 15 This is evidently parenthetical, but yet in the nature of a title-deed to Ear- dington, and so very reasonably inserted. 1^ This again is perfectly consistent with Bromton's account, which has shown us that the Deanery (or sixth Cauonry) involved nothing more than a titular su- periority over the others. 1? It is Burcot in Worfield Manor, and the latter was the only possession of Hugh de Montgomery in Domesday, Domesd. 248, b. 1. '^ " In doario." Doarinm is explained no QUATFORD. The list of these witnesses shall be given in full, together with those dates and facts which must stamp the whole account with a final seal of unquestionable consistency and truth. They were, — WuLSTAN, Bishop of Worcestee. — The only English prelate who, having sat before the Conquest, survived the Conqueror. Hence his precedency on the list. He was now (1086) eighty years of age, but lived till 1095. Robert, Bishop or Hereford. — Consecrated Dec. 39th, 1079 ; died June 26th, 1095. Much of the above-recited endowment lay in his diocese. EoBERT, Bishop of Chester. — Robert de Limesey, nominated to his see on Dec. 25th, 1085 ; died Aug. 30th, 1117. Quatford was then in his diocese. (The above " were there present to dedicate the Church.") Hamefrid, Archdeacon.^ — Probably Heinfrid, who occurs^' as Archdeacon of Hereford in 1109. William, Archdeacon. — Probably of Salop (Hereford diocese). Such an one was in office between 1108 and 1115.^" Herbert Grammatictjs. — Archdeacon of Salop (Chester diocese) . As Herbert Archdeacon he attested a charter ^^ of Earl Roger to Salop Abbey, which must have passed between 1083 and 1086. He is also mentioned by Ordericus^^ as one of the wise and moderate men, or rather as one oi three learned clerks whose society Earl Roger much affected, and by whose counsels he was advantageously guided. Osbert, Archdeacon — Whose Archdeaconry I am unable to assign, except that either he or the next witness was most probably Archdeacon of Stafford, seeing that Quatford was in that jurisdic- tion. No list of these dignitaries ascends early enough to solve this conjecture. Frederic. — Evidently an Archdeacon, from his position on the list, but I cannot assign his province. by Du Cange, " Donatio a fundatore facta ecclesise recens edificatae." IS Additions to Le Neve's Fasti, by T. Dnffua Hardy, Esq. 20 Sot. Pat. 22 Ed. Ill, part 3, memb. 34. I think Le !Neve has made a mistake in putting him on the hst of Archdeacons of Hereford in A.D. 1111. 21 Mm. Ill, page 518, No. II, and page 522, No. X, where his fellow-wit- nesses are Warin the Sheriff, Godebald the Priest, Koger Corbet, and others. 22 Ord., page 522, B. Mr. Blakeway, quoting this passage (Hist. Shrews. I, 37) has added a note (No. 4) wherein he has identified Herbert "the wise Clerk" with Herbert son of Helgot, — a mistake which it does not need the aid of the above Charter to correct. QUATFORD. Ill Elirich, Archdeacon. — Perhaps Agelric, ArcMeacon of Wor- cester/3 in office 1089 and 1093. GoDEBALDj Priest. — Another of the " three wise clerks," named by Ordericus-* as Earl Roger's companions and advisers. In 1085 he held LilleshuU, Uckington, Atcham, and Preston, of the Church of St, Alkmond, Shrewsbury.^^ To Preston he bequeathed its distinctive name of Preston Gubbalds. His possessions descended to " de Beimels.-" Richard, Monk op Wenlock. — A house which Earl Roger had refounded in 1080. Raynold, oe St. ]?eteb's, Salop.- — Originally a Monk of Seez, but whom Ordericus ^^ mentions as having been sent, in 1083, to superintend the building of Salop Abbey. Restold, of St. Peter's, Gloucester. — Probably a Monk of that great Monastic House, then in Worcester Diocese. OsBERT FiTZ Richard. — Baron of Burford and Richard's Castle ; a tenant in capite ia many counties, and holding, in 1085, Badger, Ryton, and Brocton binder Earl Roger.^'' Roger de Laci — Baron of Ewyas. A tenant both in capite and under Earl Roger in Shropshire. His nearest Manor to Quatford held, iu 1085, of the Earl, was Higford. Roger Corbet. — Roger, son of Corbet, Baron of Cans ; a frequent witness of Earl Roger's charters. He is mentioned by Ordeiicus -^ as one of the men, faithful and very valiant, whom the Earl employed in government of his Province. Ursus, Sheriff — Urso d'Abitot, Sheriff of Worcester- shire and ancestor of Beauchamp. Besides a tenure in capite in several counties, he held Salwarp^^ in 1085 under Earl Roger. Hblgot de Stanton. — One of the Earl Roger's Barons, and holding Stanton, Broseley, Meadowley, and many other Manors of the Earl in 1085. He was founder of Castle Holgate, and a great benefactor to Shrewsbury Abbey. Herbert his Son — who succeeded him not only in estate biit in liberal grants to Shrewsbury Abbey .^^ He appears as an under- tenant in several Domesday Manors. 23 Le Neve's Fasti, page 302. ^ Ord. page 522, B. 2° Domesd. 253 a, 1. 28 Ori. page 581. 27 See Table, page 18. 28 Ord. page 522, B. 29 Domesday, 176 a, 1. 3" Salop Charliilarii, Nos. 1, 35, &e. 15 112 QUATKORD. Noiwj AN Venatob.— Held, amongst other Manors, Albrighton^i of the Earl. He was a benefactor to Salop Abbey. EoGER HIS Brother.— Called in Domesday Roger Venator. His fief under the Earl in 1085 included Beckbury.^^ Arthur, Sheriff. Adric de Wenlock.— Edric, sonofAluric, held Burton under Wenlock Priory in 1085.''3 SiwARD.— Probably Siward surnamed Grossus, a great assistant of Earl Roger in the foundation of Salop Abbey. He is mentioned more than once in Domesday. Aldred his Brother.— Siward had a son named Aldred/* whose disposition was other than friendly to religious endowments. I mention him merely to show the name in the family, not from any idea that Siward's son and brother have been confounded. Augustine. — Earl Roger had a tenant ia Sussex of this name.^^ Several Saxons, called Austin in Domesday, had held lands in Shropshire before the Conquest. TocHi.— Held, in 1085, Aston (BottereU) under Rainald the sheriff,88 and Woodcote under Robert Fitz Tetbald,^'' who both held under the Earl. Coram. Warlance Pitz Algar. The Charter, after invoking a blessing on all promoters of this pious undertaking, concludes with an appalling malediction on any who should iaterfere with its endowments. At that period it was not deemed inconsistent thus to guard a foundation which had for its object the teaching of Christianity. Neither Papal Bull nor Norman Charter is to be accounted one whit less genuine for embodying such a supplement. To Earl Roger, on his death in July 1094, succeeded his second son Hugh. The latter was slain in Anglesey in July 1098, when Earl Robert, his elder brother, who already had the Norman pos- sessions of their father, purchased, from William Rufus, a succession to those in England. He it was who selected the spot afterwards called Bridgnorth as better fitted than Quatford for certain ulterior designs, which, though not of an ecclesiastical character, must have largely affected his father's foundation. To Bridgnorth he 31 See Table, page 18. 32 Vomesd. fo. 259 a. 33 Domesd. fo. 252 b. 3"' Salop Chartulary, Ko. 1. 35 Domesd. fo. 25 b, 2. 3= See Table, page 18. 37 Domesd. fo. 256 b, 2. QUATFOKU. 113 transferred both Castle and Borough. The richly endowed Church naturally followed ; but whether in his time, or by subsequent direction of King Henry I, we are not informed. It was already at Bridgnorth on the accession of Henry II. What we have further to say of Quatford will be chiefly as an appanage rather than the site of this great Collegiate estabhshment. In the thirteenth century we have several notices of small occu- pations, both in Quatford and Eardington, and so on either or both sides of the river Severn. The persons thus interested were probably tenants of the Church. A few shall be mentioned here, and others reserved for Eardington, to which we shall shortly recur. At Salop Assizes, Nov. 1221, Simon de Quatford sued Andrew de More for twenty acres here, alleging that Andrew obtained entry through William de More his father, which William was only tenant for a term by demise of Reginald de Quatford, Simon's father. Andrew pleaded that he was only tenant of half the premises, for that Alan de Pierpoint held ten acres thereof by gift of the same Reginald. Alan, being in CoTu^t, proved the truth of this by production of the deed of feoffment, whereupon Simon was non-suited.^^ About the same time William Fitz Henry, of Brug (Bridgnorth), granted to WiUiam his son twenty-four acres in Quatford. There were witnesses to this grant, William Goldsmith (Aurifaber) and Adam Logain, Provosts of Brug, and Haino le Palmer.^^ About 1260, John Fitz WiUiam Fitz Henry, of the Castle of Brug, warranted to John de Exton, Clerk, twenty-four acres m Quatford, which said John de Exton had pm-chased of William brother of the warrantor. There were witnesses of this, William Bonami and Richard Ardnichun, Provosts of Brug. Walter Palmer and William Palmer.*" About ■1280.« John de Exton, Clerk, surnamed Citator (the Summoner), sold to Richard Dammas, of Brug, Chaplain, land m the field opposite Quatford. There were witn^ses of this, Symon, then Prior of the Holy Trinity of Brug, William Bonami and Roger Feyrchild, Provosts. 38 Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 4 Keginald le Gaugy wlio was murdered at recto. Worfield circa 1250. I shaU have to 3' Blakeway MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. This speak of them aU again when I come to WUliam Fitz Henry, otherwise called Bridgnorth. William of the Castle, was father also of "" Blalceway MSS. ibidem. John of the Ca«tle, of Alan Ktz WiUiam 3 Rot. Pip. 13 Hen. UI, Salop. " Plac. coram Rege, 21 Hen. Ill, memb. 1 dorso. '^ Testa de Nevill. pp. 44, 49. A third and nearly contemporary list (p. 48) gives William de Upton sis holding this half fee. This is a mere mistake ; for in the same third list, Hugh de Upton is properly entered as Lord of Meadowley. UPTON CRESSETT. 141 The next whom I find in this succession was Thomas de Uptonj whoj on 2d January, 1246, was a Juror in a great Inquest as to the Forest-rights of Thomas Corbet, of Cans.^^ In 1255, the Stottesden Jurors returned Thomas de Upton (who was himself one of them) as Lord of Upton, in which were 3^ hides of land, which said Thomas held in capite of John Fitz Alan, for half a knight's fee ; and he did suit to the Hundred Courts, and paid the Sheriff 146?. for stretward, and 28«?. for motfee, but he did no suit to County Court.^'' And shortly after this he will have died, not only as being on the list of February 3, 1262 (wherein persons then dead are entered on an essoign-roU, before described^^), but because, in July, 1256, Hugh de Upton, and William de Upton, successor of Thomas, appear as concerned in an assize of novel disseisin in Upton.^^ This "William de Upton was a Verderer of the Eoyal- Forests. He occurs in that office 22 October, 1259,^" and March, 1262,^^ and as a Juror in severaP^ Inquisitions of January, 1259; September, 1263; and February 1, 1283; soon after which he must have died. This William, Lord of Upton, granted to Robert Niger, of Criddon, half a virgate in Stepleye. — Witnesses, GeofFry de Criddon, Hugh de Holicote (his son), Alan le Harpur.^^ His successor was John de Upton, who is returned about 1284 as holding Hopton of Richard Fitz Alan, by service of half a knight's fee.^* In Oct. 1292, this John served as a Stottesden Juror, and also on the Jury which tried pleas of warranty at Salop.^^ At the Assizes he was reported as of full age, and not yet knighted.^^ He occurs twice as a Coroner in 1297.^'^ He was a Juror on the great Forest perambulation of June, 1300,^^ and in the following year was deceased (as will appear under Meadowley), leaving John, his son and heir, under age ; but who had livery of Meadowley, Oct. 3, 1306.29 In March, 1316, this John is duly returned as Lord of Upton, '" Inquisitions, 30 Hen. Ill, No. 24. 1? Rot. Sund. vol. ii, p. 82. 1* Vide Bupra, p. 81, note 281. 19 Sot. Pat. 40 Hen. Ill, dorso. 2" Usch. 43 Hen. Ill, No. 43. 2' 2>lac. ForestcB, 46 Hen. III. ^ lEscheats, passim, ^ Cressett Evidences, quoted in BlaTce- way MSS. ^ Maa. de quo warr. page 674. ^ Flacita Coronas, memb. 20 recto, 51 recto. ^ Blakeway MSS., as above, and Char- ter at Apley Part. 28 Salop Chartulary, No. 279. ^ Rot. Forinsec. penes Eememera- torem Reginse. 142 UPTON CRESSETT. in Stottesden Hundred.^" He was liviDg in 1244, and had by Jane, his wife, three sons, John, Gny, and Nicholas, and a daughter, Constance, who, marrying Thomas Cressett, left descendants; which descendants, after failure of the male line of " Upton," succeeded to this inheritance, and conferred on the Manor that distinctive name by which it is still known. The evidence regarding this family is sufficiently clear to warrant the insertion of a genealogical table of their descent ; but previous to doing so it may be proper to give abstracts of certain charters quoted from the Cressett evi- dences, by Mr. Blakeway, in his MSS. in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.3i A deed of John, Lord of Upton (1383-1300), mentions Isabella, his wife, and John, his son, and is attested by Ralph de Arraz, Walter de Beysin, Richard Rector of Nenton, and Wydo de Glasele. A deed, dated 18 Edw. Ill (1344-5), shows John, Lord of Upton, enfeoffing Guy, his son, and Margaret, wife of Guy, in lands lately held by John, son of the grantor. In 36 Edw. Ill (1362-3), Guy, Lord of Upton and Stapeley, grants to Nicholas, his brother, Stapeley ; which he, Guy, had by gift of John, their father. In 40 Edw. Ill (1366-7), the same Guy grants to Sir John, Rector of Upton (in trust, I presume), the Manor and Advowson of Upton, and lands which Johanna, his mother, and Nicholas, his brother, held for their lives in Upton and Stapeleye. In 46 Edw. Ill (1372-3), John atte Broke, Parson of Upton, releases the same to Hugh de Upton. In 6 Ric. II (1383-3) Hugh de Upton enfeoffed''^* John de Westwode, Chaplain, in Upton, Stapley, Medeideye, Lye, Criddon, and the Advowson of Upton. This was in trust ; for the same year the said Feoffee granted the premises to Hugh de Upton, and Margaret, his wife, for their lives, with remainders over, viz. 1st, to Peter de Salford; 3dly, to Thomas Cresset, of Garmeston, and the heirs of his body; with remainder to Hugh de Dudmaston, 30 Farl. Writs, vol. iv, p. 398. 3' FwrocMal History, vol. iii, " Upton Cresset." 32 This feoffment of 6 Eich. II was, in the following year (7 Eioh. II), secured by fine between John de Westwode, Chap- lain, and Hugh de Upton and Margaret his wife, defendants, of the Manor of Upton juxta la Clee, to the use of Hugh and Margaret for Hves, with remainder to Thomas Crescet, of Garmeston, and Hs heirs. (Vide Dukes' Antiquities, p. 259.) I should add, that Margaret was surriving in 21 Rich. II (1397-8), and holding Upton of Eitz Alan, by half a knight's fee. {Cal. Each. vol. iii, p. 223.) UPTON CRESSETT. 143 junior, and John de Sydenhale, and the heirs of Hugh ; with re- mainder to the heirs of John de Sydenhale. The last remainder was to the right heirs of Hugh de Upton. Another series of extracts^' from Cressett evidences commences rather earlier, and is as follows : — William Cytharista (Harper), of Upton, with consent of Matilda his wife, and Alan his son, grants to Ralph Pistor (Baker), of Upton, 1 virgate in Upton, which Albrea, his (the grantor's) grandmother, held. — Witnesses : William Fitz Aer, Anketill Clerk of Bruge. Richard and Hugh, sons of Alan de Stapeleye, grant to John, Lord of Upton, a tenement, in Criddon, by concession of Henry the Chaplain, their uncle, to hold to John, and Joanna his wife, and Guy their son, rendering two pounds of wax yearly to the lighting of the Chapel of the Holy Virgin at Chetton.— Witnesses : G-\vydo de Glaseley, Robert de Roshale, and John de Ludlow. This deed was probably of date between 1300 and 1310. In 5 Edw. II (1311-13), Adam, son of William, Lord of Upton, grants to John, Lord of Upton, his nephew, a tenement in Criddon, which he (Adam) bought of Richard, son of Reginald Elyes, of Criddon. The grant is for the lives of Johanna the wife, and Guy the son, of the grantee. The following genealogy of the first Lords of Upton, till the extinction of their male line, is inserted not with any idea of its completeness, but as containing only such particulars as have been collected from first-rate authorities. The Pedigrees given in He- ralds' Visitations are usually much more diffuse. My object, in these cases, is to supply a statement independent of the Visitations, and in agreement with them or not, as the case may be. If found at variance with them, I leave such points to antiquaries who make genealogy a more exclusive study than would suit either the limits or the nature of a work like the present. I must further confess that, supposing our subject were exclu- sively genealogical, few of the Heraldic Pedigrees, which refer to this early period, could be cited even as respectable traditions. 33 Blakeway MSS., Parochial Notices, vol. i, p. 146. 19 144 UPTON CRESSETT. Alan de Opton Occurs c. 1138. Living 1165. Adam de TTpton Occurs 1311-2. WiUiam Gouin, or Goon, of TTpton Occurs 1180. Hugo de Hupton Occurs Nov. 1194. Living 1240. Thomas de TJpton =F Occurs Jan. 1246. Living, 1255. Defs. July, 1256. I John de Upton Occurs c. 1284. Defs. 1301. William de Upton Occurs July, 1256. Occurs Feb. 1283. I John de Upton = Inf. atat. Sep. 1305. Livery Oct. 3, 1306. Married before 1310. Occurs 1344. Defs. 1362. Isabel, dor. of * : Johanna dar. of • * * Nicholas John de Guy Lord of Upton ^ Margaret, dar. of* * * Constance =j= Thomas de Upton Upton Occurs Defs. 1362. 1344. Defs. S.p.&1l.p. 1367. Natus ante 1312. Occurs 1344. Oh. eirc. 1366-7. Occurs 1344. de Upton Hugh de Upton ^ Margaret dar. of * » » * OffuU age, 1372-3. Entails his estates, drc. 1383. Oh, s.p. s. Cressett. A UPTON CRESSETT. 145 The notices of minor tenancies in this Manor relate principally to one family, holding apparently under the Lords of Upton, but itself of some consideration. In November, 1221, Edith, widow of Herbert Pistor, sued William le Harpur (her step-son) for one-third of a hide in Upton, as her dower. William proved that Herbert, his father, obtained the land with a former wife, Dionisia, William's mother, so that a second wife could have no claim of dower thereia.^* At the same time, Adam le Breton had a suit against William le Harpur, which he failed to prosecute. So he and his pledges (Hugh de Upton and Robert de Faintre) were amerced.^^ The deed by which William Citharista {i.e. le Harper) enfeoffed Ralph Pistor here has been already set forth.^^ It must have passed about this time, for William Fitz Aer, the first witness, suc- ceeded after 1221, and Anketill, Clerk of Brug, the second witness, has been already mentioned as attesting earlier in the century.^'' Moreover, ia August, 1226, William le Harpur was found to have disseized Ralph Pistor of IJ acres in Upton (doubtless part of his previous grant), and had to pay 2*. damages.^^ In December, 1250, Herbert Pitz Robert (le Bretun) had sued Alan le Harpur for novel disseisin in Upton,^^ and the cause being decided, a new writ was granted in 1252, whereby 24 knights were to retry it,*" and convict the former Jurors (if their verdict proved false). Master Simon de Wanton was Justiciar in each case. At Salop Assises, January, 1256, it was decided, that Alan le Harpur had not disseized said Herbert of half a virgate in Upton, for that Herbert was a villain, as had previously been proved before Master Simon de Wanton. Alan was guit, and Herbert not amerced becaiise of poverty .*i 8 Nov. 1356, GUes de Erdiaton was ordered to try this cause,-— but the order is cancelled on the RoU,*^ obviously because the officials in London had entered it without adverting to its previous settlement in the country. May, 1269, Alan le Harpur had a suit against William de Hupton ^ Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 4 recto. ^ Ibidem, memb, 7 recto. ^ Vide supra, page 143. ^ Vide Bupra, page 136. ^ Aihreviatio Placitorum, p. 104. S9 Mot. Pat. 34 Hen. III. «> Ibidem, 36 Hen. III. ■■i Salop Assises, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 2 recto. « Sot. Fat. 41 Hen. Ill, dorso. 146 UPTON CRESSETT. (his Lord) for recovery of some right which he had been used to have in William's woods.*^ In October, 1272, this Alan was one of the Jurors for Stottesden Hundred who served at Salop Assizes.** His attestation of a deed of William, Lord of Upton, about this time has already been noticed.*^ THE CHUECH OF UPTON CRESSETT. It is most probable that Upton was part of the great Saxon Parish of Morville. No Church was built here at Domesday, and the founder of one at any subsequent period must have entered into some com- position with Shrewsbury Abbey on the subject. We have pointed out*^ a right of tithes, in some Upton, of Hereford Diocese, as belonging to Salop Abbey early in Stephen's reign ; and, though the right does not subsequently appear, nothing is more possible than that it was in this Upton, and that it was surrendered on the foundation of the Parish Church, of course for some ample consideration. Passing the period when we have analogy only for a guide, we know that in January, 1259, an Assize of darrein presentment to Upton Church had then to be tried between William de Upton (then Lord of this Upton) and Richard Foliot,*^ whom I identify with a contemporary Rector of Chetton. In 1291, the Church of Upton, in the Deanery of Stottesden, was taxed (valued) at £3. 65. M. It was in the first instance assessed to the tenth (6*. M.), though under £4. annual value.*^ A note however states, that it was not elsewhere endowed, and in the end it appears to have been exempted.*' In 1341, the Church of Upton-super -Egge (Edge), in Stottesden Deanery, is entered as one whose taxation was 5 merks (£3. 6s. M.) . The assessors of the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, in the Parish, accounted only for 17s. The difference arose because there were only two fleeces of wool in the Parish, and no lambs ; and " be- cause the vill of Meduleye used to be taxed with Upton, and is *2 Flac. apud Qloucest. 53 Hen. Ill, I « Pope Nich. Tax., p. 166. memb. 12 dorso. 49 ibidem, p. 176, where two Churches, ** Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 21 recto. ^ Vide supra, p. 141. *' Vide supra, page 36, Note 20. ■t? Sot. Fat. 43 Henry III. coUectivelj assessed at £6. 13«., are excused in addition to the ten Churches previously excused. The two were Burwarton and Upton. Rev. J. L. Petit. FONT, UPTON CRESSETT. DOOR-WAY, UPTON CRESSETT. UPTON CRESSETT. 147 now taxed with the Chiirch of Morville ; and because 4 virgates lie untilledj and the tenants of the same have withdrawn, by reason of penury. Also the glebe, offerings, and other small tithes, go to make up the great sum {£S. 6s. 8d.), and are not calculated in the said ninth/^ ^^ In 1534, John ap Howel being Rector of Hopton Cressett, his preferment was valued, in glebe, corn, and other tithes and offerings, at £4. 15s. 8d. ; which sum was liable to a charge of 6d. for Arch- deacon's annual synodals." BAHLY mOTJMBENTS. Eichard Nowe occurs as Parson of Upton "Waryn in 28 Edw. Ill (1354-5) .52 John, Rector of Upton, occurs in 29 Edw. Ill, and may have been the same as — John atte Broke, the Rector of 46 Edw. Ill (1372-3). AECHITECTUEAL EEMAINS OE THE OBI&INAL CHIJECH. The Church of Upton Cressett, as originally built, might belong to any part of the twelfth century. It consists of a nave and chancel, separated by a rich round-headed arch of four orders, ornamented on the western face, principally with the Chevron. The font is shaped like a jar, and ornamented with round- headed arches. The east-window of the chancel is pointed. If this was its original shape, the date of the building will be thrown into a late part of the twelfth century. The side- windows are round-headed. A south aisle, of a late period, has been attached to the chancel. J. L. Petit. 5" Inquis. Nonarum, 191. Though the tithes of Meadowley belonged in 1291 to Upton Church, and so contributed to its taxation or value, Meadowley itself was not detached from the Parish of Morville. So I interpret this passage. There must have been more than one transaction be- tween the lay Lord of Upton and Mea- dowley and Salop Abbey, but I have met with no record of any, except one which will be given under Meadowley, and which is not pertinent to the present question. " Valor. Eccles., iii, 211. 62 Blakeway MSS., in Bibl. Bodl. This is the only instance in which the place has occurred to me as Upton Warin. If Mr. Blakeway be right in assigning the first entry above to this Upton, it can only have acquired the name of Warin from Warin the Sheriff,its possessor before Domesday, or else from some feoffee, probably as early as Henry the First's time. 148 jEeatiobjle^. Dugdale's and the usual dictum, as to the termination ley, viz. that it must either be referred to the British lie {locus, a place), or to the Saxon ley (untDled ground), has heen already recognised in two instances.^ This theory is however found to be much too indefinite to remain content with. The prevalence of the termination, its greater frequency in East Shropshire than iu the West of the County, or even in Wales and Cornwall, and its being oftener associated with Saxon than British words, are reasons which make the Saxon termination most pro- bable in cases which will at present occur to us. The only exception must be where the syllable is combiued with another word obviously British. But there is a great doubt whether the Saxon compound itself be always one and the same. If ley means " untilled ground," its entry into such names as Meadowley, Cornley, Oatley, Cloverley, and Ploughley, involves a simple contradiction. If it means " a plain," we yet find it in various names where it is anything but apposite. The truth seems to be, that there are two Saxon words which both enter into composition, and, being derived from a common root, have been confused. The first, leaj, is far the most common. It is Latiaized lega, enters into Leighton, and is the termination of a host of names which our ancestors wrote with the final leg, rather than ley, Meadowley being one of the number. It is a doubt whether this Saxon word involved any idea as to tillage, or the nature of the surface iu localities to which it attached. The word in its primary sense signified law, its secondary meaning was a district marked out by law or custom. Thus in Saxon usage it was nearly equiva- lent to our word " Manor." Another Saxon word Isej-e, Isefu or Isej-pe (a pasture or common), originated such a local name as Layston, in contrast to Leighton, and probably had the same root as our terms lea, ley, leys, and ' Vide supra, under Billingsley and Tasley. MEADOWLEY. 149 leazow ; and this root (the germ both of leaj, laWj and Isej-e^ pasture) conveyed a common idea (viz. something fixed or laid down) to each derivative. The meaning then of Msebepe-leaj is " the district of meadows," a much more intelligible idea than that of "untiUed meadow ground," with which the old rules of investigation would have sup- plied us. In Domesday the place is thus noticed.^ — Helgot holds (of Earl Roger) Madolea. Austin held it. Here is half a hide geldable. He (Austin) was a free man. Richard holds it of Helgot. There is (arable) land (enough) for vi ox-teams. In demesne is i team, and (there are) iii serfs and i radman, with half a team, and (there are) ii boors. In time of King Edward it was worth 30*. Now it is worth lis. When (Helgot) received it it was worth 2s. The name of Augustine or Austin naturally became common among the Christianized Anglo-Saxons. It was borne by more than one Shropshire landowner in the Confessor's time. Of Helgot, the Norman Lord of Meadowley as of other Manors, we shall have often to speak. He was one of Earl Roger's Barons, and founder of the Castle which stiU bears his name. Of Richard, his Domesday tenant at Meadowley, nothing positive can be stated, but there are circimistances in the subsequent his- tory of the place which make it not improbable that he was no other than Richard de Belmeis. This person was certainly in Shropshire about the time of Domesday, and attested the Earl Roger's charter to Shrewsbury Abbey, which must have followed that Record very shortly, and which bespeaks some importance of position for each witness.^ He afterwards became Viceroy of the County, and Bishop of London. His temporal and ecclesiastical possessions in Shropshire were at his death considerable. Meadowley may have been the germ of the former, and it cer- tainly went in a succession analogous to the lay fiefs of Richard de Belmeis. Of him and his representatives we shall have much to say elsewhere. The next notice after Domesday which we can associate with Meadowley belongs to the year 1165, when Ranulf de Belmeis ' Domesdm/, fo. 258, b, 1. I already recited (Vide supra, p. Ill) and ^ He also attests a deed of the Earl's | proved to have passed in or about 1086. 160 MEADOWLEY. appears as holding one fee of old feoffment under Herbert de Castello.* These two we know to have been the then repre- sentatives of Richard de Belmeis and Helgot, before mentioned. In 1180, among fines imposed, by Justices of the Forest, on resi- dents in this neighbourhood, Richard de Beaumes, a cadet of the family, and probably interested in Meadowley, was amerced 2*. for waste} But a subinfeudation of this Manor must have taken place at an early period, whereby the Lords of the neighbouring Upton will have acquired the substantive interest here. The mesne tenure of de Belmeis consequently receives little notice. Hence we find that Hugh, Lord of Upton, early in the thirteenth century, granted to Morville Church a parcel of land in his vill of Medeweleg, to hold for ever, at a rent of \2d. — Witnesses : Hugh de Kinsedeleg, Richard then Chaplain of Mamerfeld, Andrew de Northleg." Hence also, in 1240, when Thomas Manduit held the Barony of Castle Holgate, Hugh de Opton or Upton is said to hold one fee thereof in "Medewelee or Medeweleg,'' the mesne tenure of Belmeis being ignored. In 1255, however, Thomas de Upton is returned, by the Stottesden jiirors, as holding vi. virgates of land under Roger de Beumes in Medwele. " And he did suit twice a year to the Court of William Manduit, at the Castle of Holegod, and he owed ward at that Castle in time of war for forty days, for the fee of one knight."^ In 1284, when the Barony of Castle Holgate was in the family of Bumel, John de Hopton (i. e. Upton) is entered as holding Medeueleye of Robert Bumel by one knight's fee.^ Philip Bumel died in 1294, and amongst his Lordships which then passed to the Crown, during a minority of the heir, was Medewelley.^° By reason of this temporary seizin of the Crown, and the corresponding death of the sub-tenant in 1301, the Escheator was ordered to take into * lAh. Nig. i, 147. ' Flac. Forest., Chapter House, Westm. No. 1, Salop, memb. 2. The places, if I rightly asaign them to their owners, foUow in this order: — Upton (Cressett), Abdon (Priors), Ditton, Wheathill, Mea- dowley, Barrow, WiUey, &o. « Salop Chartulary, No. 105. ? Testa de Nevill, pp. 46, 48, 50. 8 Sot. Bvmd., ii, 82. Soon after this period, the suit of Medueleg and Leye (Lye) was withdrawn from the Hundred of Stottesden. The King of Almain and the Templars who successively held the Barony of Castle Holgate thus interfered with the rights of the Crown {fiot. HunA. ii. 108. Vide infra, p. 157, under Bold). ' Kwby's Quest. '" Calend. Inquis., vol. i, 120. CHARLCOTT AND BOLD. 151 the King's hand all the lands of which " John de Upton^ who held of the heir of Philip Buniel/' died seized." In 30 Edw. I (1301-2) an Inquest was held as to the tenures of the late John de Upton. Meduleye and Upton are the two Manors enumerated ; and mention is also made of the suit of Court which the deceased had owed to Castle Holgate.^^ This John de Upton (as has been stated under Upton Cressett) also left a son under age^ so that the Manor of Meadowley was in the King's hands for several years^ except a third thereof, which the widow of the deceased Tenant had in dower. An escheator's account, which has occurred in a fragmentary Roll in custody of the Queen's Remembrancer, acknowledges 20*. to have been re- ceived " from two parts of the land which was John de Upton's in Maddeleye, and which was in manu Regis by reason of the minority of John, son and heir of John, who holds of the heir of Philip Burnel," &c. The receipt is for the period commencing Michaelmas, 1305, and ending October 3, 1306, when the heir had livery.^^ Cf)arUott anti Bolti. Ceopl and cot, two Saxon words signifying an husbandman and his abode, constitute one of these names. The other, more simple still, is the Saxon Bolb, a house or hall. The two places formed one Domesday Manor, represented under Cerlecote, which, however, the Record would appear to classify in another Hundred than Alnodestreu.^ This must be explained.— The Domesday notice of Meadowley occupies four lines of the MS. Opposite the third of these lines is the marginal affix, "In Recordin Hund." (clearly out of place, and to be removed to a lower position.) By assigning it to the second " Onginalia, 29 Edw. I, Hot. 10. cording to a common mistake before 12 CaUnd. Inquis., toI. i, 173. Where noticed (supra, p. 65, note 170). Meduleye has been printed Seduleye, ac- '' Rot. Forinsec, penes Remem. Beg. Vide supra, page 24. 20 152 CHARLCOTT AND BOLD. line below that against which it stands, we have it opposite Cerlecote. It must, however, be still out of place, for no vill corresponding to Cerlecote can be traced in the area of the old Hundred of Recordin. By removing the affix two lines lower still, we have it in con- nexion with the Manor of Ofitone (Uffington), where its applica- bility can admit of no doubt. After thus restoring an erroneous affix to its proper place in the margin, the Domesday notice of Cerlecote, as following Meadowley, will remain under Alnodestreu Hundred, There we find a place too (Chai-lcott) exactly reflecting the older name. Bold is not mentioned singly in Domesday. It was in fact in- volved in Cerlecote ; but, at a later period. Bold became the caput of the combined Manor, and Charlcott the member. Domesday notices the whole thus : — ^ The same Helgot holds Cerlecote (of the Earl), Elsi held it (in time of King Edward) and was free. Here is half a hide, geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for 2 ox-teams. It is and was waste. It used to be worth 10«. (ia time of King Edward.) A Saxon Alsi (with the name written Elsi or ^Isi) was Lord of Corfton and Middlehope, in the adjoining Domesday Hundred of Culvestan ; and whereas no such name appears in the Hundred of Recordin, we have herein a circumstance which increases the pro- bability of our having rightly placed Cerlecote in Alnodestreu Hun- dred. AYe will not yet speak of Helgot or his descendants otherwise than when they may occur as the seignoral Lords of Bold and Charlcott. They seem to have granted a feoffment of this Manor at least as early as the time of Henry I, and their tenants thenceforth to have taken the local name. The earliest tenant occurring in this position was probably that Odo de la Boude who stands the third of four witnesses to the deed whereby Herebert, son of Holegod, Lord of the Castle, enfeoffed Herlewyn de Butailles in Dudmaston and Posthorne.^ ^ Domesday, fo. 258, b. 1. The three periods of Domesday valuation are very observable in this entry, the time when the Manor was waste, being that at which it came to Helgot's hands. ^ This charter is in possession of W. W. Whitmore, Esq., of Dudmaston. There are many reasons for assigning it to a date anterior to the death of Henry I (1135). There are also objections to so early a date. Both shall be stated and the charter given in its proper place. It certainly passed in the twelfth cen- tury. CHARLCOTT AND BOLD. 153 The /eoc?«ry of 1165 gives R. de Holda as holding, by service of one knightj under Herebert de Castello. This fee was of old feoff- ment, and the name of the feoffee should be written R. de Bolda.* About the year 1190 died one Robert de Girrhos, a person appa- rently of much consideration in Shropshire during the reigns of Stephen and Henry II. He was not only a tenant in capite of the Crown, but held under the two Baronies of Clun and Castle Holgate. His successor, another Robert de Girrhos, had not livery till some years after his death. In the interval the King's Escheator, or the Sheriff, accounts to the Exchequer for the profits of his lands. Most of them were held under Castle Holgate, which also was at the time in the King's hand. An Escheator's roll for the year 1195 is preserved, and contains that officer's receipt [inter alia) of 8*. of the ferm of Cherlecote, which was Robert de Girros', for a whole year, viz., from March 1194 to March 1195.^ In the octaves of St. Michael, 1200, in the King's Court at Westminster, a suit, whereia Herbert de la Bude was plaintiff against Alan de Mara, his brother, and Robert de Giros, was post- poned till the octaves of St. Martin (Nov. 18), by writ of Geoffry Fitz-Piers^ (then Chief Justice of England). On the day of adjournment (Nov. 18), the Justices of the King's Bench have the King's mandate to adjourn the hearing of this cause, which concerned four carrucates of land in Boude, tUl the octaves of St. Andrew (Dec. 7) ; then to come before the King himself wherever he may be in England. And the Justices are to send this writ and the former writ (that of Geoffry Eitz-Piers) and a record of the plea.'' On the day given (Dec. 7, 1300) King John was at Clarendon. Then and there, or shortly after, and elsewhere, he doubtless heard the pleadings which follow. " Herbert de Bouda sues for three hides in Bouda against Robert de Girros and Alan de Mara as his seizin and inheritance, which he (Herbert) entrusted to the custody of Alan ; and the said Alan, for the sake of staving off and taking away the right of Herbert, committed them to Robert de Girros ; and that such is the case, and that he (Herbert) was seized thereof as of fee, by taking esplees thereof, &c., he offers to prove by Adam de Kerleton, or by Henry de Witeleg. And Alan comes into Court and defends his right, and says that he * lAb. Nig. i, 147. apud Hearne. The error ie not one of the Editor. It is in the original also. '' Mot.Escaefarum, inter Rot. Fip.l'S,. I. * Plac. apud Westm. Mich. Term, 2 John (Office No. 13). ^ Ibidem (Office No. l. 6s. 8c?. The Co-rectors of Castle Holgate seem also to have had three portions or pensions in this Church. The names of the then Portionists were Richard de Eyton, Matthew, and Robert, and their pensions, 3*. Qd., 3s. Zd., and 3s. Zd., respectively.*^ The total valuation, thus made up, is repeated in the Inquisitions of ] 341, where the taxation of Bolde Chapel is put at £4. 16s. 8 Pope Nich. Tax., p. 166. See also the Taxation of the Church of Castle Hol- gate, in Wenlock Deanery (page 167 of the same Kecord). Nonarum p. 190. FAINTREE. 159 The Valor oi 1534 mentions neither Church nor Chapel here ; but among the Spiritualities of the White Nuns of Brewood was a pension of 6*. 8c?. arising from BoUd " juxta Bottrell Aston."** Both Bould and Charlcott are now in the Parish of Aston Bottrell. Parts of the north, south, and west walls of the Chapel remain and are used as a wain-house.*^ S^intxtu The name of this place wiU entitle it to a British origin. The last syllable, tre, so common in Wales and Cornwall, signifies a village or hamlet. As to Fain, Faven, or Favon, I suppose it to be the British Ffaen (a bean), or Ffaon (beans). The etymological association between this place and Daventrey (Northants) is observable. The Daventrei and Faventrei of Domes- day have become respectively Daintree and Faintree; the former being, however, only changed in pronunciation, while the latter is also written in the contracted form. With regard to the Domesday state of Faintree, it is not easily deducible from the printed edition of that Record, inasmuch as notices of two other Manors are mixed up with this, and thus the whole passage is left unintelligible. A glance at the original shows, however, that a later scribe, using different ink, has added a sup- plement to the previous matter, and carelessly inserted the said supplement between two members of the same sentence. Thus, what is only marked as parenthetical in the original, by being written in a different hand, loses all distinctiveness whatever when printed in an uniform type and without annotation. Reuniting the clauses which treat of Faintree in Domesday we leam as follows ; — The samel Walcheline holds Faventrei (of the Earl) . Ulchetel, Archetel, Uluiet, ^Elwi, Ordwi, and Ordric, held it, and those ** Valor Eccles., iii, 194. ^ Dukes' Antiq. Shropshire, Appendix, page xi. This Walcheline also held arinshill under the Earl {Bomesd. fo. 257, b. 1). 21 160 FAINTREE. Thanes were free. Here are two hides, geldable. The (arable) land is sufficient for five ox-teams. In demesne there is one ox-team and a half; and (there are) one serf, two viUains, and five boors, with two ox-teams. In time of King Edward it was worth 27s., now (it is worth) 20s. He (Waleheline) found it waste.^ Walcheline's tenure here was either by serjeantry (a matter which Domesday omits), or became so in the time of Henry I, when tenants of the Earl became tenants in capite. At all events, a Stottesden Jury,^ two centuries after Domesday, calling a former, and probably this, tenant, " Waleheline de Fayn- tre," recorded his tenure to have been by the serjeantry which will presently be described. The successor of Waleheline, one century after Domesday, was Robert de Fayntre, who occurs in November, 1194, as recognizor, in a trial which concerned land at Holicott, or in the neighbour- hood.* When, at Michaelmas, 1203, the Sheriff accounted for the fourth scutage of King John's reign, Robert de Fentre paid half a merk for his serjeantry, the said scutage being assessed at 2 merks on each knight's fee.^ At Michaelmas, 1204, and for King John's fifth scutage (which was 2\ merks on each knight's fee) Robert de Fenitree had paid 20s.'' In 1211, the serjeantry of Robert de Fayent' is returned as con- sisting in the service of one foot-soldier, with a bow and arrows, in the King's army in Wales.'^ In November, 1221, Robert de Faintre was pledge of Adam le Breton, in a suit against William le Harper.^ The latter was of Upton, in this neighbourhood. In 1255, the tenure of this Manor was returned by the Stottes- den Jurors as follows : — " Adam de Faintre is Lord of Faintre, and holds in capite of the Lord the King, for service of one serjeant, with bow and arrows, when the King shall be in North Wales. Wherein is one hide and a half of land : and he (Adam) does suit to the Hundred (of Stottesden), and pays to the Sheriff, for stret- ward, 6c?., and for motfee, 12d." ' The diminution of half a hide from the Domesday measurement ^ Domesday, to. 257, b. 1. ' Flacita Coronce, 20 Ed. I, Salop, emmb. 20 recto. ^ Rot. CuricB Regis, toI. 1, p. 123. ' Sot. Fvp. 5 John, Salop. " Rot. Pip. 6 John, Salop. ' Testa de Nevill, p. 55. ' Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 7 recto. ' Rot. Bund, ii, 82. FAINTREE. 161 is noticeable^ but may perhaps be accounted for by a corres- pondent iacrease in the hidage of the neighbouring Manor of Chetton. At the Assizes of January, 1256, Adam de Feyntre sat as a Juror for the Hundred of Stottesden.^" In February, 1262, he appears as one of the Regarders of the King's forest iu Shropshire^! About 1267 he attests a grant of the Advowson of Chetton, to be hereafter noticed.!^ On January 26, 1270, he sat as a Juror in the Inquisition as to the estate of Robert Corbet, of Chetton, then deceased.!^ In 2 Edw. I (1274), Adam de Fayntre was himself dead, having been seized of this Manop.^* His estate became divided amongst his five daughters and coheirs. On November 27, 1274, ia answer to a question as to the class of persons whose lands had been seized by the Officers of the Crown into the King's hands, the Stottesden Jurors stated, that the lands of Adam de Faintre, when he died, were so seized by Sir John de Erkalewe, then Escheator,!' and who was stUl in office. But the Jurors did not know for certain how long the said Escheator held them in the Kiug's hand, but they thought for six weeks. The same jurors, in reply to a question as to the King's fees and tenants in this Hundred, answered that Richard de Holicote, Hugh le Massun, Peter Chamberlain (Camerarius), Henry le Taylur, and Margery, daughter of Adam de Faiutru, hold the Manor of Fain- trUj of the Lord King in capite by serjeantry of finding one foot- man, with a bow and arrows, to go with the Lord Kiag into Wales when he will levy war, and to stay there till he (the footman) hath shot away his arrows. A further account of this Manor must involve some notice of each of the five coheiresses among whom it was divided on the death of their father, Adam de Faintru. 1. The eldest of these, Clemence, had married Richard de Holi- cote, and he, iu 1274, had fined for relief of his share. Of this fine he rendered account in 1275.^^ April 2, 1278. Richard de Holicote sat as a Juror at Brug in an '" Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III. " Placita ForestcB, 46 Hen. Ill, Salop. ^ Vide infra, under Chetton. 1' Inquis. 54 Hen. Ill, No. 53. " Calendar of Escheats, i, 51. 15 Sot. Sumd. ii, 110. '« Rot. Fip. 3 Ed. I, Salop, quoting Mot. Orig. 2 Ed, I. 162 FAINTREE. inquest as to the wastes committed in the Forests of young Richai-d Fitz Alan." About 1284 Richard de Holicote is returned as a coparcner in Faintre^ hut the equipment of the soldier, who was to attend the King in his Welsh wars, is stated to be a bow, three arrows, and a galtrap (terpolus) }^ At the Assizes of October, 1292, the Stottesden Jurors gave a confused and inaccurate account of the serjeantries in their Hun- di-ed. The serjeantry at Faintre is however valued at 1 10«., and Richard de Holicote and Clemence his wife stDl i-etain their share, though there was some informality, which caused their land to be seized into the King's hand, and them to replevy it, by payment of a merk, till the next Parliament.^^ In 25 Edw. I (1297), the Originalia Rolls contain a precept to the Escheator to seize into the King's hand the lands and tenements which were Clemence's, late the wife of Richard de Holicote.^" In that year too there was an Inquest as to the same Clemence and her license to alienate one messuage and half a carrucate of land in Faiutre.^i In March, 1316, John de Knokyn is returned as sole Lord of Faintre,^" and an Inquest on his death in 14 Edw. II (1320-1) would seem to imply his possession of most of the Manor ; ^^ but these paxtictdars belong to a later era;. 2. Henry le Taylor {alias Cissor) who married Alice, the second daughter and coheir of Adam de Faintre, fined for his relief in 1274, and appears like Richard de Holicote on the Pipe Roll of 1275. He was living in October, 1292, and holding his share of Faintre, " Inquisitions, 6 Ed. I, No. 90. ^^ Xirhy's Quest. The word terpolus or trihulvs, which I translate galtrap, or caltrap, seems to have had more than one meaning. Its primary form was probably the Greek rpifSoXog, an aquatic plant, which produced a prickly nut of a tri- angular shape. In its secondary sense it was the name of an implement, used in war, to impede the movements of cavalry, and which consisted of four iron spites, so attached to a centre as that, any three resting on the ground, the fourth pointed upwards. A missile, of the same shape and name, seems also to have been used in sieges, and was impelled by a machine caDed tribuchulus. I also think that the terpolus above was a missile, but not of so large a kind. '» Flacita Coronce, 20 Ed. I, Salop, memb. 20 recto. Richard de HoUcote was himself on the jury which made these presentments (Ibm. memb. 51 recto). ^ Originalia, 25 Ed. I. ^' Inquisitions, 25 Ed. I, No. 85. ^ Nomina Villarum. ^' Inquisitions, 14 Ed. II, No. 31 (Calendar). FAINTREE. 163 but his wife was dead. He too, on this oecasioiij had to pay a fine till some question as to his tenure was settled by Parliament.^ 3. Peter le Chamberlain, who had married Isabel, the third daughter and coheir, appears in 1374 and 1275 as offering and paying a fine for his relief. However, the Records of Trinity Term, 15 Edw. I (1287), are quoted, as showing this same Peter then coming to the Exchequer, and fining half a merk for relief of his share of Faintre, which he holds by serjeantry of Ushery (hostiarise) to the King in his army.^^ In 1292, Peter le Chamberlyn was dead, but Isabella his wife held 1 carrucate (except | a virgate and 3 acres), and the tenure was worth 46*. per annum. She was obliged to join in a fine to prevent the seizure thereof into the King's hand.^^ 4. Margery, the fourth daughter of Adam de Faintre, has been already mentioned, as if unmarried, in November, 1274. In 1275, however, her husband, Henry de la Porte, accounted for her relief. On March 22, 1278, William de Stapele having represented to the King, that, when he had pixrchased half a virgate in Fayntre of Margery, fifth daughter of Adam de Feyntre, the Sheriff of Salop (being also Escheator of the County) had ejected him, the King desires a Jury to be summoned to report the particulars. The said Jury sat on April 29th following, and returned the service due on the said land as one-fifth of a soldier in Wales, stated its annual value to be 9s. Qd., and that Margery had enfeoffed said William therein; nor did the Jurors think the said land to be an escheat of the King's, nor that his allowance of said sale would be to the King's injury .^^ In 1292 two tenures are recorded in Fayntre, but it is doubtful which of them represents the share under notice. Warin de Mid- dleton holds half a virgate of the annual value of 5s. : William de Wrocwardyn and Emma his wife, hold half a virgate and 3 acres, of 6s. annual value. Both tenures had something informal in them, probably as involving a transfer unsanctioned by the Crown. Their temporary seizure was the consequence.^^ 5. The fifth (or fourth) daughter of Adam de Faintre was wife of Hugh de Massun (or le Mazun) in November, 1274. ^ Fladta Corona, 20 Ed. I, ut supra. 25 Madox Exchequer, 220, q., quoting Trin. Comm., 15 Ed. I. ^ Fladta Coronas, 20 Ed. I, ut supra. 27 Inquisitions, 6 Ed. I., No. 75. 28 Fladta Coronce, 20 Ed. I, ut supra. 164 CHETTON. In 1284, Hugh le Mazim's coparcnery in the serjeantry is returned, though three of the five shares are not set forth.^^ In October, 1292, Hugo le Mason and Mabil his wife held 1 carrucate (less i virgate). It was worth 50«. per annum. They also joined in a fine to escape temporary disseisin.^" Of under-tenancies here, one or two notices occur. — At Salop Assizes, August, 1226, Philip, son and heir of Philip, recovered against Sibil de Broc (the tenant) 1^ virgates, 6 acres, and a messuage here.^'^ In October, 1272, William Fitz John de Fentre being dead, his daughter and next heir, PetronUla, recovers one-third of a mes- suage and a quarter virgate in Westwal, against the tenants (Richard, son of John le Smyht and Jane his wife), of which William, her father, died seized.^^ Cliettott. Cete, a hut (plural Ceten) and cun, an enclosure, are the two Saxon words presumed to have contributed to the name variously written Ceatinton, Catinton, or Chetton.i An enclosure of huts probably furnishes a very accurate idea of a Saxon village; but Chetton, before the Conquest, had acquired a comparative dignity which its earliest name by no means implies. The Domesday account is as follows : — ^ " The Earl himself holds Catinton. Godeva, the Countess, held it in time of King Edward. Here is 1 hide geldable. In demesne are 3 ox-teams ; and 6 serfs, 2 female serfs,^ 4 villains, and 1 boor, with a Priest and 29 Xirly's Quest. ^ Placita Coronce, 20 Ed. I, ut supra. 31 Ahlrev. Plac. p. 103. ^ Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, 9 dorso. 1 The letters Ch are found frequently substituted for the Saxon C, — e. g. Cild (child); Ceopl (churl) ; Cej: (chafif.) 2 Domesday, fo. 254, a. 1. ' Por the ondlltB of Domesday, see Introduction to printed Domesday, vol. ii, p. xxviii. CHETTON. 165 a Provost, have 3 ox-teams; and yet there is room for 2 ox -teams. Here is a new mill and 1 league* of wood. In time of King Edward, the Manor was worth 100s.; now it is worth 45s." The Priest, mentioned in the Domesday Survey of Chetton, im- plies the pre-existence of a Church. The latter too is a most pro- bable consequence of the sometime seigneury of the Countess Godiva. Chetton must have been part of her dower, and it was not the only Shropshire Manor where she had a similar interest. She was the widow of Leofric, Earl of Mercia, who died August 31, 1057, and the mother of Earl Algar, who died in 1059. How long she survived her husband, and whether she survived her son we are not informed.^ Gratitude for some fiscal benefit has, after the manner of Anglo- Saxon idolatry, preserved the memory of this lady in a civic puppet- show, the particulars of which, not altogether decent, may be sought elsewhere. Her personal beauty is also remembered; but her noble lineage is buried in antiquity and doubt,^ whilst her intercessory cares in the] cause of religion are wholly forgotten. All praise be theirs who, living in a barbarous age, have left a name which com- mands respect, even when associated with a vulgar and tasteless tradition ! Tenfold honour be to one who, thus distiaguished, was only a woman ! The Domesday Hundred of Catinton is not given, but the order * The AuDotators give no other expla- nation of the lewua or leuga oiDomesday, except that which impUes a measure of length. It is obvious that, in such passages as the above, an areal measure is intended by the word which, in default of any English equivalent, I have translated league. As the question is one which can only be solved by the contextual circum- stances under which the word appears in Domesday, I may, for the present, post- pone it. ^ A Godeva is mentioned as holding Madeley, in Staffordshire, after the Con- quest {Domesday, fo. 249, n. 2), but her identity with the Countess seems too much to assume at once. ^ The Countess Godeva is said to have been sister of Thorold, Saxon Sheriff of Lincolnshire. This statement is rather corroborated than contradicted by one or two hints of Domesday, and it is clear that some such consanguinity conveyed to her reputed descendants, the Earls of Chester and Lincoln, a considerable inte- rest in the latter country. A recent pubhcation (The Topographer and Gene- alogist) commenced with a most able article on the old Earldom of Lincoln. The writer mentions the Countess Godeva without directly questioning the tradi- tions regarding her ; but, according . to him, any statement derived from Ingulphus and the Croyland Charters, is to be re- ceived vfith suspicion ; moreover, he evi- dently intends to exclude Godeva from the Ancestry of the forementioned Earls. Eor the particulars which Dugdaleadopted concerning her, I must refer to his Baronage (Vol. i, pp. 9, 10) and History of Warwickshire (Vol. i, p. 135 in Thomas' Edition). 166 CHETTON. of its mention, the circumstances of its tenure, and its geographical position, all combine to fix it in Alnodestreu. The Earl holding it in demesne, in 1085, -was, as we have seen, enabled to grant, about 1086, a third of the tithes of Ceatinton to his Collegiate Church of QuatfordJ No subsequent mention has, however, occurred of tithe possessed here by the Canons of Bridg- north ; and, this usual correspondence wanted, we may be mistaken as to the locality of the Earl's grant. It was probably after the forfeiture of the Norman Earls, and by King Henry I, that Chetton was granted to a subject. Who was the original Feoffee we know not, but it was one who also had a grant of Great Berwick (near Shrewsbury), from the Crown, and of Eudon (afterwards Eudon Burnell), from the ante- cessors of Fitz Alan. It is likely that the three grants were nearly contemporary, and it is certain that before King Henry II had reigned twelve years the whole fief had lapsed to a sole heiress, whose Christian name was Damietta. She was ere that time (1166) married to Ranulf de Broc, a Boyal favourite, whose notoriety, though great, is little associated with Shropshire. His interest in three several Manors demands, however, that some particulars of him should be here given. He first occurs iu Hampshire, where, in the fiscal year, ending Michaelmas, 1156, he had been excused 8*. 3c?., his quota of the Danegeld assessable on that County, and also 20*. of the scutage levied on the Knights of the confiscated See of Winchester.^ In each case this acquittance was directed by Writ of the King, as also was 2*. 9fi?., his share of a donum contributed by the said County, in 1158. In the latter year he accounts to the Crown 30s. for cen- sorship of the Royal Forest of m.tingelega, Hampshire. It was about this time that Henry II, calling this Ranulf de Broc, his Usher and Mareschall (Hostiarium et Marescallum suum) and son of Oyn Porcell, granted him a charter^" which indicates ' The probability arises thus : — ^If the Norman Earls had granted the Manor, it would hardly have been called ancient demesne of the Crown as it afterwards was. Stephen's grants of Crown demesne were cancelled by Henry II. If the latter had first granted the manor, it would have stood on the annual accounts of the Sheriff, under the title, In ferris datis. 8 Pipe Ron, 2 Hen. II, Hants. " Ibidem, 4 Hen. II. '" Sot. Cart. 7 John, memb. 5 recto. It is a singular coincidence that Henry II, evidently on his succession, expedited a Charter to one Eadulf Purcell, his Usher, of the ministry and land of Kobert BurneU, his, uncle (avunculi) in England and Normandy, of whomsoever held, as the said Robert BurneU enjoyed the same in time of King Henry I. (Rymer's CHETTON. 167 both wealth and Royal favour. It confirms to him " the whole land and office of his father, of whomsoever held, all the land of Guldeford which was Reginald de Resting's, his kinsman, and all the land which was Robert Testard's; — also the Magisterial and capital Marshalship of the King's House and Court; — and the whole land of Angemar, as Wido his uncle (avunculus) gave and conceded it to him, by concession of Nigel de Broc^^ and his brethren ; and the land of Piperhergh, as he bought it from Osbert de Piperhegh and his heirs, as the Charter of William de Windle- sores testifies; and his land of Torncumb, as William and Roger de Pacey rendered it to him, and as the Charter of Ralph de Faye testifies for him; and a,ll other his lands and tenures, be they of what fee soever, which he has reasonably purchased.'' The Teodary of 1165 exhibits Ranulf de Broc as holding 1 fee at Piperherge under William de Windsor,^* ^ a fee of the Earl of Axundel,^' and 1 muntator of the Barony of Fitz Alan.^* His tenure in capite at Chetton and Berwick is not entered, and a Knight's fee held under the Bishop of Winchester, which in time of King Henry I. had been William Peverel's, was then said to be held by Roland del Broc.^^ But Ranulf de Broc acquired his greatest notoriety by the part which he took in his Master's contest with Archbishop Thomas h, Becket. When, about January, 1165, King Henry II had con- fiscated the See of Canterbury, and pronounced sentence of banish- ment on the Archbishop's kindred,^^ he committed the execution of his orders to this Ranulf de Broc, who having a previous and personal grudge against Becket, took care to discharge the trust with every circumstance of cruelty. Nor did his share in the Faedera, vol. i, p. 42). I Bhould have concluded Ranulf de Broe, sou of Oyn Porcell, to have been the Bamo with Badulf Purcell, but that each is stated to have inherited his Court appointment from a diiferent source. But the question , however interesting, does not appear to belong to Shropshire. " This Nigel de Broc occurs under circumstances of royal favoiu' similar to EanulTs. In 1158 he was assessed and pardoned iivo shillings, his quota of the donum of Salop {Pipe Soil, 4 Hen. II) ; but I have no other notice of his interest in the County, nor can I surmise where it lay. 12 Uber Niger, i, 193, Bucks. 13 Ibidem, p. 65, Sussex. " Ibidem, p. 143, Salop. '5 Ibidem, p. 71, Hants. '« Chron. Gervas. p. 1398. Imag. Gerv. 1314. This expulsion of Becket' s kindred was not decided upon from any suspicion of their being in correspondence with him. The object was to crowd his retreat at Pontigny with the woes of four hundred exiles. For its success, see Lingard's Sist. of Mngl., vol. ii, p. 229. 22 168 CHETTON. great contest between Priest and Despot end here. In June, 1166, ■when Becket, from the pulpit of Vezelay, launched the thunders of the Chnrch against some of Henry's chief ministers, Eanulf de Broc was not forgotten." In a subsequent letter to his Suffragans, the Archbishop gives the reasons for each sentence of excom- munication individually .^8 "Ranulf de Broc had seized and de- tained endowments of the Church of Canterbury, which were of right the provision of the poor; he had arrested, and was still keeping imprisoned, like laymen, the Archbishop's dependants." The struggle, which lasted for more than four years longer, is a subject of too great interest to be epitomized here. — Ranulf de Broc still farmed the vacant See of Canterbury, and Becket re- mained in exile.^^ In November 1170 the Archbishop having been apparently recon- ciled to his Sovereign at Amboise, his return to England was accom- panied by a significant hint of Henry's insincerity if not of his own impending fate. He found the shore at Sandwich occupied by the Sheriffs of Kent and Ranulf de Broc, with armed attendants.^*' Whatever their designs, a special conference with John of Oxford, who escorted Becket on the King's behalf, seemed to change or to postpone them. Becket landed on Dec. 1, 1170, without further interruption. Among other things, he brought with him a letter of the King to Prince Henry, ordering the adjustment of his claims on the honour of Saltwood. Saltwood Castle was then in custody of Ranulf de Broc, and remained so for a month longer at least. On Dec. 25 (Christmas Day) Becket again excommunicated Ranulf de Broc from the pulpit of Canterbury. On the night of December the 28th, Saltwood Castle sheltered within its walls four men of dark design, who had arrived in haste — from beyond sea — from the Court of Henry.21 On the morrow these men did a deed before the chapel of St. Benedict, in the Cathedral Church of Canterbury, which astonished all Christendom, which annihilated the peace, palsied the energies and shook the throne of him for whom it was undertaken ; which divested his name of each early and romantic association, and left his character for magnanimity a monument of the meanest treachery or the weakest passion. This deed, which affected the relations of Church and State in '7 Diceto, 541. Chroit. Gen. 1402. 18 Sotieden, 286, a. "* In the fiscal year ending Mich. 1168, Eanulf de Broc accounted to the Exche- quer for the revenues of the two previous years {Madox lExehequer, 406, q.) 2° Dicelo, 5^4. Chron. Gen. 1413. 21 Gen. 1414. CHETTON. 169 this countryj for centuries, has been called by various names, and among others " The Martyrdom of Saint Thomas " — words which imply somethiag of truth and more of opinion. By it were esta- blished those priuciples to which eight years of the victim's life had been vainly devoted. Becket murdered was to the Chm'ch and Priesthood a bulwark of strength, in comparison of which the lordly presence, the blameless reputation, the lofty courage, the austere devotion, the fiery zeal, the aspiring genius of Becket yet alive, had been all as nothing. But the greatness of the subject must no longer lead us away from our concern with the subordinate actors. Of one of the four faithful servants of King Henry we shall' have to speak again, and in connexion with our local history. We shall show specifically in his case that extinction of a line which has been alleged in regard both of him and his companions, and which tradition or opinion usually inserts among the consequences of foul and murderous deeds.^ Ranulf do Broc, whatever may have been his complicity in the murder of Becket, was not one of the prominent actors. Henry could therefore retain him in a position to which the more open executors of the royal will are said, never to have been recalled. At Michaelmas 1171 he had farmed under the crown the escheated honour of Henry de Essex, some time Constable of England. His account of this trust was not, as usual, rendered in detail at the Exchequer, but his veredictum thereon was accepted. ^^ In October, 1173, when the rebel Earl of Leicester landed at Walton, in Sufiblk, he first laid siege to Hagenet Castle, which BanuJf de Broc then held for the King. The Castellan's success in this service was not so unequivocal as on former occasions. The preliminaries, which we may presume to have been settled in mid- night council at Saltwood, were probably better suited to his capa- ^ This passage has not been sent^to the press without reperusal. An article appeared in the Quarterly Meview of September, 1853, on the " Murder of Thomas k Becket," which has, I believe, attracted, and, I am sure, deserres much attention. The main subject will never be more fairly or ably treated. The writer however, probably from want of interest in the details of the matter, has accepted some second-rate authorities as to the subsequent history of Becket's four murderers. His notice of WiUiam de Tracy applies, I believe, to two individuals of the same name. The posterity of Keginald Ktz TJrse continued in England, and became demonstrably and utterly ex- tinct. His relations with Shropshire and Montgomeryshire will bring him appro- priately under notice hereafter. 23 Sof.Fip.l1Sen.U. 170 CHETTON. city than matters of open warfare. The Castle of Hagenet was talien^ — after however a siege of four days.^* This mischance does not seem to have compromised him with the King ; for, about three yeai-3 later, when Henry, then at Bridgnorth, expedited a Royal Charter to Wenlock Priory, Randal Broc was, with other courtiers, a witness." ^^ The time of his death is uncertain, — but we have an approximate statement on the subject. It has been seen above, that in 1165 he held half a knight's fee under the Earl of Arundel. This tenure appears as one of sixty solidates of land in subse- quent accounts, rendered whilst the honour of Arundel was in the King's hands. Walter, Archbishop of Rouen, who farmed the same from September 1180 to Easter 1187, left his account charged with 6| years' rent (viz. ,£19. lOs.) due to the Crown, and which had accrued on the tenement of " Ranulf de Broc." ^^ William Rufus accounting, September 1188, for the same ferm, charges \\ year's rent (£4. 10s.) on the land of Srwrnfe^a, against "Stephen de Turnham."^^ The latter will presently appear in the succession of Ranulf de Broc, — and we may infer that the lapse was coincident with the change of fermors of the honour of Arundel; in other words, that Ranulf de Broc died about 1187. His issue was five daughters and coheirs; but, as his wife Damietta survived him, her inheritance in Shropshire will have suffered no partition till her own death in 1304. On August 8 of that year, Stephen de Turnham, who had married Edeline, the eldest daughter and coheir, obtained King John's writ to the Sheriff of Southants, ordering the said Sheriff to give seizin to " our faithful Stephen de Thornham and Odeline his wife, of the Manor of Frellebi, which was Dametta's (mother of the said Odeline), who is dead, whose heir she (OdeUne) is." A similar precept to the Sheriff of Salop orders seizin to be given to the same Stephen and Edelina, of the Manors of Chedinton, Euden, and Berewic.^^ The sole heirship of Edelina implied by these writs of King John was a fiction, as we shall presently see ; but the work of appropri- *■ Sromton, 1089. ^ Monasticon, vol. v, p. 73, N"o 3. 25 Rot. Fip. 33 Hen. II. 27 Mot. Pip. 34 Hen. II. ^ Clam. 6 John, 19 recto. The Manor of Erelleberi had not however been strictly Dametta's. It must have been her dower out of the lands of Eanulf de Broc. Its tenure was attached to the serjeantry of being Usher to the Xing, This service is entered several times in the Testa de Nevill, in connexion with Prelleberi. In one instance, Stephen de Tiu-nham holds the Manor, in another his widow, under the name of Edelina de Pi-oleberi (Testa de NeviU, 235, 236). CHETTON. 171 ation by Stephen de Turnham was not yet complete. About Dec. 1205, he offered^^ to King John three palfreys to have the royal confirmation of 15 librates of land in Ertendun (Surrey), with the Hundi-edj &c., which he had and held by gift of King Henry II, at a fee-farm rent of J 15, and by gift of King Richard, at half a knight's fee : also, to have the King's confirmation, to him and to Edeline his wife, daughter of Ranulf de Broc, of the reasonable concession and confirmation which King Henry II made to the same Ranulf de Broc, his Usher and Marshall, of all the land and ministry of his father, &c. (reciting Henry II's charter above quoted) . This fine of Stephen de Turnham secured King John's two charters dated at Dorchester, Dec. 18, 1205j the first of which confirms Ertendun to Stephen de Turnham, the King's Marshall, and his heirs, while the second recites Henry II's charter to Ranulf de Broc, and confirms it to Stephen de Turnham and Edeline his wife, daughter of said Ranulf, and their heirs. King John moreover takes into his hand, custody, and protection, both the grantees, their lands, tenures, and effects.^" It will be observed that the last charter does not call Edelina the heir of Ranulf de Broc, though it substantially ignores the claims of any coheirs. At this period then (Dec. 1205) Stephen de Turnham, of whom singly I must speak elsewhere, had engrossed in right of his wife, the whole inheritance both of her father and mother. This appropriation did not remain long unquestioned, for, within two years, SibU de Broc was a suitor against Stephen de Turnham and Edeline his wife (Sibil's sister) for her share of the inheritances of Ranulf de Broc and of Dametta, father and mother of Sibil and Edeline. The parties came to a final concord in the King's Court at Winchester, in the ninth year of John (1207-8), and thereby Stephen and Edeline conceded to Sibil the Manor of Chedinton, of the inheritance of Dametta.^^ It must here be stated that no 29 Rot. Fin. 7 John, memb. 7 recto. *• Mot. Cart. 1 John, memb. 5 recto. 21 See these proceedinga recited in the Plea Soils of Mich. Term, 3 Hen. Ill, (memb. 14 dorso) and Hilary Term, 7 Hen. Ill (memb. 12 dorso). The error of calling Ranulf de Broc's wife (in one instance) Dametta de Turnham is too obvious to be inserted in the text. I may further state that in arranging records so as to fornish an inteUigible narrative, many such errors have been corrected. The intricacy of the cases, and the number of names involved, naturally perplexed the Clerk who took the minutes of each trial during its pro« gress. (See Sir P. Palgrave's Introduction to the " Cwria Regis " Rolls, page v.) 172 CHETTON. chirograph of this fine is preserved, and that Sibil de Broc after- wards denied it. Such denial, however, I think, waa rather in the way of exception taken to its details than an absolute averment that no fine whatever had been levied. At all events Sibil de Broc became about this time seized of Chetton, unless indeed a circum- stance which I have now to notice arose from some continued liti- gation and uncertainty. The Testa de Nevill and the Red Book of the Exchequer supply us with several documents purporting to contain full particulars of every tenancy in capite in this County. These Rolls vary little from each other, are nearly cotemporary, and may collectively be dated of the year 1211. Not one of them contains any entry which I can associate with Chetton, except that Stephen de Turnham is said to hold lands of 100«. annual value by unknown service.^^ This may or may not have included Chetton, but I incline to refer it to Berwick only, which he held at the time and transmitted to his posterity. Before March, 1314, Stephen de Turnham was dead,^' leaving his widow Edeline surviving, and five daughters and co-heirs. Edehna, after her husband's death, appears still in litigation with her sister Sibil, as also in the exercise of a power which she could only claim in virtue of some asserted interest at Chetton. The Advowson of Chetton she included in her grant ^* to LiUe- shuU Abbey, and though the act was nugatory, it well illustrates the hints we have of protracted litigation between the sisters. In Michaelmas Term, 1219, Edelina de Broc (thus called by her maiden name in her widowhood) sued Sibil de Broc for not keeping the fine above alluded to as having been made in King John's reign. SibU did not appear, and she, with her sureties (viz., Andrew de Mora and William de Criddon), were summoned for the quinzaine of St. Hilary, 1220.35 In that term, the hearing was adjourned to three weeks of Easter,^^ of which term we have no record. In Trinity Term, however, the cause was stiU unheard, and owing to Sibil's non-appearance, she and her first sureties were declared in misericordia ; and she was attached by better sureties, viz., Thomas de Chetinton and Hugh de HoUicot.^^ 32 Testa de Nevill, p. 55. 33 Clans, i, 141. ^ Sari. MSS. 2060— corrected by Dodsworth, vol. 110. 3» Placita a/gud Westm. 3 Hen. Ill, 14 dorso. 3« Flacita apud Westm. Hill. Term, 4 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 dorso. ^ Flacita apud Westm. Trin. Term, 4 Hen. Ill, memb. 15 dorso. CHETTON. 173 We hear no more of this suit^ and it was in all probability put an end to by the death of Edelina, the Plaintiff; which must have taken place about this period. Of the five daughters and heirs of herself and Stephen de Turnham, the one most necessary to be mentioned here is Eleanor, who, having been wife of Roger de Leybourn, was also dead before November, 1221, leaving the said Roger generally interested in her share of her father and mother's inheritance, and specially in the Manor of Berwick. Now again we shall hear of continued litigation, and of other daughters and co-heirs of Ranulf de Broc, besides Sibil and Edeline. — At Salop Assizes, Nov. 1221,^'' WiUiam de Tatelinton and Clemence his wife, with Sibil (de Broc) Clemence's sister, sued Roger de Leyburn for the Manor of Berewic " as their right and inheritance, whereof Damota their mother was seized, as of fee and right, in demesne, in time of King Richard " (1189-1199). Roger de Leyburn appeared and pleaded that they (Clemence and Sibil) " had another sister Lucy, of whom was no mention made in their writ, and therefore he was not willing to answer them unless the Court decided that he should." The plaintiffs hereupon ac- knowledged that they had a third sister Lucy, but pleaded that she had no concern in the present matter inasmuch as a final concord had been made in the King's Court between themselves and her. Upon this the defendant pleaded that they had yet another sister Felicia who was wife of Michael de Wancy,'^ which Felicia had had two daughters, nieces of Clemence and Sibil, and that these two daughters had just as much right in the premises as their aunts, and that, they not being mentioned in the writ, he declines answering except under direction of the Court. Here again the plaintiffs acknowledged that they had had a sister Felicia, and she had had daughters, but stated that she (Felicia) had received her share, and that her daughters considered them- selves paid their portion of their mother's inheritance, to wit, of the land which was given in marriage with Felicia; and further they said that this Manor (Berwick) was assigned to themselves (Clemence and Sibil) towards their portion. The Court reserved ^ Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 1 incorrect in certain particulars, whicli did dorso. At these game Assizes the Stottes- not however affect its spu'it. Felicia had den Jurors returned Sibil del Broe as not been wife of Michael de Wancy, but being in the King's gift and her land in of WilUamHareng. One of her daughters that Hundred worth 12 ehUlings per it was who married Nicholas (not Michael) annum (memb. 9 recto). de Wancy. ^' This plea of Eoger de Leybm-n's was 174 CHETTON. its judgment till the octaves of Hilary (Jan. 20) at Westminster, when and where were to be in attendance Nicholas de Wauncy and Felicia his wife, the niece of the plaintiffs, also William Maubanc and Lucy his wife, sister of the plaintiffs, to show any claim which they might have in the premises sought by the plaintiffs. And William Maubanc and Lucy were to be summoned in the County of Surrey, the others in Sussex. The reason why Emma, Felicia's sister (the other niece) was not summoned appears in a notice stating that she was dead. The whole concludes with a nomination of their attorneys by the two plaintiffs. Sibil named Gervase de Wauton, Clemence named her husband, William de Tatlington. The records of Hilary Term 1322 are lost, but the cause was not then settled. In February 1323 it had another hearing, or rather was tried at Westminster with additional plaintiffs.*" In this case William de Themton (Tatlington) and Elena (Clemencia) his wife, Sibilla del Hoc (Broc) Peter de Hatot (Hotoft) and Felicia Harang (thus called by her maiden name) seek against Roger de Leburn the Manor of Berwic as the right of Elena (Clemencia) Sibil, Peter and Felicia, whereof Damietta, mother of Sibil and Felicia (Clemencia), and grandmother" of Elena (Felicia) and Peter, was seized in demesne, &c. Roger de Leyburn now appeared and pleaded the fine of the 9th of John as a settlement of the question, so far as Sibil de Broc was concerned, she having by that fine obtained the Manor of Chedinton as her share of Dametta's inheritance. Against the others he said that the heirs of Stephen de Turnham ought to be his warranty and to warranty he called them, viz. Thomas de Bavelingham and Matilda his wife, Adam de Bending and Alice his wife de Faye and Katherine (Beatrice) his wife, Ralph Fitz Bernard and Eleanor his wife. The trial was adjourned to the Quinzaine of Michaelmas and " Sibil de Broc renounces (dedicit) the^cyroffraph " (the fine of 9 John). In some Michaelmas Term subsequent to this, but probably that of 1233,' an essoign-roll gives Felicia Harang essoigning herself versics Roger de Leyburn, in a plea of land, by William Harcng. The cause was adjourned to the morrow of the Purification (pro- bably Feb. 3, 1224). The same day was given to Clemence^^and * Flac. aj)ud Westm. Hil, Term, 7 I *" Damietta was great grandmother of Hen. III. I Peter. CHETTON. 175 William * * * ^^ and to Thomas de Backingham (Bavelingliam) and Mabil (Matilda) his wife/, and to Beatrice de Say (Pay) ; to Adam de Bending and Alice his wife, and to Richard Fitz B * * * (Ralph Fitz Bernard) as custos of his daughter; and lastly to Peter de Hotot (Hotoft).« In Hilary Term, 1225, Beatrice de Fay occurs as naming an attorney iu her suit against Roger de Leyburn about a plea of warranty.** This would make it appear that the parties called to warranty by Roger de Leyburn were not all ready to vouch such warranty ; but the cross suits between the heirs of Broc and the heirs of Turnham, and between the latter, as among themselves, become so indistinguishable at this period, and the records so broken and imperfect, that I must needs continue the subject with much uncertainty. In Trinity Term, 1233, Roger de Leburn essoigns himself versus Hugh de Hovill, and Beatrice his wife (heretofore Beatrice de Faye) and versus John, son of Ralph Fitz Bernard, and others, in a, plea of land. The adjournment is to the morrow of St. Martin (Nov. 12, 1233) .« But previous to the latter day, viz., on the quinzaine of St. Michael (Oct. 13), 1233, a further day was given to Hugh de Neo^dll and Beatrice his wife, to William Branche and Johanna his wife, plain- tiffs, and to Roger de Leburn in a plea of land. The day given was in one month of Hilary (1234).*^ On Feb. 3, 1237, the attorney of Sibil de Brok versus Roger de Leburn has essoign till the quinzaine of the Holy Trinity.*^ Here Sibil was probably defendant. Most of this, though it has to do with the Lady of Chetton, relates to her interests elsewhere. We will now revert to our more immediate subject. ^ The Eoll from which I quote is dated of Trinity Term 5 John, and the first membranes may belong to that term. The above, which is on the dorse of the six- teenth membrane, as well as some other portions of the KoU, have been attached to it without any care or reason. They belong to, other Eolls and terms, and must, now that they are misplaced, be dated by their internal evidence. *> Flac. apud West., Hil. Term, 9 Hen. ni, memb. 5 recto. ^^ This Eoll is dated as of the seven- teenth year of John. It is fragmentary, but the earUer membranes belong appa- rently to the seventeenth of Hen. Ill, and the later ones to the eighteenth of Henry III. The above is on membrane 1 recto. ''* Flac. apud Wesfm., Mich. Term, 17 and 18 Hen. Ill, memb. 12 dorso. * Esson. apud Westm., Hil. Term, 21 Hen. Ill, memb. 3 dorso 23 176 CHETTON. On Nov. 3, 1224, a fine was levied at Westminster between Sibil de Broc, complainant (petentem), and Alan, Abbot of LiUes- huU, deforciant, of tbe advowson of Chetton, whereof was assize of darrein presentment. The Abbot acknowledged the right of Sibil, and quit-claimed for ever to her and her heirs.*'^ The Abbot's claim of course arose from the grant of Edelina de Tumham, Sibil's sister, which has been mentioned above, and was apparently quite beyond the grantor's powers. About 1225, Sibil de Broc granted Chetton Mill, worth two merks yearly, to the Nuns of Brewood.*^ She must have lived to a great age, her father and mother having been married previous to 1166,*^ the former also dying about 1187, and yet Sibil surviving in 1253. She (Sibil), was some time married, viz., to William de Arundel ; but she left no issue, neither does her name occur during the period of her coverture. She seems to have died about Nov. 10, 1253, having in that year made certain grants to the Church of Chetton, which shall be noticed presently. On her death the same confusion arose as to her succession as had encumbered her heritage whilst living. On Jtdy 7, 1254, a Jury, empanelled to give account of her possessions and heirs, reported, that she had two sisters older than herself, Edelina the eldest and Clemence the youngest, — that Ede- lina had three daughters, married in Sussex, — that John de Wauncye was kin to one of these daughters, John de Bending to another, and Peter de Hautot to the third (where the confusion between the issue of one of Edehna's sisters and her daughters is obvious) . Of Clemence, they said, that "she had four sons, viz. Auger, of whom she was pregnant when William de Maleseveres, formerly her husband, espoused her, and three others begotten in lawftd wedlock, viz. Hamon the eldest, who, before his decease, begat William, Simon, and Alexander." ^^ In 1255, the Stottesden Jurors said of Chetyton that it was in the King's hands, Stephen de Buterleg holding it in the King's name till it be determined who was next heir ; and he (Stephen) answered at the Exchequer for the iacome, viz. ^12. 2s. &d. per n, 9 Hen. Ill, Salop. ^3 Sot. Sund. ii, 83. The Taxation of 1291, shows that this grant was to the Black Nuns of Brewood, and gives its vahie as 16*. per annmn (Nic. Tax, page 162). ^' It is probable that this marriage took place during the extreme youth of the mother, a usual circumstance in the case of an heiress. ™ Incptidtions, 38 Hen. Ill, No. 45. CHETTON. 177 annum ; and it fell into tlie King's hand in the feast of St. Martin^ in his thirty-eighth year. It contained a hide and half, and should be held of the King in capite. It owed suit to the Sheriff's tourn twice a year, hut did no suit to the lesser Hundred or County Courts, nor gave stretward, nor motfee, the Jurors knew not by what warrant. The same Jurors reported the various elemosynary grants which Sibil de Broc had made out of this Manor, and the loss which resulted to the Crown in consequence.^^ The report of this Jury is an appropriate comment on the inaccu- racies of the post mortem inquisition above quoted. Another such Inquisition was ordered by the Crown, and made its report on 7 Feb. 1256. Calling the deceased "Isabella" de Broc, the Jurors said that " the service due to the Crown from Chetton was that of one man in North Wales, — that Sibilla left no heir, but three sisters. Of these the Jury knew not whether Odelina had any heir; Alicia had two daughters, Emma and Felicia; Emma had one son, Peter de Hamtoft ; Felicia had one son, Nicholas de Wancy. Clemence (the third sister of Sibil) had one son, viz. Auger de Tatlinton. These three (viz. Peter de Hamtoft, Nicholas de Wancy, and Auger de Tatlinton) were heirs of Sibil, and were of full age." 63 Neither does this return seem to have been satisfactory, — for, on 16 June following, a third Jury made its report, viz., that Sibil's three sisters were Edelina, formerly wife of Stephen de Turnham; Alice, of William Harang; Clemence, of William Malesoveres, Alice had two daughters : Emma, the eldest, of whom was bom Peter de Hotoft; Felicia, the youngest, who was mother of Nicholas de Wancy. Clemence's first-born son was Auger de Tatlinton. The said Peter, Nicholas, and Auger were of full age. Of the age of Edelina the Jurors knew nothing ; ^^ nor indeed were they likely, seeing that she had been dead thirty years. Except that the name of Sibil's sister Felicia is written Alicia in these returns, I see no reason to question their correctness. Lucy, Sibil's fourth sister, once wife of William de Maubanc is not mentioned, probably as having deceased without issue. It appears that the doubts about the heirship of Sibil de Broc were settled very shortly after this. The King allowed livery of '1 Mot. Mwnd. ii, 82, 83. I ^^ Inquis. post mortem, 40 Hen. Ill, '2 Inqvis. post mortem, 40 Hen, III, No. 40 (memb. 2.) No. 40. I 178 CHETTON. one-third of Chetton to Auger de Tatlintoiij as son and heir of Clemence de Broc : another third went between Nicholas de Wancy and Robert de Hotoft, as heirs of Alice (alias Felicia) de Broc. The heirs of Edelina de Broc not coming forward to claim the other third the Kiag retained it himself, and with it the capital messuage and advowson of the Church.^* On the death of the then Incumbent, the King proposing to nominate his successor, was resisted by Auger de Tatliaton. Upon this the latter was sued by the Crown, in a " plea that he should allow the King to present." The cause was heard at Westmin- ster in Easter .Term, [1260, and ended in Auger conceding, as far as he was concerned, the right to the King, bu tonly hdc vice. The King had thereupon a writ of the Justices to the Bishop of Hereford. ^^^ Following the history of the third of Chetton thus retained by the King, we find it six years afterwards granted to Robert Corbet, of Chaddesley, in fee, with a third only of the Advowson. The King's charter is dated at Kenilworth, on 25 August, 1266, and is expressed to be in reward of faithful services. ^^ The time and place make the nature of these services sufficiently obvious. Within four years of this time Robert Corbet was dead, having however obtained possession (according to one account) of the other two- thirds of Chetton, and certainly having, disposed of all interest derived under the King's grant in manner following : — As Robert Corbet, Lord of Chetynton, he grants to Sir Robert Burnel 1 acre in his demesne in Chetynton, and the advowson of the Church, as far as it belonged to him, and the homage of Hugh de Holycote. For this Robert Burnel was to pay \d. yearly in the Church of Chetynton. — The witnesses were : Sirs Hugh de Mortimer, Ralph de Arraz, Thomas Boterel, and Adam de Montgomery, Knights; also Adam de St. George, Alan de Glazeley, Hugh de Chinezeleye (Kinslow), Adam de Fayntre, and Ralph Sprenchose.^'' " Flao. ajiiid TFestm., Easter Term, 44 Hen. in, memb. 19 recto. This record is again full of scribal errors, such as call- ing Chetton "TatUngton," dementia " Juliana," both which errors it corrects for itself. Whether Alice de Broc and Robert de Hotoft be rightly named is a question. ^5 Ibidem. 's Mot. Pat. 50 Hen. Ill, sub die. But Eobert Corbet had had a previous interest here, probably by purchase from one of the other tenants. In February, 1262, he fined 3«. with the Justices of the Forest for one and a half acres taken into the the King's hand, which he had recently assarted in Chetiuton without wairrant. {Plac. Forest. 46 Hen. Ill, memb. 6 recto.) " Rot. Cart., 54 Hen. Ill, memb. 6. CHETTON. 179 As Robert Corbet of Cheddesle, he further granted to William^ son of William Corbet, his nephew, his land with the capital mes- suage in Chetynton (except half an acre and one-third the Advowson of the Church which he had granted to Sir Robert Burnel), to wit, one-third the said Manor which King Henry, son of John, had given him. To have and to hold of the King, &c, — The witnesses were : Sirs Henry and Hugh de Mortimer, Ralph de Arraz, Adam de Elmbrugg, Knights ; also Alan de Glazeley, William de Herwinton, and Richard de Muntvyron.^^ On the death of this Robert Corbet previous to Jan. 7, 1370, William, his said nephew, represented to the King that, whereas his uncle had enfeoffed him, one month before his decease, not only in the third which he had from the King, but also in the other two- thirds, which said Robert possessed, and all which William and his heirs were to hold of the King in capita, and had held for a month before Robert Corbet's death, now the King's sub-escheator for Salop had ejected said William and still retained the premises.^' Hereupon the King's writ, of the last date, issued to the escheator citra Trent to inquire the particulars by Jury, and further whether Robert Corbet were illegitimate and died without heir, and whether the Advowson belonged to the King. The Jury met at Chetton on 26th January next and reported that Robert Corbet enfeoffed his nephew in one-third of the Manor, and did not die seized thereof, that he (Robert) was illegitimate, died without heir, and could well give feoffment ; that the Advowson was Robert Bumell's, to whom Robert Corbet had sold it. Again on the 32d of February 1270, the King's certificate issued to the escheator, to say that, in consequence of this inquest, he had taken the homage of William Corbet for one-third of Chetton, saving the right of any claimant (which indeed was a reservation in the original grant to Robert Corbet), and saving the service due to the Crown. The escheator is to take security for the said service and for his relief if any be due, and then give him seizin of the said third.*" On the 12th of May and 28th of June following, the King inspected and confirmed by Royal Charter the two grants which Robert Corbet had made to William Corbet and to Robert Burnel respectively.*^ *s Mot. Cart., 54 Hen. Ill, memb. 9. *' Inq. post mortem, 54 Hen. Ill, No. 53. ™ Finis, 54 Hen. Ill, memb. 14. " Rot. Cart, 54 Hen. Ill, memb. and 6. 180 CHETTON. At Salop Assizes, September, 1372, the Stottesden Jurors reported that one-third of Chetiton had been on escheat of the King, that the King gave it to Robert Corbet and he to William Corbet.*^ On Nov. 27, 1374, a similar jury said that William Corbet held the Manor of Chetiton of the King in capite, by service of finding one footman with a bow and arrows to go with the King, whenever he shall decree to make war, into Wales, and to stay there till he has shot away his arrows.*' Preparatory to the muster at Worcester, against Lewelin, 6 July, 1377, William Corbet acknowledged his service due, viz., to find one man who was to take with him a gammon of bacon and to stay (in Wales) tin he had eaten it up. John de Hull was to perform the service.^ In 1283, the King^s escheator citra Trent is ordered to seize into the King's hand &c., the lands &c., of which WiUiam^Corbet had died seized.*^ Aug. 23, 1383, an inquest held at Chettington on the death of William Corbet, reported that "he held in capite of the King a messuage, garden, &c. in Chetington ; and also two-thirds of two carrucates of land in demesne ; that Sir Eoger Corbet was his next heir and of full age : also that the said tenure was by seijeantry of " doing service of one footman in the King's army, when it shall have happened that there be war between the King and the Prince of Wales, at the cost of the said William, till the same footman shall have consumed half a swine (baconem) in the same expedition." ** In 1384, Roger Corbet holding the Manor in capite, the outfit of his deputy is more fully described.*'' — The man was to take 1 bow, 3 arrows, and a caltrop,^^ and also a cured hog, and, when he reached the King's army, he was to deliver to the King's Marshal half thereof and the Marshal was to give him daily of the said half bacon for his dinner, as long as he staid in the army, and he was to stay with the army as long as the hog lasted. In 1829 or 1390 the escheator is ordered to seize the lands of 82 Assize Soil, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 49 recto. «3 Hot Hund., ii, 108. ^ Farliamentary Writs, vol. i, p. 208. ^ Originalia, 11 Edw. I, Rot. 15. ^ Inq. post mortem, 11 Edw. I, No. 103. "' Kirhi/'s Quest. ^ The word here used is ierpolus; but trilulus again under the entry of 1292. The mode in which a competent service was exacted from the Eing's tenant at Chetton, however extraordinary, becomes intelligible by this entry. CHETTON. 181 Robert Corbet deceased f^ and in 1290 the inquest on his death reported his iaterest in Chetidone,''*' He left a son, William, who, in October 1292, was still a minor and in ward to Fulco de Lucy. The service due on Chetton is described nearly as before.''^^ At the same time Nesta Lady of Chetton (Roger Corbet's widow) held land there to the value of 48*. lOd., of the iaheritance of William Corbet, and she was in the King's gift, but married to Thomas de Roshal, the jury knew not by what warrant. The SheriflF being ordered to summon the said Thomas and Nesta, the former appears and (apparently) states that the King at request of Robert de Val had allowed Nesta (her right of remarriage, I presume) J^ In March 1316, the said William Corbet appears as Lord of Chetton.73 HOLLICOTT. A tenure here, probably under the Lords of Chetton, occurs from an early period. In November 1194 an assize of mort d'ancestre stood for hearing in the Com-ts at Westminster, wherein Hugh de Holocote was plaintiff against Adam de Hereford. The latter, being beyond sea, in Ireland, had essoign by Yvo Walensis. The Recognizers of this Assize, who also essoigned themselves, and their Essoigners were as follows : — Stephen de Middelton by Adam de Middleton. Warin de Middelton by Roger Fitz Edwin. Hugo de Hupton by Richard Fitz Roger. Robert de Fagnotre by William Fitz Richard. Robert Walensis by Walter Chordiwan. Philip de Pharlawe (Farlow) by Rog. Fitz Siward, and — Walter Hachet (of Wheathill)"by Richard de Gorewelle.'''* In 1320, we have already had Hugh de HoUicot as a surety of Sibil de Broc, Lady of Chetton.'i's In 1255,''^ and again ia January 1256, Hugh de Holocote sat as a juror of the Hundred of Stottesden.'''^ *' Originalia, vol. i, p. 64. '" Calendar JEsehaetarum, i, 101. ^ Placita Corona, Salop, 20 Bdw. I, membi 20 recto. ^2 The record is torn and defaced. " Fa/rl. Writs, iv, 398. '■* Hot. Curia Regis, i, 123. ?* Vide supra, page 172. 7« Rot. JECmd. ii, 81. '' Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III. 182 CHETTON. About 1268, Robert Corbet's grant in Chetton to Robert Burnell included the homage of Hugh de Holycote. Jan. 26j 1270, Hugh de Holicott was a Juror in the inquest as to the estate of Robert Corbet of ChettonJ^ In Sept. 1272, he was reported as making default iu due attendance at Salop Assizes.'''^ An extract from a deed of about this period gives as witnesses GeofFry de Criddon and Hugh de Holicote his son. If this be correct, Hugh de Holicote must have been husband of Sibil, daughter and sole heir of Geoffry de Criddon ; and further he will have been dead in 1274 when the said Sibil had remarried.^" June 23, 1297, William Hobald, of the Mill, grants to Wilham his son and Mabil his (son's) wife, and heirs of their bodies, all the land of Alan at Holycote, with a messuage iu the same, of which Sir Roger de Holycote had enfeoffed ihe grantor. To hold of Hugh de Holycote the chief Lord of the fee. In default of such heirs the premises are to revert to the grantor. — "Witnesses : John Lord of Upton, Coroner, Wydo de Glaseleg, William de Mora, Wilham son of Havrys de Westode (Westwood), John de Aldebur (Oldbury), Dated at Holycote on Sunday in the Vigil of St. John the Baptist, 25 of King Edward.^^ An extract from a deed similarly dated and attested and by the same grantor, gives Matilda as the name of the son's wife, and conveys a mill and messuage in Holycote to be held of Roger Lord of Holycote.^- On the whole I conclude that Hugh, Lord of Hollicott iu 1270, was succeeded by Roger, and he by another Hugh previous to 1297. In the same interval one Richard de Holycote appears as husband of Clemence, daughter and coheiress of Adam de Faintree.^' The family of Hubold or Hobald had more than one branch and interest in this neighbourhood. The adjunct "de Molendino" used by the above grantor was to distinguish himself from a con- temporary William Hobaud, of Harpesford (Harpswood) . '8 Inquisitions, 54 Henry III, No. 53. '3 Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, Stottesden Hund. 80 Blakewaji MSS. ^ Charter at Apley Park. William Hubaud de Molyno had served on the Stottesden Jury at Salop Assizes, October 1292 (Plac. Corona, memb. 51 recto). «2 Blakeway MSS. iu Bibl. Bodl. Pa- rochial Hist. vol. i. Tit. Eudon Burnell. The manifest inaccuracy of this extract may be an excuse for the diffidence with which I have above quoted a similarly authorized deed. ^ Vide supra, p. 162. CHETTON. 183 CHBTTON CHURCH. The existence of a Church here in 1086 and some early notices of the Advowson thereof, have already been set forth. About 1253, Sibil de Broc gave a virgate of land, worth 16*. per annunij to the Parson of the Church of Chetyton in. pure and perpetual alms, to find a Chaplain to sing the mass of Saint Mary.** She also gave about the same time to the same Church an acre of land and a fish- pond (servarium), which were of 6 pence annual value. In 1391, the Church of Chetynton with the Chapel of Lustone (Loughton) is returned as annually worth £16. The Rector of Conede (Cound) had a portion therein worth 4s. per annum. The Abbot of Wigmore is also said to have had a portion of 10s. therein.*^ However, in 1341, the taxation of the Church is stated at £16. 4*., the Abbot of Wigmore^s portion being excluded. At this time the Assessors rendered account of £7. 4$. 'kd. as the value of the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb in the parish. The difference between this sum and the Church taxation arose thus : — Three carrucates and three virgates of land lay untilled from the poverty of the tenants : the estate (fundus) of the Church with its rents and lands annexed were worth 29s. ; the tithe of hay was 13s. 4!d. ; the small tithes, offerings, and other profits were worth 13s. Ad., as by inquisition had been determined &c.^^ In 1534, the Rectory of Chetton, then held by Humphrey Bumell, was worth, in glebe and great and small tithes, £13. in gross. The charges on this sum were Procurations 7s. 8d. ; Bishop's triennial visitation 17s. 9d. ; the Abbot of Wigmore's pension IDs. ; and the Rector of Counde's pension (here stated at) 5s. So that the net value was £10. 19s. 7d.^'' The Rector of Cound had also pensions in the Churches of Easthope and Acton-Round. I can only account for this in one way, viz. that when the Church of Cound was founded, the founder (probably a Fitz Alan or some predecessor of that house) endowed it with tithes in several quarters, viz. in Easthope, Acton Round, Eudon (Burnell), and perhaps Criddon. The tithes of the last two may afterwards have been made over to the Rector of Chetton in ^ Sot. Sund. ii, 83. ^ Pope Nich. Tax. p. 166, (Deanery of Stotteeden). The Chapelry of Lougkton is Btill subject to Chetton Church. ^ Inq. Nonarv/m, p. 190. ^ Valor. Eccles. iii, 211. 24 184 CHETTON. lieu of an annual pension payable by him to the Rector of Cound. Similarly the Abbot of Wigmore's pension may have been a com- position in lieu of tithes ; those of Eudon George perhaps. The early subjection of Lough ton Chapelry to Chetton is a matter on which I will not attempt a conjecture. INCUMBENTS OF CHETTON. The first Rector of Chetton^ of whom we have record, was that Richard Folyott, who, having been presented by Sibil de Broc before 1255, was dead in 1360, when the King, after a law-suit with Auger de Tathnton, had the next presentation.^* A vacancy again occurred in the year 1278, previous to which, as we have already seen, Robert Burnell had become the Patron.*^ His career is well known, and that he became Bishop of Bath and WeUs in 1274. On occasion of the vacancy of this Church in 1278,'° Master Ralph de Witham, Archdeacon of Bath, writes to the Bishop of Hereford (Thomas de Cantilupe) in behalf of Philip BumeU. The Bishop suspends the matter, on account of the absence of the presentee, and grants that no time shall run against him, if only the Church be properly served. On July 22, 1278, the same Bishop commits custody of the Church to Sir Richard, Parish Priest of Chetton, till the feast of AU Saints (Nov. 1), in the name of Philip Burnell, Clerk. On October 29, 1278, the same Bishop grants letters dimissory, pro hac vice only, to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, to take order about' Philip Burnell's admission to this Rectory. The Patron named is Sir Hugh Burnell. May 27, 1279, Sir Malcolm, Canon of WeUs, is instituted, on presentation of Sir Hugh Burnell. Aug. 19, 1284, Sir Nicholas de Hereford, Canon of Hereford, is instituted, on the same presentation. Dec. 21, 1285, Roger de Lectone is instituted, on the same presentation. 30 Ed. I (1301-2), Maurice de Pissatowas presented by the Crown, in right of the guardianship of PhiUp Bumel.'i Supra, p. 178. Supra, p. 179. 9» Bereford Register (Blakeway MSS. in Bibl. Bodl.). " Mot. Pat 30 Edw. I, memb. 27. 185 €utiom ELDONE, EUDON MALESOURES, on EUDON BURNELL. The Saxon bun (a hill or down) is undoubtedly the last syllable of Eudon. Looking consequently for a Saxon original of the first syllable we hesitate according to the different ways in which the word has been spelt. If the Domesday orthography (Eldone) were the most authentic, we should at once adopt the Saxon ^Ib or Ealb (old, ancient) as the said first syllable. But the Domesday form is a solecism, and uniform custom, as well as local prontmciation, point out Eudon as the truer name. If so its more probable component will have been the Saxon word Gopu (genitive, Gope an ewe), or else Gop (the wild ash) . Dowese^ay'notices the Manor thus ■} — The same Rainald (Vicecomes) holds (of the Earl) Eldone. iEluuard held it and was a free man. Here are ii hides geldable. In demesne are iii ox-teams ; and there are vi serfs, i villain, v boors, and I Frenchman, with ii ox-teams. There is wood for (fattening) LX swine. It was worth xxx shillings. Now it is worth xl shillings. ^Iward the Saxon Lord of Oldbury and Glazeley in this Hundred has occurred before. Under Chetton we have surmised the early feoffment, by Rainald or his successors, of that feudatory whose eventual representative was Damietta, wife of Ranulf de Broc. Accordingly in 1165, Ranulf de Broc appears as holding under Fitz Alan, by service of 1 muntator, of old feoffment, which shows that the grant to his wife's ancestors was previous to the death of Henry I.^ We have recounted the deaths of Ranulf de Broc about 1187, and of Damietta, his widow, about 1204. On August 8 of the latter year, we have seen King John ordering the Sheriff of Shropshire to give seizin of Euden to Edelina, wife of Stephen de Turnham, as if daughter and sole heir of the said Damietta. We have further ' Domesday, fo. 255 a. 2. ' Liler Niger, i, 143. 186 EUDON BURNELL. detailed the perennial litigation whicli followed this unjust distri- bution of an estate to which there were five co-heiresses. How or when Clemence, one of the said coheirSj recovered Eudon as her share, and conveyed it to her husband WiUiam de Malesoures, we are not informed. At Salop Assizesj November, 1231, William Malesoures appears as a juror on a Great Assize,^ a circumstance which indicates such position 'in the County as can alone be ascribed to his previous seizin of his wife's inheritance. Also at the same Assizes/ though under his other name (William de Tatelinton), he appears with Clemence his wife, and Sibil her sister, in a suit against their nephew, Roger de Leyburn, wherein Berwick was claimed by the plaintiffs. William de Tatlinton appears again iu this suit iu February, 1223, and perhaps in Michaelmas Term following.^ And farther of him I can say nothing, except that he left by his wife Clemence four sons, viz. Auger, of whom Clemence was preg- nant at her marriage ; Hamoii ; and two others, unnamed. Hamon was again, father, before 1254, of William, Simon, and Alexander.^ But following a more regular order of events, we find, from the collective evidence of three Eolls of Fitz- Alan's Barony, that about the year 1240 Simon de Frankleg was holding half a fee in Eudon Maleseverez.''' This I can reconcile with nothing but a conjecture that the said Simon was second husband of Clemence de Broc, and that he thus became possessed of Eudon for her or his life, as the case may have been, but probably for hers only. I find nothing of the issue of Clemence till the year 1250, when Auger de Tatliuton (her eldest son) had fined 5 merks with the Crown for some writ,^ the subject of which may have been con- nected with the following suit. In Michaelmas Term, 1253, it appeared, before the Queen and Council at Westminster, that Wilham de Tatlynton, who was essoigned in a plea of land against Auger de Tatlynton, had not yet been viewed. " And Master Symon de Wanton (a Justiciar) comes on his behalf and says, that he is well of the infirmity for which he ^ Assise Boll, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 2 recto. * Ibidem, memb. 1 dorso. •'' Vide supra, p. 174. 6 Supra, p. 176. 1 Testa de Nevill, pages 44, 48, 49. It "will be seen in the subjoined pedigree how Auger do Tatlinlon, son and heir of Clemence, married the grand-daughter and eventual heir of Simon de Prankley. Nash (Mist. TForces., i, 458) is respon- sible for this statement, but how it is connected with Simon de Prantley's tenure of Eudon circa 1240, I cannot pretend to say. ■ 8 Sot. Fip. 34 Hen. Ill, Salop. EUDON BTJRNELL. 187 had.essoign, and that he asks leave to rise because his adversary maliciously keeps him in bed and wiU not cause him to be viewed, though license had been given him thereof." ^ The Court decides that he may rise and come without delay. Afterwards he comes^ and has a day given him. This suit con- cerned land in Worcestershire. In 1355, a Stottesden Jury, of which Auger de Eudon was one, returned him as Lord of Eudon Maleseveres. It contained half a hide, and was held of John Fitz-Alan by service of one Montar, for half a knight's fee. He owed suit to the Sheriff's tourn twice a year, but not to County or lesser Hundred Courts, because his ancestors rendered no such suit, nor did he pay stretward, nor motfee?^ In January, 1256, Wmiam, son of Thomas de Tatlinton, was suitor against Auger Fitz-Clemence, for two carrucates in Eudon, by writ of entry. William appeared in due course, but Auger came not. The premises were seized into the King's hand, and the parties summoned for Saturday after the octaves of the Purification, i, e. Saturday, Feb. 12th.ii In September, 1257, William de Tatlinton had an assize ot novel disseizin against Adam de Faintre and his wife.^^ In 1259, William de Tatlinton accounts half a merk for having an assize^^ (probably the same matter) . At the same time Auger de TatHnton accounts two merks for license to accord^''' In 1260, Auger de Tatlinton accounts half a merk for a writ of appone}^ This was perhaps in connexion with his suit against the Crown as to Chetton Advowson. On April 23, 1262, a fine was levied at Westminster between Aunger de Talliugton, plaintiff, and Richard de Eslewode, deforciant, as to the customs and services which Auger required from the free tenement which Richard held of him (Auger) in Eudon, viz., one virgate of land, &c., whereof Auger required that Richard should pay 7s. annually, and do suit every three weeks at Auger's Court at Eudon ; and that Richard and his heirs should render homages and reliefs to Auger and his heirs. AU these services Richard had 9 Plac. apud Westm., 37 Hen. Ill, memb. 11 dorso. 1" Rot. Smd., u, p. 81. " Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. HI. 12 Sot. Fat., 41 Hen. IH. 13 Sot. Fip., 43 Hen. III. Salop. " Ibidem. 15 Rot. Pip., 44 Hen. Ill, Salop, vide supra, p. 178. 188 EUDON BUKNELL. heretofore denied ; but now, after a law-suit, acknowledged. For this acknowledgment Auger undertook to warrant the premises to Richard and his heirs.^" But the litigations of Auger de Tatlinton were endless. — In Trinity Term, 1263, he appeared in a suit against John Fitz- Alan, his Suzerain. ^^ "Whereas the King had caused it to be enacted, that no one, by reason of his tenement, should be distrained to do suit to the Court of his Lord, except he was bound to do such suit by the terms of his feoffment, or he and his ancestors had done such suit prior to the King's first transfretation (1230), Auger now sued John Fitz-Alan in a cause as to why the said John distrained him (Auger) to do suit to John's Court at Acton " (Acton Round). John Fitz-Alan appeared not. The Sheriff had not summoned him, but sends word into Court that the said John had the King's letters of protection as long as there was war in Wales. The Sheriff was declared in'misericordia, and the cause adjourned to Michael- mas Term. We, however, hear no more of this case, probably owing to the troubled state of the kingdom. On the Pipe Roll of 51 Hen. Ill (1267), Auger de Tatlingeton appears as having been amerced 40*. for non-prosecution of some suit ; but a note is added to the entry, to the effect that he had accounted for such fine iu the Roll of last year, under Worcester- shire.^^ And further of him in connexion with Eudon I can say nothing. His interest here was very likely sold much about the time when he seems to have conveyed his share of Chetton to Robert Corbet, and the next whom I find possessed of Eudon was Hugh Bumell, who had a charter of free-warren here in 9 Edw. I (1281),^^ and whose tenure hereof under Fitz-Alan remained to his descendants, and is still memorialized in the name of the place. In 1284, Hugh Bumell holds Eudon of Richard Fitz-Alan, of the honour of White Minster, by half a knight's fee.^" The account of him and his successors is postponed to a future occasion. We may quote, however, from the Pleas of the Crown of October, 1293, the record of an affray which happened here some years previously. '^ Fedes Jinium, 46 Hen. III. Esel- wode is the same name as Hazelwood. '7 Flac. apud Westm., Trin. Term, 47 Hen. m, memb. 17 dorso. 18 Sot. Fip., 51 Hen. Ill, Salop. 1" Calend. Mot. •Chart, p. 111. ^ Mrly's Quest. EUDON BUKNELL. 189 and which shows how soon the place took name from its new possessors : — " William de Bedleswrthin (Belswardine) and Thomas de Ken- leye were together in the kitchen of Hugh Burnell in the village of Eudon Burnell, and a quarrel arising between them, William struck Thomas on the head with a sword, whereof, on the fourth day after, Thomas died. William is a fugitive, and is suspected. He has been summoned (at five County Courts by the Sheriff — the usual process), and is outlawed. He had no chattels. The vUls of Eudon Burnell and Chetynton did not make pursuit (of the fugi- tive) so they are in misericordid. Afterwards it was proved that said William had chattels, viz. (of value), 4s. Qd., for which the Sheriff is answerable." ^^ Eudon Burnell was at this time the dower of Sibil Burnell, who was reported at the same Assizes as a defaulter in due attendance, and as claiming free warren here. The subjoined scheme of the descent of Kanulf de Broc, some time Lord of Chetton and Eudon, is intended to illustrate the otherwise complex narrative which is new concluded. Its accuracy in each particular is not maintained. It is only a selection of pro- babilities from a mass of contradictory evidence. If compared with the foregoing narrative, it wUl, however, serve one purpose better than a more lengthened commentary, — the purpose, namely, of ex- hibiting those inconsistencies which sometimes occur in the minutes of the Law Courts, as well as in the returns of local juries. — It win be seen how the want of previous acquaintance or fa- miliarity with the places and persons concerned, affected the verbal accuracy of the Law Scribes, both of those who worked in the cen- tral Courts of Westminster, and those who went with the Justices on their various circuits ; and yet how these functionaries seldom failed to catch the spirit of a plea or to record it intelligibly. — It win also be seen how Country Juries, with greater accuracy as to names, local and personal, were often mistaken as to the facts of a remote time or place, and were still more ignorant as to the legal bearings and importance of such facts. 2' Flac. Coron., Salop, 20 Edw. I, I =2 ibidem, memb. 20 recto. II- -^ . rrj a CD 1=8 ■« ■I t-B IK "S t. o CO rd 03 I-t ■5 -^S l-l ■f -^ b . P aa t-i »_• cu O o) ,13 rt .'a § s « w .g 3 R Ih o ^^^^ — J 'TS CQ •** a •§ ^ i . ga-^q3 ^ 3 S3 -11^ Hi O rH I- -Matilda aZioi Mabilia, mar^. 1st, Rad de Gattou, 2dly, Thomas de Baveliugham. -Alice, mar"". Adam de Bending. -Alienore, mar''. Balph Fitz Bernard. -Beatrix alia^ Katerina, mar''. 1st, Bad de Fay, 2dly, Hugh de Hovill (or IfeoTill). J3 ^§ .-2" Ilii |z; ePPcc Ih * « * o CQ a ^ . — « Si 'o g^^; NtO ^ in -53 o S-< -fell 191 Crttitiom HerEj as in Eudon, we have the undoubted Saxon termination bun (a hill or down), an:d only a question as to the first syllable. Crida (Cpiba) was the founder of the Saxon Kingdom of Mercia, about A.D. 586. Though we need not presume him to have had to do with this humble locality, it is very possible that, after his era, his name became common in Mercia, and that one so called was some time possessor of the place. It is not mentioned in Domesday, but at all subsequent periods it appears as a sole Manor held under Fitz Alan. Like Eudon, it was and is in the parish of Chetton. The falling off from the Domesday Hidage, of Eudon and Glazeley (both Fitz Alan's Manors) is observable. It may be accounted for by some early dismemberment of each, and the same cause may have led to the establishment of a third and iadependent Manor, Kke Criddon; but, as I have said more than once, the general accuracy of the Domesday survey, as regards this quarter, is sus- pected. An attempt, therefore, so to combiue several consequents as to tally with a doubtful antecedent, need not be ventured. In 1165, Robert de Critendon is registered as holding, by service of 1 muntator, of Fitz Alan's Barony.^ Oct. 1219, William de Criddon was a surety for Sibil de Broc.^ Among pleas at Salop in August, 1236, was an assize of novel disseizin as to whether Adam de Dodiaton, Alexander de Cans, Alan de Thedestiel and Alan his son, had disseized William de Crigdon and Richolda, his wife, of a free tenement ia Thedistiel (Tedstill) . — Verdict for the defendants.^ In 1240, William de Cradelton, Gridelton or Cridelton, is variously entered as holding, by service of half a knight's fee, ia the place from which he is named, and under John Fitz Alan.* On November 12, 1240, we have a fine^ which shows clearly what ' Idber Niger, i, 144. 2 Supra, p. 172. ' Plac. coram Mege, 10 Hen. III. * Testa de Nevill, pp. 44, 48, 49. * Pedes finium, apiid Salop, 25 Hen. III. 25 192 CKIDDON. this tenant's name really was, also that his tenure was in Criddon, and that the confusion arose from a similarity between his. name and the place of his tenure. The said fine was between Geoffry de Griddon, plaintiff, and William de Middelton, tenant, of half a knight's fee and 1 virgate of land in Griddon (Criddon) and GodestU (Tedstill), whereof was an assize of mort d'ancestre. The former tenant (William de Middleton) renounced his right on receipt of five m.erks. The Inquest of 1255 (as printed) again exhibits this place and its owner in a false orthography. " Geofirey de Breddon is Lord of Breddon, and holds in capite of John Fitz Alan. Therein is one- fourth of a hide (the virgate of the fine). He does suit to the Hundred Courts ; pays stretward 1 penny, and motfee 2 pence. He does no suit to the County Court." ^ The same Geoffrey (again written " de Breddon") also held half Middelton under Fitz Aer, and Fitz Aer under Fitz Alan.'' Perhaps William de Middelton had been his predecessor in each Manor. In Feb. 1363, Geoffry de Cridon, as a Regarder of the Forests, was amerced.* In March, 1362, and Sept. 1363, he appears on Juries -^ again on Jan. 36, 1370, and with Hugh de Holicote ; and on two Juries in April, 1378, which are the latest notices I have seen of him. Sibil, his daughter and sole heir, succeeded him. This lady was, if I am not mistaken, the wife of four successive husbands ; the first of whom, Hughde Crediton, was dead before January, 1356, when Sibil, his widow, sued William Okeman and Sibil, his wife, for a messuage in Crediton, as her dower, and recovered the same.^" At the same Assizes this Sibil (called daughter of Geoffrey de Criddon) was sued under writ of mort d'ancestre for a virgate in Deuxhill. The plaintiff in this case was non-suited, Sibil proving that she was not tenant of the premises.^^ As her father was living it is probable that her interest in Deuxhill, whatever it was, accrued with her first husband, and that he adopted the name of Criddon from his residence here. Her second husband, Hugh de Holicote, has already been noticed in 1368, 1270, and 1373.1^ Also the deed attested by Geo&ey ^ Sot. Sund. ii, 82. ' Ibidem, p. 81 ; ride infra, p. 196. ' Mac. Forest. Salop. ' Inquisitions, 46 Hen. Ill, No. 31, and 47 Hen. Ill, No. 26. ■" Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 14 recto. " Ibidem, memb. 2 dorso. ^ Supra, p. 182. CRIDDON. 193 de Criddon and Hugh de Holicote, his son, has been set forth.^' He appears to have died between 1273 and 1274j for in the latter year — Ralph, son of Ralph Payn, of Salop, grants all he had in Criddon to Thomas de Marham, mentioning Sibil, daughter of Geoffrey de Criddon, his wife.^* In 1284, Sibil appears with her fourth husband and her inheritance, for " John de Volascote (WoUascott) who married Sibil, daughter and heir of Geoffrey de Cridon, holds a Manor, in Stottesden Hun- dred, of Richard Fitz Alan, of the honour of Oswestry, by service of half a knight's fee, and he is to do guard at the Castle of White Minster." 15 In 1293, a fine was levied between John de Wolascote with Sibil his wife, and Edmund de Mortimer, defendant, of a rent of 30 quarters of com in Deuxhill. The right was the defendant's.^* This calls to mind Sibil's interest in Deuxhill in 1356. How Henry le Waleys, the next whom I find possessed of Criddon, succeeded thereto I cannot say. He, however, entailed the estate on Fitz Aer, by fine levied in 1306, and which purports to be between Hugh le Fitz Aer, plaintiff, and Henry le Waleys, defendant, of 1 messuage, 1 carrucate of land, and 100 shillings rent, in Criddon (S alop) , and oi £10 rent, in Franbarew (Warwickshire) . The right is acknowledged to be Henry's, who concedes all the premises to Hugh for life, with remainder to William, son of said Hugh Fitz Aer, and Christiana, daughter of John de Redmarleye (wife of William I suppose) .1' In March, 1316, Alina Fitz Aer is returned as Lady of Criddon -^^ and, in 1397-8, Criddon was held by Margaret Criddon by half a knight's fee, under Fitz Alan.^^ A few inferior tenancies must have notice : — In January, 1256, Agnes de TedstiU accused Thomas and Philip Horde and Ralph de Ruton, for breaking open her house at night. They prove that the thing was done not feloniously, but to make a certain seizure ^ (probably as public oflScers) . " Vide Bupra, p. 141. " BlaTceway MSS. '* Kirbjfs Quest. Here then is one proof of the association between the service of Castle-guard and the fee of the Muntator or Muntor (vide supra, p. 85). "" Dukes' Antiquities, p. 253. •' Fines diversorwm Comitat. 34 Ed. I, (Salop and Warw). Henry le Waleys may have been only a feoffee in trust. '8 Pari. Writs, vol. iv, 398. " Hsch. Calend. iii, 223. «> Flacita Corona 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 1. 194 MIDDLETON SCEIVEN. In Feb. 1262, Robert, son of Elias de Criditon, was amerced half a merk for imbladement, within the jurisdiction of Shirlet Forest.^^ In July, 1272, Ralph, son of Robert the Carpenter, of Kriddon, fined half a merk to have an assizeP In September, 1272, there was a suit of mort d'ancestre, as to whether Elyas, father of William de Criddedon, had died seized of half a virgate here, and if so, whether said William was his heir. William de Morehall, who was sued as tenant, would not answer without Sibil, his wife.^' Richard, son of Reginald Elyes, of Criddon (of the same family as the last plaintiff, I suppose), is mentioned in a deed of 1311-2 as having sold a tenement in Criddon to Adam, son of William Lord of Upton, which said Adam then grants to John Lord of Upton, his nephew, &c.^* jHttitileton. NOW MIDDLETON SCRIVEN. This Saxon town (fcun), like all other Middletons, will have originally been so called with reference to certain other localities between which it stood. But it is vain to conjecture such relations, seeing that 450 years may have elapsed between the time when a Mercian town received its Saxon name, and the time when such name first became matter of written record. In other words, we do not know, within 450 years, when any ordinary village of Mercia was established, and still less do we know what at the time of such establishment were the adjacent villages, or what two of them were of sufficient importance to suggest the denomination of a third. The neigh- bourhood of some great perennial objects, such as mountains or =" Plac. Forestm, 46 Hen. III. 22 Mn., u, 572. ^ Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 dorso. ^ Vide supra, p. 143. MIDDLETON SCRIVEN. 195 rivers, will, it is true, often account for allusive names, but in the case before us, these circumstances are wanting. In 1085, Rainald (the Sheriff) held Middeltone (of the Earl), and Alcher and Albert (held it) of him. Edric a free man held it (in time of King Edward) for two Manors. Here are ii hides geldable. In demesne are ii ox -teams ; and (there are) v serfs, vi villains, and V boors, with iii ox-teams ; and there might be iii other (ox -teams) more. In time of K^ing Edward (the Manors) were worth 13s. (per annum) . Now (they are worth) 28s. They were waste (that is, worth nothing when they came to the present holders) } The two Manors held here by Alcher and Albert, at Domesday, under the Sheriff Rainald, remained two Manors held by the descendants of Alcher and Albert under Fitz Alan. Thus Middleton will have contributed its share to the service of 1 knight and 1^ muntators due, in 1165, by Robert Fitz Aer to Fitz Alan's Barony; and also to the service of 1 knight and 3^ muntators due, at the same period, by Hugh Fitz Albert, to the same seigneury.^ Also in 1240, when William Fitz Aer is said to hold 1 fee, and Thomas de Roshale 1^ fees of the Barony of Fitz-Alan,^ the fief of each must be taken to have involved whatever service was due from his share of Middleton. But of Fitz Aer and Fitz-Albert we shall hear more elsewhere. Here we will only mention the undertenants of each at Middleton, distinguishing them or not as best we can. PITZ AER'S MAJVfOR. Warinde Middelton, who, in November, 1194, was a recognizor in the assize mentioned under Hollicott, was, I suppose, Fitz Aer's tenant here. In the cause in question it is observable that his essoigner was Roger Fitz Edwin.* On Sept. 26, 1199, a fine was levied at Salop between Warin de Middelton, plaintiff, and Richard de Overton, tenant, of one virgate in Overton (an adjoining Manor) whereof had been a trial of mart d'ancestre. Warin made over his claim to Richard and his heirs, receiving 15s.^ At Salop Assizes (October 1203), the Stottesden Jurors reported Domesday, fo. 255 a. 2. lAber Niger, i, 143. Testa de Nevill, pp. 44, 47, 48, 49. < Supra, p. 181. 5 Pedes Jinium, 1 John, Salop. 196 MIDDLETON SCRIVEN. that " Roger Fitz Edwin^ who was with Warm de Middelton, who died iu a fit of intoxication^ was a fugitive, but that he was not suspected as regarded the death of said Warin." ^ It is possible that William de Middleton, who has before occurred as conceding his interest in Criddon to GeofFry de Criddon, in 1240, took his name from this Manor, and had an interest here. Be that as it may, in 1355, the same Geoffrey de Criddon (written " Breddon") was Lord of a part of Middelton, viz. 1 hide, which he held in capite of John Fitz Aeri (written " Cleri ") . He did suit to County and Hundred Courts. The whole Manor paid stretward — 8 pence, and motfe — 16 pence^ (the sums proportionable to 2 hides) . How or when Geoffrey de Criddon or his daughter alienated this tenancy I cannot say. She was still living in 1284, and at a subse- quent period has been noticed in a transfer of rents at Deuxhill to Edmund de Mortimer. This may be taken in conjunction with the fact that, in 1284, Thomas de la Hide held half the vill of Middleton of Edmund de Mortimer, Edmund of John Fitz Aer, John of Richard Fitz Alan, by service of one-fourth part of a knight's fee, and of the honor of White-Minster.^ In March, 1316, Thomas de la Hyde was returned ^ as one of the Lords of Middleton in Stottesden Hundred. PITZ ALBERT'S OR ROSSAXL MANOR. About 1170-80, Stephen de Midelton is a witness to a charter of Osbem Fitz Hugh, Lord of Richard's Castle which related to Badger.-'" In Nov. 1194, Stephen de Middelton was a Recognizor in the assize mentioned under HoUicott. His essoigner was Adam de Middleton." At Salop Assizes, Oct. 1203, Stephen, nephew of one Robert, sued Vivian de Roshall, under writ of mort d'ancestre, for a bovate in Middleton, which he claimed as Robert's heir. Vivian appeared and said that he claimed nothing in the premises except as guardian of a certain infant whom he brought into Court. Stephen would * Salop Assizes, B John, memb. 2 dorso. '' Rot. Sund. ii, 81. 8 Kirly's Quest. In 1292, Warin de Middleton, whom I take to be of this place, has been mentioned already having an interest in Paintree. » P7 makeway MSS. 18 Plae. apud Westm. 26 Hen. Ill, memb. 32 dorso. i 19 Roi. mmd. ii, 81, 82. The great increase on the Domesday hidage will again come under notice. 2» Assize Boll, 40 Hen. III. 21 Hot. Sund. ii, 109. 22 Dukes' Introduction, p. vii. 23 Sot. Pip. 43 Hen. Ill, quoting Originalia of 42 Hen. III. 226 ASTON BOTTERELL. dred.^* He was also a Regarder of Morf and Shirlet Forests in this year.^^ In 48 Hen. Ill (1263-4), he had the King's Charter to have a Market and Fair at Estone Boterell.^^ In August, 1267, the King presiding in his Court at Salop, this Thomas appeared in a suit of novel disseisin against Matilda de Longespee and others, who had deprived him of common pas- turage in Cleyes, pertaining to his free tenement in Aston Boterell. Matilda pleaded that she had only resisted the right during hay- harvest (tempore fenacionis), and she had the same liberty at that season as the King had in his Forests, because that Forest (the Clee) was once Royal. Thomas rejoined that his ancestors had purchased from the ancestors of Matilda a right of pasturage throughout the year, for 2s. and 12 hens (rent, I presume). Presently Thomas declines to prosecute. His consequent amercement was excused at instance of Sir R. de Clifford.^''' As a supplement to this concord with Maud de Longespee (the heiress of the Cliffords and Lady of Corfham), we may instance Thomas Boterel's attestation of her Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey, which must have passed within a year or two of the last date.^^ Also about this time Thomas Botterel, Knight, stands third witness of Robert Corbett's grant in Chetton.^' At the County Assizes, October, 1272, Thomas Botterel appears both as a Knight and Juror.^" It would appear that he was sometime Constable of his Suzerain's Castle of Clun, and that for some alleged excess in that office, Geoffrey le Venour, Seneschall of Sir Roger de Mortimer, about October, 1273, maliciously caused the cattle of the said Thomas to be seized on his own land of Eston Boterel, and to be driven to Cleybury, and there detained till said Thomas had paid \SsP- On Nov. 27, 1274, Sir Thomas Boterel sat as foreman of the Jury which then made report as to oppressions and excesses by the King's Officers and others in Stottesden Hundred.^^ To their return we owe the above particulars as to Thomas' own withdrawal of the suit of his Manor of Aston ; also as to his transaction with ^ Mot. Sund. ii,,108. ^ Flac. Forestce, 46 Hen. Ill, memb. 6 recto. =« Calend. Rot. Cart. p. 92. ^ Flacita coram Rege, 51 Hen. Ill, memb. 3 dorso. 28 Salop Chartulary, No. 6. ^ Vide supra, p. 178. 3» Assize Moll, 56 Hen. III. 3' Mot. Sund. ii, 109. 32 Ibidem, p. 107. ASTON BOTTERELL. 227 Hugh de Acour and his persecution by the Seneschal of Cleobury Mortimer. About this time/^ or at least between the years 1371 and 1278, Sir Thomas Boterel had a feoffment from Luke Abbot of Shrews- bury, of a messuage in the vill of Lucton (Loughton), and of 9 acres lying in the fields, in Wetemore, between Burwarton and Loughton, to hold for ever at a rent of Ss. 4id. — Witnesses : Sir Ralph de Arras, Sir John de la Lee, Sir John Pitz Aer, and others. Jan. 28, 1281, Sir Thomas Boterel occurs as one of the four Knights then commissioned to make view and report of the state of Bridgnorth Castle.^* About 1284, the Feodary gives Thomas de Boterbel as holding Haston, of Richard Fitz Alan, of the honour of White-Minster, with its members, viz. Necton (Norton), Forde, Heywode (Haywood), and Toteneye, by performing the service of 1 Knight's fee, and doing ward at White-Minster Castle in time of war.^^ He will have survived this date but for a short time. He seems to have married Petronilla, widow of Wido de Hadnall, and after he became a Knight to have had, with her, a grant of lands in Hadnall, from Sir Thomas de le Lee,^^ which grant was afterwards (1296-7) confirmed by John de le Lee, son of Sir Thomas, to Richard, son of Thomas Boterell. This Richard had succeeded his father at Aston BottereU before October, 1292, when he was summoned to answer at Salop as to his warrant for claiming a right of fair, market, and free-warren, and the privilege of assizing bread and beer in his Manor of Eston Boterel. In reply was produced the Charter of King Henry III, granting to Thomas Boterel, ancestor of said Richard, and whose heir Richard was, that said Thomas and his heirs should have for ever a weekly market on Tuesdays, in his Manor of Eston, and an annual fair of three days, viz. the vigil, the day, and the morrow of St. Michael. And Richard said that he claimed such market and fair by the aforesaid charter, and the privilege of assizing bread and beer, as appurtenant to the said fafr and market. So he was, on this count, dismissed sine die ; and as to free warren he does not appear to have claimed any.^'' ^ Salop Chartulary, No. 407. ^ Inquisitions, 9 Edw. I, No. 81. " Kirhy^s Quest, ^ Sheriffs of Shropshire, p. 204. It would also seem from the Saghmon Char- tula/ry (fo. 69), that John, Lord of the Lee, made a grant, independently of his father's, to SirThos. Boterell, Knight, and PetronUla his wife, in Hadnall. 37 Pladta de quo Warranto, p. 675. 228 ASTON BOTTERELL. In 5 Edw. II (1311-2), I find him attesting as Richard Lord of Aston Botterel, but not as a Knight, a charter which concerned lands at Northwood, and which passed at The Woodhouse, near Stottesden.^^ In March, 1316, Richard Boterel is returned as Lord of Asseton Boterel.^' But in 10 Edw. II (1316-7), John Botterel, Lord of Aston Botterel, grants to Richard, his father, the tenement held by William Idel.*" At Diddlebury on the feast of St. Ethelbert, 11 Edw. II (May 20, 1318), Richard Botterel granted to Hugh, son of Roger de Cheyney, for a sum of money a tenement, &c. in Hadnall, near Astley.*^ By letters patent tested at Westminster, 24 Sept. 1321, John Boterel and other Shropshire names, appear among the followers of Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, who were included in a general pardon for all offences committed in pursuit of the Despensers.*^ I have met with very few notices of minor tenancies in this Manor, and I greatly doubt whether its members in the 13th century were belonging to it at Domesday. A future occasion will suffice for what remains to be said on the subject. THE CHTJECH OF ASTON BOTTEEELL. The first mention of a Church here which has occurred is in the Taxation of 1291, when the Church of Asheston BoteV in the Deanery of Stoftesden, is expressed to be of £10. annual value.*^ In 1341 the taxation of Astonbotrel Church being quoted at £10, the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, in the Parish, is only rated at induces me to postpone for the present, any attempt to set fovth a genealogy of the Boterells. ^^ Fa/rlimnenta/ry Writs, iv, 398. ■*" Blalceway MS8. quoting Lacon Evidences. Mr. Blakeway remarks that the seal of this deed is charged with a swan, while a Uon rampant was the usual bearing of the family. ^' Scmghmond CJiartulary, fo. 70. ^^ Parliamentary Writs, iv, 573. « Fope Mc. Tax. p. 166. MSS. quoting Ottley Deeds. This deed seems to be dated " in the fifth year of King JSdward," a form not unusual in deeds of the first years of Edward II's reign, when as yet his dis- tinctive title of Edwa/rd, son of King lEdward, was not established in the pro- vinces. The circumstance seems to have escaped Mr. Blakeway, whose remarks (p. 204 of the Sheriffs) seem to have been influenced by this charter. I can recon- cile them at least with nothing which has occurred to me, and this, uncertainty ASTON BOTTERELL. 229 £2. 5s. The difference arose from the usual causes : there were no sheep or lambs in the Parish^ 2 virgates were untiUed ; certain poor tenants had withdrawn ; the small titheSj offerings^ and glebe, con- tributed to the taxation, but had nothing to do with the ninth.*^ In 1534, Walter Myllinchop being Rector of Aston Botrell, his preferment, in glebe and great and small tithes, is valued at £7. Is. Id. This income was charged with 7s. 8d. for procurations and synodals, with a pension of 6s. 8d. payable to the Lady of Brewood, and a portion of 4s. payable to the Rector of Castle Holgate.*^ The net value was therefore £6. 2s. 9c?. EAELY INCUMBENTS.'"' Sept. 27, 1278, Thomas Boterel has the Episcopal license to study for a year. 5 June, 1284, Thomas Boterel, Priest, instituted on presentation of Sir Thomas Boterel, Knight. Oct. 18, 1288, the Bishop commends Philip Clerk, to Master John de Cherleton, Priest, " according to the Council of Lyons," and before Philip^s institution. Philip is ordained Acolyte at the same time. July 16, 1313, Roger, son of Sir Roger de Baskervyl, Knight, presented by Richard Boterel. Sept. 19, 1314, the Bishop, understanding from credible persons that this presentee has a lawful impediment not to take orders within a year from the time when the Regimen was committed to him, licenses him to study for seven years. 1321, Richard de Forde, Subdeacon, then instituted, has dis- pensation to study for a year. The same dispensation is renewed in 1322. Master Richard de Aston Boterel occurs as Rector in 1354. Dec. 1, 1393, Sir Richard Dobyn, Chaplain, is instituted, on pre- sentation of John Botrell, Lord of Aston Botrell. ** Nonarum Inquisifiones, p. 190. *^ Valor EocUs.m, 211. The "lady of Brewood " was Margaret, Prioress of the White Nuns, there domiciled. Her own return (p. 194 of the volume) gives this pension as accruing from Bolld, near BotreU Aston. The Chapel of Bold being suppressed, or merged in Aston BottreU Church, before the Eeformation, the Nuns' pension once chargeable on the former, became a charge on the latter. The same account may be given of the Eector of Holgate's portion ; but having been 10*. when charged on Bold Chapel, it was now only 4*. ■>« Slalceway MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. 230 ^tcfeti)ortt. The Mosaic account of the fall of man has informed us of the origin of noxious weeds, and it would seem that the etymological traditions of various nations have associated these products of the earth with the influence of evil spirits. The shi'ub ononis, which we call rest-harrow from its arresting the use of that implement, is by the Swedes called Puktorne, i. e. Devil's-thorn. So the pyrakantha is called by the Crimean Tartars Shaitan-teken, words which have precisely the same meaning.^ The rhamnus catharticus, a plant similarly obstructive to agriculture is well known among ourselves as Buck-thorn,^ a name which involves the same ideas ; for bug (Brit, bwg) is literally a fiend, and Puck, whom we pleasantly remember as the servant of King Oberon, was in his primitive capacity, nothing more or better. Another pro- vincial name of a weed occurs which associates the same ideas still more emphatically, though less presentably. Enough has been said to back a conjectiu'e that the prevalence of some such plant gave name to the locality before us. Domesday mentions the Manor thus : — ^ The same Church (St. Milburg) held and still holds Pichetorne. Here is half a hide geldable. In demesne is i ox-team, and (there are) i villain, and ii boors, with ii ox-teams, and (there are) ii serfs. Its former and present value is vii shillings. At what subsequent period the Norman family which possessed this Manor, became enfeoffed therein by Wenlock Priory, I cannot undertake to say. Baskerville stands on the Roll of Battle Abbey, a circumstance which merely implies that the fabricators of that Register, judged the name to be of Norman origin, and suffi- ciently important for insertion. Nor were they mistaken in one respect. — 1 JBlalceivay MSS. quoting Pallas' Travels, ii, 145. "buckthorn is said by Withering to be common in Shropshire (Plymlej's Sli/rop- sAire, p. 191). ^ Domesday, fo. 252, b. 2. PICKTIIORN. 231 The Coritinuator of William de Jumieges,* enumerating the nieces of Gunnora, Countess of Riehard I, of Normandy, mentions one who married Nicholas de Bascheritvilla [vulgo Bacqueville) , and was mother of William Martel and Walter de St. Martin. The locality whence this Nicholas had name is situate in the Pays de Caux, and is often written Bascevilla and Basqueville, forms more nearly corresponding to the English surname. This place continued as the fief of Martel for at least two centuries. Also, south-west of Rouen, and in the Forest of E-oumare, was a place yariously written Balkierville or Boscherville, and which gave name to the great Abbey of St. George there founded. From one or each of these places there came to England a family whose branches were already in several Counties at the period when we first have authentic record of such matters. At the beginning of the thirteenth century there were Baskervilles in Herefordshire, Northamptonshire, and Shropshire, in Warwickshire, Norfolk, Buckinghamshire, Wiltshire, and possibly in other Counties. No reasonable groimd has yet occurred to my notice for further asso- ciating any two of these branches, except that the Shropshire and Northamptonshire branch was identical, and also had lands in Herefordshire. Yet these are not to be confounded with the Bas- kervilles of Eardisley in Herefordshire, however difiScult it may be always to preserve the distinction. I have indeed a printed pedigree before me which professes to derive these houses from a common origin ; but the details on each side are so purely imaginative that I cannot regard the result as a truth, at least not on this evidence. Their respective tenures in Herefordshire were at Bradwardine and Eardisley, places not four miles asunder : not only was their surname identical, biit the Christian names adopted by either house were generally similar : perhaps also each of them held, somewhere and at some time, under the same feudal superior. Lacy of Bwyas. Their consanguinity is therefore most probable, but any attempt to exhibit such genealogical relation circumstantially, as it must arise in fiction so must it end in increduhty. The two families were in fact distinct, from the earliest period at which we find records bearing on such matters. In 1165, when Robert de Baskevill (whom I take to have been of Erdisley), was holding 5 Knights' fees of Hugh de Lacy, in Herefordshire;^ Radulf de Baskerevill is entered as holding 1 fee ■* Norm. Scriptores, p. 313. ^ Liler Niger, i, 153. 30 233 PICKTHORN. under Adam de Port in the same County.^ Each tenure was of old feoffment, that is, each of the parties had held or inherited his lands from a period antecedent to the death of Henry I (1135). Ralph was, I believe, progenitor of the Shropshire family, and to him and his succession I must here confine myself. His tenure under De Port in Herefordshire was probably at Bradwardine, and was represented by a tenure of his descendants under Braose (who subsequently enjoyed De Port's Barony) . I will first notice Ralph's occurrence in Shropshire, without his Christian name. The Pipe Roll for the year ending Michaelmas, 1177, records that Roger Fitz Henry and Baschervill, had fined with the Crown for according a duel.'^ Their fine was 40s. and a dapple horse. The money had been then paid, but the horse re- mained a debt till the year 1182, when Ralph de Baskerville appears on the Pipe Roll for Herefordshire, as stiU owing the said horse, and a further and recent amercement for trespass in the King's Forests.^ The money was again paid, but the horse remained a charge against his name in 1183.^ In explanation of the quarrel between Ralph de Baskerville and Roger Fitz Henry, I can only suggest that they were neighbours in so far as that the former had an interest at Pickthorn and Aldenham, and the latter at Cleobury North, though the greater possessions of each lay elsewhere. There is a deed in the Chartulary of Shrewsbury Abbey ^^ to the following effect : Ralph de Baskervill grants to the said Abbey the Church of Northburia (Norbury, Staffordshire), at request of .his mother Juliana. — Witnesses : Roger de Ewias, Eitropius; Herbert and Robert de Hereford, Roger de Baskervill and Ralph his brother, Robert Christian, Henry de Gii'ois, Adam de BaskerviU, Richard Sadoch, &c. — All I can venture to state about this deed is an opinion that it passed between the years 1165 and 1190, and that the grantor was Ralph Baskervill of Pickthorn. If so, the said Ralph will have been also a tenant of Lacy, in whose fief Norbury was contained. The point chiefly to be noticed in this deed is, however, that it combines places or names connected with the three Coimties of Salop, Staf- fordshire, and Herefordshire. We must now revert to the year 1167, and state that about that " Ibidem, p. 151. ^ Hot. Pip. 23 Hen. II, SAlop. s Mot. Pip. 28 Hen. II, Hereford. » Ibidem, 29 Hen. II. '0 No. 299, a. PICKTHORN. 233 period, Ralph de Baskerville, Lord of Pickthorn, having made some encroachment on the King's demesne (probably of Stottesden), ap- pears to have compounded for the same by covenanting payment of an annual rent of 16d.^^ This rent remained an item of the Sheriff's receipts, and the land for which it was paid being a tenure in capite of the Crown, we hear much more of the family of Baskerville as connected with these few acres than as tenants of Wenlock Priory. The entry on the Pipe Roll of 1167 is as follows : "The same Sheriff (Geoffrey de Vere) renders account of \Qd. of the land which Ralph de Bascervill held in the same viU (Stottesden) . It is paid." The next year 1168, under the title of Proprestures, the Sheriff accounts for 16 denariates of land which Ralph de Baschervill held (tenuit) in Stottesden, and he is quitP Similarly under the title " of Proprestures and Escheats," this rent of 16rf. (being obviously for a Propresture), is substantively entered on every RoU,^^ till that of the year 1190 (2 Rich. I), when this and some similar rents being collected by an Escheator rather than the Sheriff, the former renders account of \&d. of the land of Ralph de Baschervill, and is quit}''' In 1191, 1193, and 1193, and for half the year 1194, the Sheriff answers summarily for the " Escheats of Shropshire " in each year, but the total in each case must have involved the rent of Basker- ville's purpresture.'^^ In this interval, viz. between September, 1190, and March, 1194, Ralph BaskerviU was murdered in Northampton- shire, as will presently appear. For the half-year ending Michaelmas, 1194, an Escheator, and not the Sheriff, collected the rents of escheats and purprestures. Among his receipts was 8d. for the firm of " Piketorn Tomse,"!^ i. e. Thomas de BaskerviU's land of Pickthorn ; and the name of Ralph's son and heir was, as we shall see, Thomas. " Mot Pip. 13 Hen. H. Idem Vice- comes r. u. de terra quam Bad. de Bas- cervill tenuit in eMem tUIA, &o. The use of the preterite tense " tenuit " did not, I think, imply the death of any Ealph de Baskervill. If it did, another Kalph con- tinued in possession, but in several sub- sequent instances, the form "tenuit" is repeated. This use of the same word and tense, in deeds, is similarly equivocal, and impUes only that so and so was tenant of certain land lately, not that Jiis tenancy had ceased. The imperfect tense would in these cases have been the proper one. The words " terra quse fuit Kadulphi " is technically a different expression, and would imply, I think, a previous termina- tion of tenancy, by death, forfeiture, or other cause. 12 13 14 la jjoi_ Pip. de eisdem annis, Salop. 16 Sot. Fip. 6 Ric. I, Salop. >34 PICKTHORN. No material alteration of this annual entry occurred during Thomas de Baskerville's life. Presuming that Ralph de Baskerville, of Pickthorn, died (as above) between 1190 and 1194, it is difficult to say whether the following refers to him or to a Contemporary of the same name. On the Staffordshire Pipe-Roll for the year ending Michaelmas, 1192,^'' one Ralph de Baskervill is entered as owing half a merk for not producing one for whom he was pledge, but, it is added, that he had summons in Shropshire (sed summonitus est in Salopescr.). We should expect a correspondent entry on the Pipe-Roll for Shrop- shire, but none such occurs. The following year, however, among the fines inflicted at a recent assize in Shropshire, Ralph de Baskervill appears as amerced half a merk for false clamour, which he still owed.^* Nov. 3, 1194, Thomas de Baskervill (son and heir of Ralph Baskervill, of Pickthorn) appears to be of age, which, be it observed, he was not at his father's death. At that date (1194), he had impleaded Ralph de Baskervill in a suit about land, but Ralph essoigned himself, his essoigner being Ralph de Breworthin (Bradwardine) . The case was left to be con- tinued in eyreP Dec. 5, 1194, Thomas again appeared at Westminster against Ralph, who neither appeared nor essoigned himself. — A day was given by the Court, viz. Jan. 20, at Westminster. "And another day was given to Ralph in banco, viz. at Hereford, before the Justices." 2" (The latter clause I imderstand to be the excuse for Ralph's non-appearance) . No RoUs remain to throw further light on this case, which. I pre- sume, referred to some mortgage which Ralph de Baskervill had on lands of Thomas, in Herefordshire — probably on Bradwardine. In the year ending Michaelmas, 1196, Thomas de BascherviU had proff'ered a fine of 1 merk, " to have recognition about a Knight's fee against Miles Richard." He had then paid half a merk ; and he dis- '? Sot. Pip. 4 Eic. I, Staff. Shortly before this period there were at least tliree contemporary Ralph de BaskeiTiUe'a, viz. the two in the text, and Ealph Baskerville of Brdisley and Cumb. The latter, how- ever, died about June 1186, {Mot. Fip. 34 Hen, II, Sere/.). There was also a Ealph de Baskerville holding of the Earl Perrers, in Warwickshire, in 1165, and a Ealph de Baskerville, whose daughter and sole heir, Agnes, was, in 1202-3, wife of Hugh de Pichford, of Shropshire. The last Ealph may not improbably be the second Ealph mentioned in the text. 18 Mot Pip. 5 Kic. I, Salop. " Mot. Ctir. Megis, i, 110. ^ Mot. Cwr. Megis, i, 86. PICKTHORN. 235 charged the balance in the following year.^^ Herefordshire is men- tioned ia connexion with this suit, but with what meaning I cannot say. Taking events as nearly in the order of time as the various sub- jects will allow, I find, under date of July 8, 1199, the following memorandum entered on a EoU of the King's Court at "West- minster : ^^ — " Hereford. Imparlance (is) to be had (Loquendum) about Nesta de Baskervill, who brings suit for the Castle of Bredewrthin (Brad- wardine), and its appurtenances, which Robert de Wastre detains from her, and which the same Nesta avers to be her right and in- heritance. And the King had ordered the Sheriff to seize the said Castle iuto the King's hand. And the Sheriff reports that said Castle is beyond his bailiwick, and that he dared not to set his hand upon that Castle, not being in his jurisdiction. And William de Braose says, that neither Kiag, nor Justiciar, nor Sheriff ought to set to his hand in his (William's) liberty." — The imparlance remains sine die, till the King's pleasure thereon be ascertained. AU I need say of this Nesta here," is, that she was daughter of Ralph BaskerviU of Pickthorn, and that her father, before his death, enfeoffed her ia Lawton (Salop) ; but the nature of her claim on Bradwardiae, or how any other than Thomas de BaskerviU occupied that fee iu 1199, I cannot say. I now retium to this Thomas, and a cause which he had in the King's Courts at Westminster, in Easter Term, 1200.*^ T give the Record as it stands under title of Northamptonshire. " Thomas de BaskerviU challenges (appellat) Roger Fitz William,, for that, wickedly, and in the King's peace, and in felony, and in murder, he slew Ralph de BaskerviU, his (Thomas') father, who was Lord over said Roger, ia his house ; and this the said Thomas saw, as he says, being a boy under age; and this he offers to prove against Roger by his body. Roger appears, and will defend himself against the charge of felony and murder, as the Court may decide ; as, however, against his Lord whose liegeman he is." Thomas hereupon denies that " he ever received Roger's homage. 21 Hot. Pip. 8 and 9 Eic. I, Salop. Tomas de BascliTiU r. c. de 1 marc, pro habenda recogmoione de feodo 1 mil. versus Milonem Pichard qui 'Rf (requiri- tur) in Hereford. ^ Rot. Cut. Regis, i, 426. This is an early and authentic instance of the Pala- tine powers, claimed by the Lords Marchers in their districts. We shall have similar cases in Shropshire. 23 Rot. Cur. Regis, ii, 257. 236 PICKTHORN. but he well acknowledges him to have been the (liege) man of his father, whom he wickedly murdered." — Further, Roger says that " it is well enough known where he lay the night of the murder, and that he was not in that vill, and there- upon he puts himself on a Jury of the country, saving, however, his own defence (his right of defending himself by duel if the Jury gave verdict against him) . He also begs that this may be reckoned in his favour, viz. that the deed purported to have been done nearly ten years back,^ that Justices Itinerant had since been in eyre (in Northants) and that before them he (the appellant) had made no mention thereof." — And the Appellant also desires that this may be reckoned in his favour, viz. that " after the death of his father, the said Roger married his father's widow." A day was given to both parties to hear sentence, viz. the Octaves of St. John (July 1, 1200). Meanwhile Roger was to be kept in prison. The matter did not end, however, on the day appoiated; for sometime, apparently in March, 1201,^^ " a day was given to Thomas de Baskerville (Appellant) and Roger Fitz William for their plea of challenge, viz. that they should be at Westminster on the Quia- zaine of Easter " (April 8, 1201) . The adjournment seems to have been at the King's direction, and Geoffry Fitz Piers (then Chief Justice) undertook to acquaint Thomas with the arrangement. Presumptively on the day appointed, and before the King, the pleadings were rehearsed, generally as above, but With some addi- tions;^^ e. g. — The Appellant states that the murder was at night, that he (the Appellant) commenced his appeals against Roger as soon as he was of age. — Roger again mentions his having done homage to the Appellant,^'' who denies having received any such homage since he came of age, but says that, whilst under age, he was in custody of his mother, and he knows not what she may have obliged him to do. To this Roger answers nothing. — The Court decided that the ^ It was now the 7th of May, 1200. !From this and other records, I infer the murder to have been committed on May 26th, 1190 or 1191. ^ Placita coram, Mege, No. 49, memb. 11 dorso. This is the Boll mentioned above, as falsely indorsed of the 11th of John. (Vide supra, under Charlcott and Bold, p. 154, note 9). '^ Ibidem, memb. 15 recto. On April 8, 1201, King John was at Marlborough. ^ A' vassal's oath of fealty specially bound him to shield his Lord from per- sonal injury. PICKTHORN. 237 parties should fight a duel. They give pledges thereof, Roger da Mortimer being the pledge of Roger Fitz William. The day of combat was to be the morrow of the Octaves of the Holy Trinity {i.e. May 29, 1301), and then they were to come armed. On that day the King was at Portsmouth. No record remains of the duel. The Appellant, however, survived it. In 1211, Thomas de Baskerville is returned as holding half a virgate of land in capite, by payment of 16c?. annually, through the Sherifij in equal half-yearly payments.^^ At the same time, Nesta de BaskerviU (his sister) held Lawton by serjeantry, and in capite.-^ The brother and sister had afterwards some litigation about Lawton, which will be detailed when we come to that place. It is sufficient here to say that that serjeantry reverted to Thomas or his heirs. 21 Dec. 1214. The King being at Hereford mentions Thomas de BaskerviU as one of the sureties of Robert Weldebof, then to be liberated from imprisonment at Gloucester.^** This Thomas also appears as witness of two grants by Walter de Clifford to Salop Abbey.^^ And, before Aug. 10, 1241, he was dead, leaving Roger his son and heir, whose homage the King received on that day, and issued precept to the Sheriff of Salop to take security for 40s., the relief of said Roger, and then to give him seizin of all lands of which his father had died possessed.'^ This was at Shrewsbury, where the King then was. But Roger's enjoyment of his estates continued not long. On the 13th of July, 1244, the King issued letters patent to the Sheriffs of Salop and Herefordshire, informing them that he had granted to Hugh Gifford custody of the land and heirs of Roger de BaskerviU.^' And this heir, Walter, had a long minority. Several notices of ^ Testa de Neeill, p. 56. Lib. Eub. Scaocarii, fo. cxxxtu. ^ Ibidem, p. 55, and Lib. Eub. ibm. 3° Mot. Pat. 16 John, memb. 9. The prisoner was one of those whom King John had taken in 1210, at the siege of Carriokfergus. 3' Salop Chartulary, Nos. 6 and 8. 32 Hot. Fin. i, 350. 33 Hot. Fat. 28 Hen. Ill, sub die. Of this Eoger de BaskerviU, we also find mention which shows the continued con- nexion of his family with Northamp- tonshire. A Eoll preserved iu the Testa de Nevill, and of date o. 1242, gives Eoger de Baskerevil as holding half a knight's fee in Hehdon (Northants), of the honour of Clare then in the King's hand. {Testa de Nevill, p. 24. Vide Baker's p. 396). 238 PICKTHORN. his nonage occur in the Inquisitions of 1255, and must be both cited and explained. The Jurors of Stottesden say nothing about the villoi Pickthorn, which was in fact not in their Hundred, but in the Liberty of Wenlock; but under the heading "De valettis et puellis" [i.e. of male and female wards), they say'* that "Walter de Baskerville is in custody of Sibil GifPard (widow of Hugh, before-named) by gift of the King, and that he holds 8 acres in Pykethorn of the King, rendering yeaiiy 16 pence at the Exchequer, and that he holds no (nullam) land of the King in this Hundred." For the word " nullam," it is obvious that " aliam " (other land) should be written in this passage, for this Walter held Aldenham, North wood, and Newton, — all of the King, and all .in Stottesden Hundred. The contemporary Jurors for Wenlock Liberty said of Pyke- thorn,^" that " Eoger de Baskerville (formerly) held certain land therein of the Prior of Wenlock. He rendered to the Prior 3 merks yearly, and used to do suit to the Court of the Prior by afforciament. And his ancestors used to do suit to the Hundred of Wybth't, till the period aforesaid (the reign of Richard I) : and Walter his son is in custody of Sibil GifFard, and it (the Manor) is half a hide " (the Domesday hidage) . As to the Hundred of Wybth't here mentioned, I can associate the name with nothiag in Shropshire. I believe the original statement of the Jurors to have been erroneous, and I can only venture a guess at what they meant. They supposed that Pick- thorn had some time been attached to the Hundred of Welbetre (now Webtree) in Herefordshire, in which Hundred was Bradwar- dine, a fee in which these Baskervilles had an interest as tenants of de Braose, and afterwards of de Bohun. And soon after this date (1255), Walter will have attained his full age, for his son and heir, Roger, was bom Aug. 1, 1261. Nov. 27, 1274. The Stottesden Jurors returned Walter de Baskerville as holding 1 messuage, 10 acres of arable land, and 10 acres of wood in Pikethorn, of the King in capite, by payment of 16 pence per annum for the same.^" ^ Rot. Sund. ii, 83. ^ Sot. Sund. ii, 85. "Aiforciamentum" is the word usually employed to denote that augmentation of Wenlock Liberty, which took place in the reign of Eichard I. • It means literally " the act of increasing or rendering stronger,'' and the addition of several Manors to a Hundred of course increased its importance. A discordant jury was simUarlj said to be afforciated when other jurors were added. 35 ML Htmd. ii, 108. PICKTHORN. 239 In 1284, a similar return was made, viz. that Walter de Bas- kervill holds his hall (aulam), croft, and wood at Pikethorne, of the King in capite, at the said rent.''' On Feb. 21, 1286, the King's writ of diem clausit esetremum, on the death of Walter de Baskervill, issued to the Escheator citra Trent. On March 1, 1286, a Jury sat at Pykethorn, and reported him to have held a messuage and 2 acres of wood at Pikethom, by service of 16 pence to be paid to the King through the Sheriff of Salop. Its annual value was only 2s. Qd., and he held nothing else in capite. Roger de BaskervUle was his son and next heir, and was twenty-four years of age at the Gules of August, in the King's thirteenth year {i. e. Aug. 1, 1285) . A Jury which met at Bradewardia (Herefordshire), on March 3 following, gave the same account of his heir, as to name and age. The deceased, they said, had held under Roger de Radenore at West Bradwardin. His tenure was a messiiage, 143 acres of arable land in demesne, 3 acres of meadow, and £\, 14s. Qd. rents. The total value was J4. 10s. 4^'^ The returns of March, 1316, give Roger de Baskervill as Lord of Pikethom in Shropshire,^' and Roger de Baskervill and John Giffard as joint Lords of HeUidon (Northants) .*" In 5 Edw. Ill (1331). Roger de Baskervill had the King's Charter of free-waiTen in Lauton and Pikethorn.*^ The Escheat on his death is of the thirteenth year of Edward III (1339),*^ when he must have been seventy-eight years of agej but I will postpone much that I have further to say, both of him and his descendants, tiU I come to Lawton, where I also propose to set forth their genealogy, till their male liae became extinct. I would here, however, observe that in 1380, John de Basker- ville, a descendant of this Roger, being dead, he is stated to have held Pykthorn of the Prior of Wenlock at a rent of =ei. 6s. 8. 1*. 3d. for main- tenance of twenty-five hostages at Brug : ^* and Geoffrey de Vere, his successor in office, charges j64. 12s . for maintenance of the same number. These charges were clearly for one set of hostages, but at different periods. Taking the sums charged as our only means of calculation, it would appear that Geoffry de Vere's trust lasted rather more than a quarter of a year, i.e. tiU about AprU, 1165. In 1164, the Princes of Wales had forsaken their fealty to King Henry, and in the summer of 1165, the King was again provoked to invade North Wales. A first expedition brought him to Ruth- Ian ; a second, in greater force, to the Berwyn. In both he seems to have been unsuccessful. The cruel and violent temper of Henry II, his various contempo- rary mortifications, and certain historical parallels may lead us to attribute the disappearance of these hostages from the Sheriff's accounts to other causes than restoration to their country, a favour which indeed was at this very juncture most improbable. King John's cruelty to Welsh hostages is well and circumstantially established.^^ No less established is my conviction that King John's cruelty and meanness were part of his paternal inheritance. The years 1173-4 are weU known as those of Prince Henry's rebellion against his Father. The Earls of Ferrers and Leicester taking an active part against the King, the Midland Counties may be presumed to have been much disturbed. Under these circum- stances, Guy le Strange, then Sheriff of Shropshire, and Fermor of 5' Powell, p. 161 ; Oirald Itin. ii, x ; Bia. 535. What the Welsh Chronicler may mean by saying that, after the inter- Tiew with Rese at Pencadayr, the King went " agaiae to Ireland," I cannot guess. Henry II was never more than once in Ireland, viz. from Oct. IIVI, till April, 1172. ^* Guy Ic Strange's previous account (for the year ending Michaelmas, 1164), charges, in gr08s,a large sum (£90. 9«. \Qd.) for " works and services of the King in Salopsor', and Uvery of serving-men." An item for the continuous maintenance of hostages is thus not improbably iu- volved. •'» Infra, p. 271. BRIDGNORTH. 263 Fitz Alan's Barony, had to victual the Castle of Brug. He charges on this account, at Michaelmas, 1174, for 92 horse-loads of corn, £9. Os. Gd. ; for 120 hogs, £10. 4s. ; for 120 cheeses, £2. 6«. 8.^. ; and for 20 horse-loads of salt 10s." The total outlay (£22. 5s. 2d.) the Sheriff charges on an arrear which he had in hand of the pre- vious year's receipts from Fitz Alan's Barony." The same Sheriff had likewise the King's warrant to the extent of £42. for livery of 10 Knights, who were to be with him in the Castles of Salop and Brugis. At Michaelmas, 1175, he charges £13. 6s. \d. of this on an arrear due from the previous year's ferm of the County: the balance of £28. 13s. lid. he charges on his receipts zsfermor of the honor of William Fitz Alan for the year ending Sept. 1174. His account of Michaelmas, 1175, in the latter capacity left him still owing a sum of £26. 13s. 4d. to the Crown. This also he had had the King's warrant for applying to the maintenance of the same 10 Knights, but his acquittance from the debt is not recorded till Michaelmas, 1176. In one of these years 1175-6, Bridgnorth will have been person- ally visited by King Henry II. It was at the time when he made a progress throughout the kingdom, the ostensible object of which was the punishment of all those who, during the late troubles, had trespassed on the Royal Forests. Vast sums of money flowed into the Boyal Treasury from the amercements which were thus imposed. Henry has been much blamed for this exercise of his restored power, but it should be remembered that in punishing trespassers of the Forest, he probably punished individuals whose general spirit of disloyalty had manifested itself in thus taking advantage of the disorganization of the period. His visit to Bridgnorth, at the time supposed, is proved by a Charter which was dated there, and by which the Priory of Wenlock cam? into possession of the Manor of Ditton. This Charter need ^ A charge of 4«. '* pro ii manmnolia " seems also to belong to this list of stores. Manwmola is interpreted by cirofheca (a glove) in the glossaries. A charge "pro II mangoneUis" (oatapults) would have been more intelligible. ^7 Guy le Strange had in 1173 raised on behalf of the Crown a considerable contingent for what he describes, on his ac- count of that year, as the "army of Leicester." Leicester, the stronghold of its rebeHious but then absent Earl, was invested by Beginald Earl of Cornwall and Richard de Luci, in the summer of 1173. It fell before the besiegers on July 22, and the Sheriif of Shropshire served in person on that occasion. He charges for hveries of serving-men throughout the County of Salopscr', while Jie himself " was in the army of Leicester." 34 264 BRIDGNORTH. not be here set forth, further than to say that it took effect from and after Christmas, 1175.^^ It was attested by Richard de Lud, William Ktz Adeline (the Sewer), Reginald de Courtenay, William de Lanval, Robert Marmion, Saher de Quinci, Thomas Basset, Guy le Strange, William Fitz Ralph, and Randal Broc,^^ who aU. may be presumed to have been of the Royal rettuue " at Bruges " on this occasion. These witnesses' names afford ample corroboration of the date which the Exchequer accounts alone would fix for the grant, e. g. Richard de Luci (the great Justiciar) retired from court early in 1179. In 1176, William Fitz Adeline went as Viceroy to Ireland. William de LanvaU and Thomas Basset were associated Justiciars, who, ia 1175, visited Worcestershire, Staffordshire, and Shropshire. Further, on July 1, 1175, King Henry was at Woodstock; on August 1 at Nottingham. In the interval he had visited Lichfield, perhaps Bridgnorth also. In the months of December, 1197, and January, 1198, Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England, Legate of the Apostolick See, and Chief Justice of the Realm, visited the Western Counties.^" His presence at Shrewsbury in January will be matter of future mention. It was on Christmas Day, 1197, that being at Hereford, he " took in hand the Castle thereof, as well as the Castles of Briges and Ludelaw, and expelling thence the Constables (Cus- todes), who had long had custody of them, he delivered them to other Constables, to keep for the advantage of (or in behalf of) the King." " Williara Fitz Alan was at this time Sheriff of Shropshire. His account for the year ending Michaelmas, 1198, does not exhibit the slightest evidence of this interference of the Viceroy at Bridgnorth. He had obeyed writs of the Archbishop as well as of the King. He had repaired the Castle of Brug under the latter authority. He had paid the Porter of Brug his accustomed salary. Moreover he had paid " &s. Zd. in hire of the barge which carried the wife of Griffin, son of Rese (who was hostage for her husband), from Bruges to Gloucester." «2 69 Mot. JPip. 22 Hen. II, Salop. This account, made up at Michaelmas, 1176, awards, under Royal Warrant, to Wen- lock Priory, such revenue of the Manor of Ditton, as represented a tenure thereof during the previous three quarters. =» Monasticou, v, p. 73, notes No. 3. ^ Hoveden, 440, b. *' " Custodienda ad opns Segis." *2 This entry on the Sheriff's accounts requires some illustration. In the sum- mer of 1198, Gwenwynwyn, Prince of BRIDGNORTH. 265 In November, 1300, Bridgnorth was visited by King John. He •was at Feckenham (Worcestershire) on the 9th; at Brugonthe 11th and 13th; and at Haywood (Staffordshire) on the 15th. With him were the Bishops of Coventry and Bangor, Geoffry Fitz Piers (Chief Justice of all England), and Simon Archdeacon of Wells (then one of the joint Keepers of the Great Seal) .^^ In March, 1204, King John was again at Bridgnorth. Having been at Lichfield on the 11th, he was here on the 13th, 14th, and 15th, and at Worcester on the 16th. With him was a noble retinue, such as none but a great fortress could have sufficed to accommo- date. These were the Bishops of Lincoln and Hereford, the Earls of Essex (Geoffrey Eitz Piers, then Sheriff of the County), of Pem- broke, Chester, Salisbury, Warren, Leicester, Warwick, and Here- ford ; also William de Braose, the Provost of Beverley, Hugh de Nevill, and William Briwere.^* On this occasion Geofirey Fitz Piers " had paid j640. to John de Torrue, the King's Clerk, who was to discharge therewith the King's expenses at Bruges." This item stands on Fitz Piers' Shropshire account, at the following Michaelmas, as a set-off against what was due from him on the ferm of the County.*^ However the King's writ is extant, dated at Winchester, 7 May, 1204, whereby he orders his " Treasurer and Chamberlaias to dehver (liberate), to Geoffrey Fitz Piers £40. which said Geoffrey had paid in the King's chamber, to discharge the King's expenses at Brug."*^ We must presume that, instead of receiving the money ordered by the latter writ, Fitz Piers took a correspondent credit at the Exchequer, otherwise the Lord Chief Justice will have been repaid for his advance twice over. 22d March, 1205. King John's precept issues to the Sheriff of Staffordshire (which with Shropshire was then in the joint custody Powis, invested Castle Pain in Elyel, in- tending,iu caseof success to carry his opera- tions to the Seyem. In July or August, Gweuwynwyn was engaged and defeated with great loss by G-eoffrey Ktz Piers, who had succeeded Hubert as Chief Justice of England, in the former month. In aid of the new Viceroy on' this occasion, stood Griffith ap Eees, Prince of South Wales, who had, in 1197, been deposed and imprisoned by his brother Maelgon, in concert with QTrenwynwyn. The latter had delivered Griffith to the English during a temporary pacification; but when Gwenwynwyn agaiu troubled the Border, theEnglish enlarged their prisoner and were aided by him as above stated. Griffith's wife was probably surrendered as a pledge of his fidelity, when he himself was released. ^ Rot. Cmiarwm, p. 80. M Hot. Pat. p. 39. Mot. Cart. p. 122. Liberat. p. 83. 65 Eot. Pip. 6 John, galop. ^ Eot. Clems. 6 John, memb. 21. 266 BRIDGNORTH. of Thomas de Erdinton and William de Hauterive), commanding him that he lodge Bernard de Urri, the King's Balister, whom the KiQg sends, with the nine other Balisters who are at Brag ; and the Sheriff is to give said Bernard his livery from the 22d of March, as long as he remains at Brug ia the King's service and hy the King's order j and the amount shall be placed to the Sheriff's credit at the Exchequer. The said livery is to be that which other two-horse Balisters have.^'' On May 11, 1205, the Sheriff of Salop is ordered by the King to send without delay to Northampton all the King's Balisters who are at Salop and Brug. They are to be at Northampton on Sunday before Pentecost, " with their horses and accoutrements."*^ This order was probably in anticipation of John's then contemplated expedition into Poitou, which, however, was afterwards (June 13) abandoned, though an embarkation at Portsmouth actually took place. On Aug. 5, 1205, the King, being at Lambeth, sends to the Sheriff of Salop, Peter, a three-horse Balister, and nine two-horse Balisters, who are to receive 10*. 4d., 7id., and Zd. per day. Their employment was the management of different kinds of engines for propeDing missiles, from the bnlky BRIDGNORTH. 267 At MichaelmaSj 1207, the Sheriff, Thomas de Erdinton, charges the Crown £4. for " repair of four gaols in several places, together with the free prisons."''^ One of the four places will have been Bridgnorth Castle. At the Forest Assizes, held at Salop, on Saturday after Mid-Lent, in the 10th year of King John (Sat. Mch. 14, 1209), the following curious case came before H. de Nevill and Peter de Leonibus, the presidiag Justices.'^* " A certain stag entered into the bailey '^^ of the Castle of Bruges, through a postern, and the Castellans captured him and carried him to the Castle. And (the Kiag's) Verderers, hearing thereof, came thither, and questioned Thomas de Erdinton, the then SherifiF, as to what he had done with the said stag : and he acknowledged that the matter was as alleged, and became bound that his men should appear before the Justices." He did not, however, keep his word, and some unexplained adjournment was the consequence. These Castellans are enumerated. They were " Matthew the Constable, Roger de Fougeres, Richard de Bromwic, Robert the Porter, and Walleran, brother of Matthew." We thus learn the official connexion of the Sheriff with this Castle, his employment of a Deputy called Constable, and the insignificant force of the permanent garrison. We also may esti- mate the stringency of those Forest Laws, whose iaferior ministers could thus interrogate the Sheriff of two Counties, and a Royal favourite, about a stray stag.''® King John's third visit to Bridgnorth was in August, 1212. It was an eventful period of his reign, and one which has hitherto escaped any accurate historical notice. The rapidity of the King's movements would indeed be almost incredible were not the circum- stances, which are now to be detailed, supported by the most unques- tionable testimony. Earlier in the year LeweUyn had succeeded in reconciling that J^ Ibidem, 9 John. ^* Flacita Foresta, Salop, No. 2, memb. 1. 75 Tte lalliva or hallium . of a Castle, was primarily the whole area over which the Constable had jurisdiction. The word was secondarily used to describe parti- cular spaces, as the "inner" and "outer bailey." The Seneschal of Montgomery was to hare a dwelling-house within the hallium of the Castle. (Sist. of Shrews- hii/ry, i, 41, note 2.) ^^ Erdinton was Sheriff of Shropshire and Staffordshire both in 1209, and for the greater part of King John's reign. For his active services and the confidence which the King reposed in him, it will, at present, be sufficient to refer to Dugdale's Ba/ronage (vol. ii, p. Ill), and Blake- way's Sheriffs (p. 35). 268 BRIDGNORTH. disunion of the Welsh Princes which placed their country so much under the influence of the English King. The Spring saw LeweUyn associated with Gwenwynwyn Prince of Powisj Maelgon ap Rees of South WaleSj and Meredith ap Robert of Cydewen.''' The Castles built or garrisoned by the English fell one by one before their arms. The first notice which King John seems to have taken of this alliance^ bears date^ May 26th, at Wolmere (Hants) , when he issued letters patent, confiscating all the lands of Mealgon ap Rese in the honor of Cardigan, and conferring them, with aU services of the tenants, on Rese ap GrifiBn.''^^ Two months later, viz. on July 26th, the King was at Bristol. The only Castles of North Wales which now remained in his power were Ruthlan, Dyganwy, and Mathraval. The latter had been built by Robert de Vipont, one of John's most active Lieutenants, on the banks of the Vyrnwy, about two mUes above Meifod, and probably on the site of an older but long-forsaken Castle of the Princes of Powys. De Vipont was now besieged in this Castle by the Welsh confederates. Notwithstanding the digression, we wUl watch the daily move- ments of King John at this crisis of his career. We shall observe him in his household, note him at the council-board, trace him through the toilsome march of the summer day, admire his momentary energy though contrasted with irresolution and fear, wonder at the weak superstition which alternated with the most revolting crime. On Thursday, July 26th, the King passed from Bristol to Mel- kesham (Wilts), and sent thence j6300. to the Sheriff of Hereford- shire, wherewith " to succour Robert de Vipont who was besieged in Wales." ''^ On Friday, July 27th, he was at Devizes and Lud- garshaU (both ui Wiltshire), and on the 29th at Winchester. That day (it was Sunday) he passed back to Marlborough (WUts); reached Tewkesbury on the 30th and was at Worcester on the 31st. Hence he despatched a messenger with money to pay the mercenaries who were serving in South Wales under the notorious Fulk de Breant.*" He occurs, as still at Worcester on the 1st of August, but must have travelled to Bridgnorth the same day. On this journey the '" To these Dr. Powell (p. 192) adds Madoc ap Ghniifyth Maylor, Lord of Bromfield, who, if he ever joined the alliance, did not adhere to it. '8 Rot. Pat. 14 John, memb. 5. '' Misce Molls, 14 John, memb. 2. *• Clatis. 14 John, memb. 6. Dr. Powell's account would imply that !Fulk de Breant, quitted hie lieutenancy in South Wales the year before. BRIDGNORTH. 269 sumpter-horse, which carried the King's bed, failed and was left at Bridgnorth. Also two of the King's valets with their horses and attendants, the King's Falconer, with his Hawks, th^ two Carters and four Sumpterers who carried the King's wardrobe, with their nine horses, accompanied the King's march no further. At Bridg- north also remained certain coffers, which contained relics, and which seem to have travelled with the Court on all ordinary jour- neys. Over these during the " three nights which they remained at Brug" were burnt wax candles at the King's expense.^^ On the morning of Thursday, the 2d of August, the King ordered 60*. to be given to Buchard de Gratelou, a Knight, whose horse was in pawn at Brug and was thus redeemed. Urgent was the need of both horse and Knight, for on that same day King John raised the siege of Mathraval, in the heart of Powis- land, and levelled its Castle with the ground. If we estimate this exploit according to the distance of the jour- ney, the nature of the road, the season of the year, and the hazard of the work (for it is certain that the expedition was but slenderly attended),^^ we shall recognise, even in King John, some of those capabilities which marked the Plantagenet, and which in him were kept in abeyance, probably by an almost unceasing consciousness of crime. The next day the King returned to Bridgnorth, transacting some matters of business as he passed through Shrewsbury, and, inter alia, writing to the Earl of Chester to support and protect Madoc ap GrifBn and his men, to whom the King, now that Lewellyn had seceded from him, wished " to recur as to his own son." ^^ On reaching Bridgnorth the King ate twice, though it was Fri- day, an offence which he atoned for the following day, by feeding a hundred paupers with bread, fish, and beer.^* He proceeded (on the 4th) to Russock (Worcestershire). He was at Woolward in the same County on the 5th, and reached s' Mot. MistB, 14 John, memb. 2. For an account of the office of a Eing's Valet, see Sist. Shrewshury i, 266. ^ The distance from Bridgnorth to Mathraval cannot be much less than fifty miles by the nearest modem road. Dr. Powell's expression that the King " levied an army " for this exploit, is simply an exaggeration. The Rolls exhibit no symptom of such preparation, and the King, a week before, had evidently no in- tention of rendering personal aid to his lieutenant. Moreover the "King's Army" was at this moment imder summons to Chester. 83 Mot. Pat. and Rot. Clans. *• Sot. MistB, ut supra. 270 BRIDGNORTH. Woodstock the same day.^^ There he rested till the Qth, when he proceeded to Silverstone (Northants) . Here he wrote to his late rescued officer, De Vipont, apparently as having custody of Oswestry Castle.^^ On the 10th he passed through Northampton to Lamport, and from the latter place, on the 11th, issued letters patent of safe conduct, for Lewellyn, and all his abettors and kindred, to meet him at Chester on the Sunday after the Assumption of St. Mary (Sunday the 19th), and give full security for thier future fealty. He also wrote to certain Lords and Knights of Flanders and Hainault, who had come to England at his mandate, beseeching them in the most affectionate terms to follow him, " for that he could not come back to them, by reason of his army, which he had caused to be summoned." ^"^ This summons had been issued from Woodstock on the 20th and 21st of July. It was to various English Barons and Sheriffs, to meet him at Chester, coincidently with the time appointed to Lewellyn. At Salvata on the 12th, and Gunthorpe (Notts) on the 13th, the King reached Nottingham on the 14th, and remained there till the 22nd. Here a sudden change took place in his plans. On the 16th, he writes to all Sheriffs who had obeyed his summons to Chester, commanding them to return to their provinces, and " attend to their (provincial) business, for that at present he cannot come to Chester as he had proposed." — To his Earls and Barons there assembled he returns thanks for their attendance in such strength, and similarly dismisses them with their knights and retainers. Other matters, he says, have called him elsewhere.^^ Certain military stores, heretofore ordered to Chester, are also countermanded to Nottingham or to Bristol.^' Nothing occurs on the RoUs to explain this abandonment of the King's intended invasion of Wales (for such evidently was the object of the muster at Chester) ; but the Chroniclers partly clear up the mystery.^" At Nottingham, the King received two letters. 85 « Itinerary of King John," embodied by T. Duffus Hardy, Esq., in his Preface to the Patent EoUb of that King's reign. This invaluable digest is my chief autho- rity for the movements of the King, as stated in the above narrative. ^ Claus. 14 John, memb. 6. The document with some others is dated on the 6th of August, but the Misci Roll aheady quoted proves the inaccuracy of such date. ^ Rot. Fat. 14 John, memb. 5. ^ Ibidem. ^ Claus. 14 John, memb. 6. »" M. Paris, pp. 231, 232, v^'hose state- ment, however, is far &pm accurate in its BRIDGNORTH. 271 one from the King of Scots, the other from his o\m natural daughter, the wife of Lewellyn. Each conveyed the same uneoncerted intelli- gence, viz.,. that the King was threatened by the treason of his own nobles in the approaching expedition. About the same time, and to confirm John's wakeful suspicions, three Barons fled the kingdom. Disappointed in aU plans of summary vengeance on his son-in- law, the King resorted to such petty retribution as remained within his reach. On the 17th, he commissions certain galleys to infest the Welsh coasts, and do "all possible injury" to his enemies. He also orders Fulk de Breant to destroy the Abbey of Stratfleur (which had been reported as maintaining the King's opponents), and all the weaker Castles within his Bailiwick.*^ Now, too, the King enacted that merciless tragedy, which has been before alluded to, — the mur- der of all the Welsh hostages (about thirty) who were in his power, as well as of Rees ap Maelgwn, the young Prince of South Wales. But the length to which this digression has already extended obliges me to refer elsewhere for the particulars of this transaction.^^ We return to Bridgnorth Castle, wherein on 15 May, 1215, the Sheriff of Salop is ordered to receive the King's "faithful and beloved" Engeram de Preux and the suit he may bring with him, they having the King's orders to remain there.^^ At this period Thomas de Erdinton, Sheriff of Shropshire, was probably in King John's service elsewhere. The person addressed in the above writ as Sheriff, must be taken therefore to have been his deputy. Furthermore Henry de Erdinton, a Clerk, and son of the Sheriff, being in the employment and patronage of the King, had written to request his Royal Master to send one of his Mag- nates to take custody of the Castle of Bruges. On the same 15th of May, the King writes to Henry de Erdinton, informing him that he has sent Philip de Albini, who will give his orders to Henry as (p. 193) says that he hung Rees ap Maelgwn there. After the relief of Mathraral, De Vipont undertook custody of the four Castles of Oswestry, Cliirk, Carrechova, and Eggelawe {Claus. 14 John, memb. 6 dorso), and we have already seen him employed at the first. John de Vipont, mentioned by the Histo- rians of Shrewsbury (page 91, note 4), is introduced into these transactions alto- gether by mistake. S3 Hat. Claus. i, 116, 200. 35 details e.g., he represents the King as going to Chester, dismissing his army in person, and then going to London,whereas, on leaving Nottingham, he went north- wards to York and Durham. '' Rot. Clams, sub die. ^ JSist. Shremsbwry, i, 91, where, how- ever, one or two trilling inaccuracies may be noticed, e.g. — the summons of the King's army was not to Nottingham, where he was, but to Chester, whither he was going ; Robert de Vipont, was not Castellan of Salop, though Dr. Powell 272 BRIDGNORTH. to what is to be done about that Castle. A similar letter from the King to the Constable of Bruges, enjoins his obedience to the orders of the same Philip.^* On the next day, the 16th, this plan was changed. The King addressing the Sheriff of Salop informs him that he sends into those quarters his faithful and beloved Robert de Courtenay and "Walter de Verdun for the security and defence of those parts, and to take custody of Bruges Castle. The Sheriff [i. e. the deputy) is without delay to cause the said Castle with all its victuals and store? to be delivered to the same Robert and Walter, and he is to wait upon and aid their counsels, for the King's advantage and honour.®^ A similar precept to the good men of Shrewsbury informs them of the new commission, and "commands them so to join the Commis- sioners in manful defence of their town and neighbourhood, as that the King may thank them. The same appointment is^farther certi- fied to all Knights and free tenants in the Counties of Salop and Stafford.95 On the 33d of May, King John, addressing the Constable of Bruges, names Robert de Curtenay only, as his appointed Custos of the Castle, and orders deKvery thereof to the said Robert ; ^^ but on July 5th following, Robert de Curtenay and Walter de Verdun are enjoined to give up to the King's " faithful and beloved " Thomas de Erdinton the Castle of Bruges with its appurtenances and victuals, which they had received from the men of the said Thomas.^'' On July 33, 1315, three hundred pounds of wax were to be sent from Northampton to " Bruges in Wales," for the King's use.'^ At the close of this month, King John made his fourth visit to M Mot. Fat. 16 John, memb. 2. These documents have served to place Phihp de Albini on all lists of the Constables of Bridgnorth Castle, which I have met with ; and quite unwarrantably. Philip was actively employed elsewhere at the time, and his commission to Bridgnorth virtually cancelled the next day. Even had he discharged it, it was by no means equivalent to an appointment as Con- stable. »* Mot. Pat. ibidem. These Patents have also been construed into an appoint- ment of Robert de Courtenay, as Con- stable of Bridgnorth Castle. They rather were tantamount to placing the Shrievalty of the two Counties in Commission, during Eardinton's absence, and at » critical period. It was, in fact, in this very year, and while King John had his hands ftill elsewhere, that Lewellyn marched upon Shrewsbury and actually took the town. This circumstance, carefully concealed by the English Chroniclers, is given by Dr. Powell, and accepted by Mr. Blaieway {Mist. Sh/rewsbwy, i, 92). The Eing's unusual address to " the good men of Shrewsbury," above quoted, acquires some significance when placed by the side of the historical fact. ss Mot. Fat. 16 John, memb. 1. S7 Mot. Fat. IV John, memb. 20. ^ Claus. i, 222. BRIDGNORTH. 273 Bridgnorth. Having gone from Peckenham to Stourton on the 38th, he was here on the 30th and 31st, and also on the 1st of August. On the 2d he had passed to Worcester. With the King on this occasion were the Archbishop of Dublin, the Bishop of Coventry, the Earl Perrars, Gilbert Pitz Reinfrid, WiUiam de Cantilupe, Brian de L'Isle, Hugh de Bemevall, and Richard de Mariscis, the Chancellor. An order about transfer of a Welsh hostage, and Charters to the Earl of Chester and the Borough of Droitwich, passed during the King's stay at Bridgnorth.^^ On Nov. 21, 1215. The Sheriff (Thomas de Erdinton) is ordered to pay their liveries to the King's servants at Brug, and the King will cause the Sheriff to be reimbursed according to view of the same servants.^™ — King John was at this time besieging Rochester, which was held by William D'Albini on the part of the Barons ; the whole king- dom was in a ferment, and the business of the Exchequer totally suspended. — Hence this irregular order on the Sheriff of Shrop- shire, and the absence of the usual form for entitling him to reim- bursement .^"^ On the 2d of December, 1215, the King, still before Rochester, orders Thomas de Erdinton to give possession Of certain lands (late held by Wrenie (Wrenoc) Wallensis, and seized into the King's hands), to " Robert Teneray, our Constable of Bruges," to be held by him during pleasure.^*'^ We have heard of Robert de Teneray before.^"^ We now see who he was, and that his office was distinct from that of the Sheriff, though perhaps subjective to it. Erdinton still had custody in chief, both of the Counties of Salop and Staf- ford and of the Castle of Brug. On April 13, 1216, he is ordered to give up the two Counties and this Castle to the Earl of Chester, who is to be obeyed in the said Counties " as an Earl, as a Sheriff, and as the King's Bailiff." ^°* ^ Sot. Pat. and Sot. Cart. 1™ aam. 15 John, memb. 16. •"' The usual form, when the King thus drew on his revenue, was a promise of repayment at the Exchequer, addressed to the officer who was commissioned to make the outlay. The officer kept the King's writ till the period of his account, when it operated at the Treasury just as a cheque. The words used in the King's writ were generally "Et computabitur tibi ad Scacoarium." The suspension of the business of the Exchequer for two and a half years at this period has already been alluded to (supra, p. 2, note 4). 102 Clous. 17 John, memb. 15. '03 Supra, p. 52. 1"^ Pat. 17 John, memb. 4. 274 BRIDGNORTH. In Augustj 1216, King John made his fifth and final visit to Bridgnorth. Leaving Shrewsbury on the 14thj he occurs here the same day and the next. On the 16th he proceeded to Worcester, where he renewed his commission to the Earl of Chester, promising however to release the Earl, on the 8th of September following, from his shrievalty and its adjuncts.i*'^ The writs, both Close and Patent, which issued during this visit to Bridgnorth, were numerous, but none of them were of immediate local interest, except his letters of protection to John, son of Peter Sarracen, whom we have men- tioned before as then holding the Prebend of Walton, in the Collegiate Church of St. Mary Magdalene."^ John was at this moment hardly to be called King of England. London and the South-Eastern Counties had declared Prince Louis to be King. So had Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. The King of Scots, John's vassal, had a week before marched through the kingdom of his Suzerain, done homage to Louis in London, and returned northwards without molestation.^"'' The Barons, includ- ing the Earl of Salisbury, John's half-brother, were with the French Prince, who, in a contemporary document, sets forth his title to the Crown of England, which he claims to be his, both by inheritance and election.i"^ The sequel of John's career is well known. — He survived his last visit to Shropshire little more than two months, when, exhausted by fatigue and anxiety, perhaps poisoned, he died at Newark. Those ties of loyalty which bound the Western Counties even to such a King as John Plantagenet were remembered by him to the last. By his own desire his remains were carried to Worcester, which he had quitted but- two months before. There they still lie buried, and there the moralist may contrast the cold repose of a marble effigy with all other memories of him, whose life, whether from circumstance or disposition, was one continuous state of fever and unrest. In the fifth year of his reign, viz. in July, 1221, Bridgnorth was visited by young King Henry. On the 2d he passed hither from Shrewsbury, and on the 4th had proceeded to Kidderminster.^"^ Several writs of local interest issued during this visit, but which will be more properly cited elsewhere. "" Pat. 18 John, memb. 4. j ™ Eymer'e Foedera, i, 140. ™ Supra, p. 74. '» Rot. Fat. 5 Hen. Ill, sub die- "^ Lingard, iii, 68. I Clam, i, 463. BRIDGNORTH. 275 On July 15, 1323, Ranulf, Earl of Chester (stiU Sheriff), is ordered to see that the Constable of Brug do send the sons of Gwenwynwyn to Gloucester. On the 19th, the King being at Gloucester, certifies their arrival.^i" In the same year, in October, the King was at Shrewsbury on the 12th, at Bridgnorth on the 13th, and at Kidderminster on the 14th. Dec. 30, 1223, the Earl of Chester is commanded to deliver the Castles of Salop and Bruges to Hugh Despencer,iii who apparently was appointed SherifP of the Counties of Salop and Stafford at the same time.^^^ His tenure of either trust was very brief j for — On Feb. 2, 1224, he is ordered to deliver custody of the Castles to the Bishop of Worcester ; and the Earl of Salisbury accounted as Sheriff, for the nine months ending Michaelmas, 1224.^^^ When the Bishop of Worcester resigned the Castles to the Earl does not appear; but on Nov. 8, 1224, the King issues an order on the Treasury to pay the latter £106. 13«. Ad. in part of the annual salary of jB200. which the King had assigned him for custody of the said Castles.^^* The Earl, therefore, will have then held them at least half a year. About Mid-Lent (March 9), 1225, Thomas Mauduit was appointed Constable of Bridgnorth Castle. He held this office as nominee of the Crown, independently of the Sheriff, and at a fixed annual salary of 40 merks (^626. 13s. 46?.), payable half-yearly, by Royal order on the Sheriff, or on the Exchequer.^i^ The usual allowance by the Crown of \d. per day to the Porter of Brug was now discontinued, as being part of the Constable's liabilities. In 1225, the tax of " the fifteenth " then levied was dispatched by ™ Mot. Fat. and Clam, sub diebus. 1" Rot. Pat. 8 Hen. Ill, sub die. "2 Dugdale's Sa^owage, i, 389. ™ Itot. Pip. 8 Hen. III. Mr. Blake- way {Sheriffs, page 5) has rejected the Earl of Salisbury from the list of Sheriffs of Shropshire, against the authority of Mr. Wm. Mytton, who had eridently^con- sulted the Pipe Roll on the point. Though Hugh le Despencer was Sherifif for a month, it is not correct to put him down for three-fourths of the year, or to exclude the Earl of SaUsbury. Despencer rendered no account whatever at the Exchequer. 1" Clam. 9 Hen. Ill, memb. 19. "* Thomas Mauduit received half a year's salary (£13. Gs. Sd^ in advance, on entering office. On Jan. 21, 1226, Wor- field mill (of 8 merks annual value), having been awarded to him in part of his salary, the Sheriff is ordered to pay him so much of the previous salary of 40 merks, as remained due on Jan. 13, 1226 {Claus. ii, 94). Hereupon the Sheriff seems to have paid him £11. is. &d. {Sot. Pip. 10 Hen. Ill), which was rather more than five months' salary, and apparently in excess of the Royal warrant. The pay- ment was however allowed. 276 BRIDGNORTH. John Bonet, the Sheriflj from Brug to Winchester. The Barons of Exchequer are ordered on Dec. 12 to allow £2. 8s. 8d. in his account^ for the " sacks and barrels " which he had provided on the occasion/i^ and he accordingly takes credit for that sum in his next annual account.^^'' Dec. 30, 1225, the Sheriff is ordered to have the King's mills of Brug valued, and to deliver them, so valued, to Thomas Mauduit, Constable of Bruges, in part payment of his annual salary of 40 merks for custody of Bridgnorth Castlc^^^ Jan. 13, 1226, Seizin of the said Mills is ordered for Thomas Mauduit.i" May 12, 1226, The Treasurer of the Exchequer is ordered to pay Thomas Mauduit 16 merks, his half-year's salary for Easter Term, 1226 ; but a counter- writ, dated the same day, orders the Sheriff to pay the same.''^" July 30, 1226, Exemption from all suits in the County of Wilt- shire is granted to Thomas Mauduit and Eobert his brother, because they are in the King's service in the Castle of Brug.^^i On August 29, 1226, King Henry was at Shrewsbury, on the 30th and 31st at Bridgnorth, and on Sept. 2 at Worcester.^^^ Sept. 3, 1226, the Sheriff is ordered to pay Thomas Mauduit his half-yearly salary for the (second) half of the King's 10th year, viz. 16 merks j^^* and at Michaelmas, the said Sheriff charges j633. lis. M. as having been paid by him, under three several writs of the King, to the same Thomas. Also Thomas Mauduit had received 8 merks from the Mill of Wereffeld in part payment of his annual salary of 40 merks, and this 8 merks the Sheriff takes credit for, it having heretofore been a part of his own receipts in the ferm of the County, which was pro tanto diminished.!^* Dec. 6, 1226, The Sheriff is ordered to pay Thomas Mauduit 10 merks, his quarter's salary from Michaelmas to Christmas, 1226.^^^ Thomas Mauduit continued in this office six months longer. ™ Clans, ii, 89. W IRot. Pvp. 10 Hen. Ill, Salop. "8 Clam, ii, 91. "9 Ibidem, 94. 520 Ibidem, 110. ^21 Ibidem, 131. Walter Fitz Bernard is similarly exempted. 122 JJoi.Pai. lOHen. III. 123 CZffiMS. ii, 136. ^ Eot Pip. 10 Hen. Ill, Salop. Wor- field Mill, alluded to here and above, was in reality Pendeston MUl, which we shall soon see disposed of in another way. 1"* Clans, ii, 160, but the order is there cancelled, not as having been revoked but as properly belonging to the Liberate RoUs, which had now been resumed (vide supra, preface, page 8). BRIDGNORTH. 277 receiving a fall year's value of Worfield Mill, besides the last men- tioned instalment of his salary .^^^ On 3 Jime, 1237, Henry de Audley was appointed Sheriff of Salop and Staffordshire. John Bonet (the previous Sheriff) and Thomas Mauduit are respectively enjoined to deliver up to him the Castles of Salop and Brug.^*'' 1 Aug. 1237, Henry Fitz Aucher, in charge of the King's balistce, is ordered to give up six wooden balistm to Henry de Audley, to he placed in the Castles of Bruges and Salop.^^^ On Aug. 15, the Sheriff of Herefordshire is ordered to deliver to the same, 1000 quarrels for war-stores of the said Castles.!*^^ On Aug. 38, 1338, the King was at Bridgnorth, and went on to Shrewshury and into Wales .^^^ Sept. 29, 1228. The Sheriff charges 55 shillings for carriage of vrine which had gone from Bruges to Montgomery.^^^ At Michaelmas, 1229, it appears that the King had granted the profits of the two Counties, for the year then ending, to the Sheriff, in remuneration of his custody of the said Counties, and of the Castles of Salop and Bruges.^'^ Nov. 7, 1229. Custody of the Counties and Castles is renewed by letters patent to Henry de Audley .^^^ Michaelmas, 1231. Twenty-eight casks of the King's wine had been sent from Brug to Castle Matilda (inElvein), for carriage of which the Sheriff had paid £6.1^* Henry de Audley accounted as Sheriff till June, 1232.^^^ Who succeeded him in custody of Bridgnorth Castle, does not appear; but the precept (dated March 4, 1233) which gives the said custody to Peter de Rivallis (then Sheriff) is addressed to Joan, widow of William Briwere.^^^ >2« Mot. Fip. 11 Hen. Ill, where also the 10 merts paid him in December, are charged by the Sheriff. Hence it would appear that he received only 18 merks for eight months' service, an irregularity which might have been intended to balance the over payment which we noticed on his entering office. ^ Mot. Pat. 11 Hen. III. ^ Clam, ii, 195. 123 Ibidem, 197. ™ Mot. Pat. 12 Hen. III. 131 Sot. Pip. 12 Hen. Ill, Salop. '3= Sot. Pip. 13 Hen. Ill, Salop. '3 Sot. Pat. 14 Hen. III. On the 4th of October previous, custody of the two Counties had been granted to John de Mimemue {Sot. Pat. Hen. Ill), but D' Audley accounted continuously at the Exchequer, and the Sheriff of a month appears nowhere on the Pipe Rolls. i** Sot Pip. 15 Hen. Ill, Salop. i3« Sot. Pip. 16 Hen. Ill, Salop. 136 Pat. 17 Hen. III. WiUiam Briwere died in Feb. 1233, on the 22d of which month custody of his lands in Notts, wag ordered to be given to the same Peter de Rivallis, who seems to have succeeded him as Gustos of Brug Castle. 278 BRIDGNORTH. 30 May, 1234. Custody of the Coimties having on the 15th instant been committed to Robert de Haya,^^'' the Manor of Brug, with the Castle, is now iadependently entrusted to Richard de Wrotham, and " the men of the Town of Brug " are certified thereof by letters patent.^^^ 10 July, 1335. An order issued to the Sheriff, that the Justices for gaol delivery should meet at Brug as soon as the King's Justices Itinerant had left Worcester. The former are named ; they were William de I'Isle, Robert de Stepleton, Richard de Middlehope, and Roger Sprengehose.^'^ Michaelmas, 1236. The Sheriff had sent wiae of the King's from Brug, to Salop and to Wenlock.^^" 14 Nov. 1236. Robert de la Haye is ordered to give custody of the Castles of Salop and Bruges to John le Strange. This was a transfer from a retiring to a succeeding Sheriff.^*^ Michaelmas, 1237. John le Strange had dispatched wine of the Kiug's from Brug' to Salop and Wenlock.^*^ 18 Oct. 1237. Hugh Pitz-Robert and others are appointed to deliver the gaols of Salop and Brug.^*^ Michaelmas, 1240. Some wine of the Kiag's had been delivered to the Bailiffs of the town for sale.^** Feb. 12, 1241. John le Strange undertook that, if the King should die 'whUe said John was in possession of the Castles of Brug, Salop, and Montgomery, and of the County of Chester, then he would surrender them to the Queen, for behoof of Priuce Edward.i*^ 27 Jan. 1242. Gaol delivery, by Robert de Wodeton &c. appointed at Brug and Salop.^*^ 24 June, 1243. The same, by Ralph Basset of Drayton &c.i*7 22 June, 1248, Thomas Corbet is to receive custody of the Castles of Salop, Bruges, and EUesmere, from John le Strange. i*® In 1249, the gaol of Brug ordered to be delivered, by Ralph de Covene &c.i*3 In 1250, Robert de Grendon was appointed Sheriff of the 137 Sot. Pat. 18 Hen. III. 1^ Ibidem. "9 Ibidem, 19 Hen. Ill, dorso. 1* Mot. Pip. 20 Hen. Ill, Salop. "" Pat. 21 Hen. III. i« Mot. Pip. 21 Hen. m, Salop. '« Pat. 21 Hen. HI, dorso. i-" Pot. Pip. 24 Hen. Ill, dorso. i« Pat. 25 Hen. Ill, sub die. "« Pat. 26 Hen. Ill, dorso. "7 Ibidem, 27 Hen. Ill, dorso. "8 Ibidem, 32 Hen. III. '« Ibidem, 33 Hen. Ill, dorso. BRIDGNORTH. 279 Counties, and to have custody of the Castles of Salop, Bruges, and EUesmere.^^" He accounts from and after Easter, 1250, for these trusts.^^i In 1251, Thomas de Roslial and others are appointed to deliver the gaols of Salop and Brug.^^^ In 1252, Hamo le Palmer and his fellow-bailiffs of Brug had purchased wine of the King's to the value of £13. 13*. M., which the Sheriff accounts for.-"^^^ In 1254, William Trussel and others are appointed Justices to dehver the gaol of Brug.^^* The inquiries of the King's Commissioners, in autumn, 1255, led to several statements relating to the Castle of Bridgnorth. ^^^ The Borough Jury reported — That, when the King was at Brug, the Lord of Albrighton (then John de Pychford, a minor) was bound to find fuel (carbones) for the Castle, that being the service due on his fee of Little Brug. That John Fitz Philip (Lord of Bobbington and Quat) owed ward to the Castle in time of war, but to what extent the Jurors knew not. That, as long as the King had held in hand the Manor of Worfield, the produce of hay, and of the miUs there, used to come to the Castle, — also that the tenants of that Manor used to do Hirson in time of war, and take up their quarters in the Castle, for ward thereof, if it were necessary. "Now," say the Jurors, " Henry de Hastings holds that Manor, and the King gave it to him in exchange of his lands in Cheshire, whereby the King hath now no service from that Manor to the said Castle." In answer to a question as to the cost of keeping the Castle, as well in time of peace as in time of war, these Jurors replied that they had had no means of judging since the period when Thomas Mau,duit kept it for 40 merks per annum, in time of peace. Since then the Sheriff, they said, had always had custody thereof, together with the County. In time of peace they thought the Castle might be kept at a cost of 30 merks per annum. As to the proper cost, in time of war, they could form no estimate. 30 October, 1355. Robert de Grendon is ordered to give up custody of the Counties and Castles to Hugh de Acour. The latter '5" Pat. 34 Hen. Ill, memb. 11. 1" Hot. Fip. 34 Hen. Ill, Salop. «2 Pat. 35 Hen. Ill, dorso. 133 Roi. Pip. 36 Hen. Ill, Salop. i« Pat. 38 Hen. Ill, dorso. 1=5 Rot. Snnd.-A,h9. 36 280 BRIDGNORTH. is to pay £136. 13s. 4d per annum for tlie profits of the Counties^ and to keep the Castles at his own charges.^^* On 22 Sept. 1257, the King was at Brug, and on the 26thj being then at Worcester, he issued letters patent to Hugh de Acour, appointing Peter de Montfort to the custody of the Marches towards Montgomery, and for the better performance of that service giving him, at instance of Prince Edward, custody of the Counties of Salop and Stafford, as also of the Castles of Salop and Bruges, to dispose of the profits therein arising as he should think best, during the continuance of the wars with Wales ; so that, for the first year of his holding the said Counties, he should not answer at the Exche- quer, but ia the King^s Wardrobe.-'^'' 12 June, 1258. Hugh de Weston &c. appointed Justices to deliver the gaol of Brug.^^^ 23 June, 1258. The King, at Oxford, granted custody of the Castle of Brug to Peter de Montfort, "by council of the Mag- nates."i59 On Sept. 16 and 17, 1258, the King was at Brug. 28 Dec. 1258. Robert de Grendon is appointed to deliver the gaol of Brug."" On Feb. 14, 1259, Odo de Hodnet and others have a like commission, but extending also to the 'gaol of Salop Z^" and, about a month later, a third commission, naming both gaols, is addressed to the Sheriff of Salop and Constable of Brug, and appoints Simon de E-ibeford Justiciar for the same purpose.^*" On May 18, 1260, Peter de Montfort is ordered to give custody of the Castles of Brug and Salop to James de Audley, whom the tenants of the Crown are enjoined to aid " in resisting rebels and disturbers of the peace in those parts." ^^^ 9 July, 1261, the same James is appointed Sheriff of the Coun- 156 Fat. 40 Hen. III. 157 Ibidem, 41 Hen. III. 158 Ibidem, 42 Hen. Ill, dorso. 159 Ibidem, memb. 6. The Council of " Magnates " was the Committee of Reform appointed by the "mad Pariia- ment," which assembled at Oxford in this very month. Peter de Montfort was on this Committee himself, and one of its five most zealous members. One of their first acts was to change the keepers of the Royal Castles, but Montfort's previous occupancy of Bridgnorth was of course undisturbed, though a new patent thereof became necessary. In the list of new Castellans given in the Annals of Burton (page 416), Brugewalter (Bridgwater) is assigned to Montfort, by mistake for Bruge. ™ Fat. 43 Hen. Ill, dorso. 151 Ibidem, 44Hen. Ill, memb. 10. There is no appearance of James de Audley being also Sheriff at this time. He was brother-in-law to Peter de Montfort, but a staunch Royalist. BEIDGNOUTH. 281 ties, as well as Castos of the Castles, in a Patent addressed to William de Caverswell ^^^ (late Sherifif), who continued to act as his deputy .^^^ D'Audley forthwith laid out 100 merks in corn, where- with he victualled the Castle of Brug, and the cost was repaid him in the year following.^^ 20 Oct. 1261. Custody of the Castles of Salop and Brug is renewed by Patent to James de Audley/^ and, — On Feb. 5, 1262, a Patent for custody, both of the Castles and the Counties, is again made out to the same Sheriff.^"^ 28 Oct. 1262. Robert de Lacy and others are appointed Justices for delivery of the gaol of Brug.^^^ It is very doubtful, who at this moment had custody of Bridg- north Castle, or indeed of the Counties of Salop and Stafford. No Sheriff had accounted at Michaelmas, nor do the series of Shropshire Pipe Rolls recommence till the year 1267. D'Audley's reappointment of Feb. 5, 1262, though it named both Counties and Castles, was operative only in part or but for a short time. On May 6, 1262, Ralph Basset was Constable of Shrewsbury Castle, and a writ issued from Gloucester, purporting to be " in behalf of the King," and ordering him to put it in a state of defence, and to use all diligence in re-establishing harmony in that district.^^^ Basset was a known Anti- Royalist, and, whereas the King was not at Gloucester when this writ issued, we may presume the source from which it came and the authority by which Basset held Salop Castle. 1S2 lat. 45 Hen. III. Mot. Tvp. 45 Hen. Ill, Salop. This appointment of d'Audley was one of the King's first acts ou resuming the royal authority, of which he had now been de- prived three years. The writ is dated at the Tower. '«^ £o<.ijJera* Contin. M. Paris (ed. Watts, i, 992). The Historians of Shrewshwry (toI. i, p. 126, note 1) suppose it probable that Montfort made himself master both of Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth on this occasion. They refer only to the words of the Continuator of M. Paris, viz. "Deiade processit exercitus adWigomiam et Burgiam sire Salopiam, et eas levi negotio redditas intraverunt." Looking to subsequent evidence of a better kind than that of this non-positive Clu:onioler, I venture to question whether Montfort obtained possession of the Castles either of Brug or Shrewsbury, and, if of one of the Boroughs, that one was not Bridg- north. Dr. Lingard (vol. iii, p. 131) has dated the aifair in AprU, 1263. 284 BRIDGNOETH. our subject will give us some opportunity of observing how such documents were regarded in Shropshire. First comes a Patent bearing date June 4, 1364, which appoints, in 39 Counties, certain officers entitled " Keepers of the Peace." ™ The one appointed for Salop and Stafford was Ealph Basset of Drayton. In no case is the Sheriff of the County addressed as to any of these appointments, but the Nominee himself, who was probably expected to supply the place and usurp the functions of the lawful Sheriff. The Gustos of each County was to retiirn four Members (knights) to the Parliament which was to meet at London on June 33 following. These Knights were to be elected "by assent of each County." Shropshire made known its sentiments on this occasion by returning four members, who were pronounced " to be unfit, by Peter de Montfort." The Parliament, ia fact, never met, probably because a majority of its members were simi- larly disqualified. A Patent dated at Canterbury, 34 August, enjoins Hamo le Strange to give up the Castles of Salop and Bruges, and the town of Bruges, to whomsoever the King shall appoint by his Letters Patent. The same Hamo, with James de Audley, Roger de Mor- timer, Eoger de Clifford, and Roger de Leybume, axe also required to deliver up their prisoners, taken at Northampton (those rebels whom the King before his captivity had surprised in Northampton Castle) .180 On Dec. 30, Hamo le Strange is again required to give custody of the Castles of Salop and Bruges to Ralph Basset of Drayton.^^^ On Jan. 3, 1365, Hamo le Strange and ■ his fellow royalists are invited to retire to Ireland, and stay there for a season. Safe con- duct for themselves and families is graciously vouchsafed, as also protection for their lands, men, and goods.^^^ — Whether any of them actually went, is a question. Roger de Mortimer's term for setting out was extended by Patents dated February 5, March 3, and April 8, foUowing.i^^ Meanwhile, on February 3, custody of the Counties of Salop and Stafford had been committed to Robert de Grendon, who on 179 Mot. Pat. 48 Hen. HI, memb. 12 dorso. i8» Pat. 48 Hen. IH, dorso. '81 Pat. 49 Hen. III. The King was at Worcester, where certain measures were decided upon by Montfort for securing his ownpowerandtheeontinued subjection of the King. These measures were pa- raded in the King's name and called " The Provisions of Worcester." 1^ Pat. de eodem anno. 1^ Pat. de eodem anno. BRIDGNORTH. 285 March 7 is ordered to deliver that trust to Ralph Basset of Drayton.is* On March 17, Hamo le Strange and other Barons are again assured of safe conduct to Ireland, " though they did not cross the seas at the time before fixed." ^^^ On the 20th of May, a Patent is addressed from Hereford to Ralph Basset, Keeper of the Peace, and to the Sheriffs of Salop and Stafford. They are to publish the accord which had been concluded between the Earls of Leicester and Gloucester; ''and whereas Roger de Clifford, Roger de Leybum, Hamo le Strange, and others, their fellow marchers, who ought, according to the Provisions of Worcester, to have left the kingdom, have delayed to do so, in con- tempt of the King, it is ordered that the said Gustos and Sheriffs do arrest them and their abettors, if they busy themselves in averting the minds of faithful subjects from the King, so as to disturb the peace." Letters on the same matters were directed to the Bailiffs and to the " good men " of the King, and to the community, both of Shrewsbury and Brug.^^* I have not the least doubt that Hamo le Strange had kept posses- sion of Bridgnorth Gastle through the whole period, — from his^first appointment to that custody in November, 1363, until now; and this Patent is not the only evidence that the men of the Borough shared in the same sagacious loyalty. The Burgesses of Shrewsbury too were hearty Royalists, and early assumed the offensive against Montfort^s nominee. A Patent dated at Monmouth, June 25, 1265, commands the Abbot of Shrewsbury to enjoin the Bailiffs of that town, on the King's behalf, that they give up to Ralph Basset, " Keeper of the Peace," certain men of the said Ralph's, whom the said Bailiffs detain.^^'' 1** Pal ibidem. Grendon'a adherence to the Barons was of very short duration (Vide Dugd. Waru). tit. Grendon). Hia tenure of office was probably coincident with his disaffection to the Crown. In the Sheriff's acooimts of 1267, his shrie- valty seems to have been recognized as legal, — a result rather of his subsequent conduct than of his original appointment. 195 Fat. 49 Hen. III. 186 Fat. 49 Hen. III. memb. 15. The whole document is printed in the Foedera (vol. i, 455). It alludes to the recent landing of the Earls of Warren and Pembroke, in Wales. Montfort's fears and the hopes of the Royalists were both excited. The former had patched up a reconciliation with the powerful Earl of Gloucester, which he hastened to publish. It was pretended on both sides. Glouces- ter was at this moment arranging the escape of Prince Edward, and it was accomplished on Thursday the 28th of this same month. 187 Fat. ibidem. 286 BRIDGNORTH. Montfort's position was now getting critical. A further Patent, dated at Monmouth, three days later, distinguishing Princ6 Edward, the Earl of Gloucester, John de Warren, William de Valence, Roger de Mortimer, and James d'Audley, as rebels, says, that they are making hostile occupation of Castles and Towns throughout the kingdom, and desires Simon de Montfort, junior, and other Keepers of the Peace to oppose and injure them in every possible way.i^^ The prospects and position of these " rebels " continued never- theless to improve during the whole succeeding month of July. On the 1st of August, young Simon de Montfort suffered a surprise and some loss at their hands, and remained shut up in his Father^s Castle of Kenilworth. The sequel of the 4th is well known ; how the morning twilight greeted the waiting crest of Prince Edward on the upland field of Evesham, whilst the adjacent roads were occu- pied by the contingents of Mortimer and De Clare; how the evening of that day saw the corpse of Montfort slain and dis- honoured. — A life of consummate selfishness and hypocrisy was not to be atoned for, even by the noble heroism displayed at its close. 1^^ On the restoration, and till Michaelmas, 1267, when the Pipe Rolls recommence^ Plamo le Strange appears to have been the recog- nized Sheriff of the Counties and Keeper of the Castles. He also received other and more substantial marks of Royal favour-^^" In September, 1267, the County was favoured by a Royal visit. The preparations at Bridgnorth Castle for the reception of both King and Queen have already been noticed. About this time also Walter de Hopton succeeded to the shrievalty, and was allowed in the following year (53 Hen. Ill) a sum of j630. 8s. M., which he had paid for com, oats, oxen, and sheep, supplied on the occasion of the King's late visit.i^i His custody of the Castle of Brug- at the same time has already been shown. The ofliee of Keeper of this 18S Sot. Pat. 49 Hen. Ill, memb. 45. 1'' It is well to state that the Annalists of the period are very equally divided in "theii" estimates of Montfort. On the one hand, he appears as a traitor and insatiably greedy; on the other, as a saint and martyr. The more authentic national records, from which I have quoted, con- firm the former theory, but of course leave the latter untouched. Montfort's greatest panegyrist among the Chroniclers is the Monk of Melrose, who proves his sanctity by several parallels between Simon the Earl and Simon Peter the 'Apostle, and by a number of miracles which re- sulted upon the death of the former. (See Lingard, vol. iii, pp. 144, 149.) ™ Boi. Fip. 51 Hen. Ill, and Rot. Pat, sub annis 50 et 51. "1 Uherat. 53 Hen. Ill, memb. 8. BRIDGNORTH. 287 "Castle seems indeed to have been involved in the Shrievalty for the rest of the period which concerns us. On the death of Hugh de Mortimer^ in January, 1373, his successor, Ralph de Mortimer, was appointed to his ofiices, both as Constable and Sheriff.!'^ We may conclude this account of Bridgnorth Castle with a few statements, which were made on Nov. 29, 1274, before the King's Commission of inquiry and by the Jurors of the Borough.^^^ In answer to a question, as to " how many and what demesne Manors the King held in hand," they said that he so held, in hand, and in demesne, the Castle of Brug. — In reply to an inquiry as to the excesses of public Officers, they stated that " Robert TrUlec,!''' Receiver (for the Sheriff) caused the Burgesses and Bailiffs of Brug to come before him in the Castle ; the Bailiffs he detained, and, without the King's mandate, imprisoned (against justice and the King's peace, and the liberties of Brug), till a certain woman who was then confined in the gaol of the Borough Liberty was transferred to his custody in the gaol of the Castle, — and all this against the franchise granted to the said town by Kings of England." They also stated, that " the same Robert had maintained and was still maintaining certain guards (Satellites), who wrongfully extorted money from messengers and other travellers on the King's highway : but the amount of their demands the Jurors knew not." " The same Robert had caused these guards to seize Richard de Dode- monston at midnight, and carry him about from one wood to another, threatening his life; which Richard offered a fine of 3 merks payable to Trillec, if he might be taken to the Castle- Prison of Brug with his head on his shoulders (sine decolacone,!^^ i. e. decoUatione), which fine he also paid." "2 Blakeway MSS. in Bibl. Bodl., ap- parently quoting a Patent. The succes- sion of the Sheriffs themselves at this period is very uncertain. As the matter receives uo Kght in connexion with Bridg- north Castle, I willingly postpone its con- sideration. I may, however, state that all existing lists of our Sheriffs in the thirteenth century are so inaccurate, that the subject must necessarily recur to our notice. "3 Bof. Smd. ii, 88. '** There ia complex confusion about this Robert Trillec and his Office. In this passage he is printed as "Eobertus TriUec, deceptor," instead of " Receptor " (Receiver of the County), and Mr. Blake- way makes him Sheriff " in the latter end of Henry III or beginning of Edward I" {Sheriffs, p. 7). His office is, however, very ascertainable, and its period. He was Under-Sheriff to. Clerk or Attorney of, or Receiver for, Ralph de Mortimer, who entered upon office as Sheriff Jan. 23, 1273. In that capacity TrUlec wUl have had authority over the Constables and Castles of Salop and Bridgnorth. 195 rpiiig word is read " desolatione " {Sheriffs, p. 8, note 1), and of course un- translated. 37 288 BRIDGNOETH. " The same Robert Trillec, Under-Sheriff of Salop, concealed the felony of Robert Coly (or Soly), a felon, attached for theft, and imprisoned in the Castle gaol, and released him without the King's mandate and without trial, and has him yet with him." " Also, when said Trillec caused Richard de Dodemonston and Philip his brother to be arrested and imprisoned in Brug Castle, their friends obtained a mandate of the King for delivery of the gaol of Brug,!^^ which mandate Trillec would not obey, till the prisoners made fine of 20 merks, receivable by him, for enlarging them under bail." Also the Jurors said that "when Reginald de CnoUe had arrested a woman for theft, and taken her to be imprisoned in the Castle, and presented her to Hugh de DonvUe, the Constable, for that purpose, the said Hugh would not receive her for imprisonment, till Reginald had fined 2 merks, receivable by Hugh, and which he paid him." The last extract gives us the name of a Constable of Brug, distinct from any SherifFor Under-Sheriff of the County, though probably subject to both. A few other such Constables have occurred above, such as Matthew in 1209, and Robert de Teneray in 1215. Before we dismiss the subject we will refer back a little for the names of one or two more such Ofiicers, mention of whom in chronological sequence would have interrupted the connexion of more important matters. In 1259 and 1262, Walter de Winterton was Constable of Brug. On Nov. 29, 1259, he joined with others in taking one of the King's deer. Not appearing to answer for this offence at the Forest Assizes of February, 1262, the Sheriff had orders accordingly.^^'' The next Constable who occurs was WilUam de Wystaneston, who joined William le Enfant, then Bailiff of Stottesden Hundred, in imprisoning and extorting money from William de Hempton.^^^ William le Enfant himself, having been Bailiff both of the Hun- dreds of Munslow and Stottesden, was also sometime Constable of Brug. He held the latter office during the shrievalty of Walter de Hopton (1267-8). His injurious and extortionate conduct was reported, six years afterwards, both by the Jurors of Norley Regis and Stottesden.^^^ The latter also accused him of keeping a certain "'5 N"ot for the " release of the priBon- rs" (as Sheriffs, p. 8). ^^ Plac. Forest. Salop, No. iv, memb. 5. "83 Mot. JIund. ii, 109, a. "' Ibidem, 102, b, and 109, b. BKIDGNORTH. 289 Approver ^°" in the prison of Brag, who challenged Roger de Erdiwik, an honest and innocent man. This was at instigation of John de Bersemptonj then Bailiff of Stottesden, who coveted some land of Roger's, which the latter was thus forced to sell. The succeeding Constable, Hugh de Donvde, was also Bailiff of Stottesden. He held one or both of&ces in 1272 and 1273, and the two in conjunction in 1274. The power which he thus obtained made him the subject of numerous complaints at the Inquests of November, 1274. His excesses were not only reported by the Jurors of Bridgnorth, as before particularized, but by those of Ludlow, Munslow, Nordley Regis, Overs, and Stottesden.^°i His assistants or servants are also named, viz. Hugh Bron, Thos. de Midlehope, and Geoffrey his brother. Donvile also kept an Approver in the Castle Prison, " who impeached many faithful subjects and harmless men for the sake of lucre." Nor did he only oppress the innocent ; for he allowed the guilty to escape. By his connivance an outlaw named Henry le Pleidour, whom Donvile had arrested in Shropshire, got off by giving a false name when arraigned before the Justices for delivery of the gaol of Brug. Calhng himself John de Womburne, the criminal appealed to a Staffordshire Jury, which, knowing nothing of him, acquitted him. The Stottesden Jurors, who reported this, could not say what money Donvile got for his connivance in the job. About the year 1280, Hugh de Dodemonston was Constable of Bridgnorth, Roger Sprenghose being also Sheriff of the County, Thomas de Marham, Bailiff of Stottesden Hundred, and Nicholas le Porter, Gatekeeper of the Castle.^"^ — At the Assizes of 1292, it appeared that the three subordinates, viz. the Constable, the Bailiff, and the Porter, had been suspected of letting a prisoner escape from the Castle. The first (Hugh de Dudmaston) was now tried and acquitted ; Thomas de Marham, of whom we have heard before/"^ had died in prison; the Porter, Nicholas, had absconded (non est inventus) . ™' The Approver (or Probator) was a moat formidable instrument of feudal oppression. He was a self-confessed felon, an informer, and a bravo. The Jurists tell us that a person accused by ah Approver might, if he chose, be tried by Jury ; but the practical alternative seems to have been that the defendant had either to fight a duel with his accuser or else bribe the said accuser's employers, z™ Ibidem, 99, b; 101, b; 102, b; 103, b ; and 109, b. 202 Flacita Corona, 20 Ed. I, memb. 18. 203 Supra, p. 193. 290 BEIDGNOKTH. THE BOROUGH. The Borough of Bridgnorth is presumed to have been a founda- tion immediately consequent on the transfer of the Castle from Quatford, in 1101. Ordericus indeed, describing Earl Robert's proceedings, says expressly that he transferred the Town.^"* We shall presently see that King Henry I recognized the new Borough, and allowed it certain ' privileges ; but whether these were defined by Charter or left to be established by prescription, we have no means of judging. ^°^ The confirmation of these privileges by King Henry II is extant, and, as being the earliest written Charter implying Royal recognition of any Shropshire Borough, deserves special attention .^•'^ Its pur- port is as follows : — " Henry, King of England, and Duke of Normandy and Aqui- taine and Earl of Anjou, to his Justiciars and Sherifi's and Barons and Ministers and aU his faithful of England, greeting. Know ye that I have conceded to my Burgesses of Brugia all their franchises and customs and rights, which they or their ancestors had in the time of King Henry my grandfather. Wherefore I will and strictly command that they have them, well, and in peace, and honourably, and fuUy ; within the Borough and without ; in wood and in field, in meadows and pastures and in all things, with such comparative fulness and honour as they held them in time of King Henry my grandfather. And I forbid any one to do them injury or insult, in regard to their tenements. — ^ Witnesses : T. Chancellor and Henry de Essex, Constable, and William Pitz Alan : at Radde- more. "207 ">* Ordericus, \ih.x,-p.768. "Oppidum Quatford transtidit." 205 jjj.. Hallam thinks that there are no examples of civil incorporations in Eng- land (except London), till the reign of Henry II (Middle Ages, i, 211), and this say the historians of Shrewsbm-y is per- haps correct. {Sistory of Sli/rewshwy, i, 76, note 1). ^"^ Shrewsbury was a much older Borough than Bridgnorth, but it has no Charter earlier than that of Richard I. 2"' fhis document is unquestionably genuine. The original is not inowa to exist, but its substance is embodied in an ample Inspeximus of Bridgnorth Charters by James I. A duly vouched copy of this Inspeximus is among the Mxuiiments of the Corporation, and is my authority for all the Charters I shall quote, except that of King John. BEIDGNOETH. 291 King Henry II did not date his Charters, but the period of his reign, if not the very year (1157) in which this one passed, can be ascertained by a redundancy of evidence. E. G. No deed of Henry II, passing in England, can have been attested by " T. Cane." (Thomas the Chancellor) except in the year 1155, or else between April, 1157, and August, 1158. — Precisely the same limits may be assigned to aU English deeds attested for Henry II by the two other witnesses ; for the King was absent from England during all other periods at which Henry de Essex was in favour or William Fitz Alan alive. The King, in fact, was in Normandy from Christmas, 1155, tiU April, 1157, and again from August, 1158, till December, 1162. At the latter period, and on Henry's return to England, Becket was no longer Chancellor, Fitz Alan was dead, and the disgrace of Henry de Essex imminent. — Of the three years (1155, 1157, and 1158) which remain at our choice, the secoiid (1157) is the most probable for the date of this Charter. The unsettled state of Bridgnorth during, and consequent upon, Mortimer's rebellion, puts the early part of the year 1155 out of question, and renders the latter part improbable. — It was in autumn of 1157 that Henry de Essex is said to have disgraced his office of Constable at Counsylth. His actual forfeiture did not take place for several years, but his immediate loss of Court favour is evident from the Pipe EoUs. When we add to these con- siderations the fact that the Sheriff of Staifordshire charges, in 1158, for fencing the King's house and garden at Kadmore,^"^ and when we find another Charter of Henry II expedited there, and which, on independent grounds, we should date in 1157-8,^"' enough will have been said to warrant the cdnclusion that his Confirmation to the Borough of Brug passed about 1157. When, in the fiscal year ending Michaelmas, 1159, the Barons, Knights, Abbots, and Burgesses of the kingdom had contributed a royal aid in form of a donum, the only Boroughs in Shropshire ="8 Eot. Fip. 4 Hen. Ill, StaiTordslure. 209 Monasticon, W, 111, IM. 292 BRIDGNORTH. which were assessed are found to be Shrewsbury and Brug. They had respectively raised the sums of 50 and 10 merks, and paid the same, through the Sheriff, at the Exchequer.^i" Again, at Michaelmas, 1160, the Boroughs of Shrewsbury, Brug, and Newport had been assessed to a donum, iu sums of 40 12, and, 1^ merks respectively. Each had then paid half its quota, and the balances were discharged by each ia the year foUowing.^i^ At this period, Hhidferm of the County, for which the Sheriff was annually responsible at the Exchequer, stood at ^6265. 15s. Of this sum, the said Sheriff was accounted to receive ^620. from the Borough of Shrewsbury, and £?>. from the Borough of Bridgnorth. These amounts he paid over to the Crown, and whatever he could get more on each item was his own. "The yearly Ferme of towns," says Madox,^^^ "arose out of certain locata or demised things that yielded issues or profit. Insomuch that when a town was committed to a Sherif, Fermer, or Gustos, such Fermer or Gustos weU knew how to raise the/erme out of the ordinary issues of the town, with an overplus of profit to himself." (A source of yearly revenue which, in the year 1167, arose to the Crown out of the Borough of Brug, independently of the annual ferm, wiU be noticed hereafter. At present, we pursue the history of that revenue which is technically called the " firma Burgi.") We have arrived nearly at the period when this town obtaiaed the great end and aim of all municipal bodies, the privilege of paying its own ferm or chief-rent to the Crown, and so escaping the arbitrary extortions of any Sheriff or other iutermediate officer. At Michaelmas, 1170, the Burgesses of Brug and of Salop had fined with the Crown in sums of 20 and 18 merks respectively, " for having the ferms of their vills. Each had paid thfe said fine, and was quit. The terms on which the Burgesses of Brug obtained this privilege were, that they should pay 2\ merks per annum, in ™ Rot. Fip. 5 Hen. II, Salop. 2" Ibidem, 6 and 7 Hen. II. "2 Fk-ma Bwgi,^. 251. Under "the issue of Towns," he mentions "Assised Rents, Pleas, Perquisites, Custome of goods. Fairs, Mai-kets, Stallage, Alder- manries, Tolls, Wharfage," &c. The rea- der wiU judge which of these pro- bably contributed to the "/en» of £5. per annum," chargeable on the King's Borough of Brug. BRIDGNOiaTH. 293 addition to such ferm of their Town (viz. £5,) as was previously its quota in the general ferm of the County .^^^ The increment of 2^ merks, due Michaelmas^ 1170, is entered on the Pipe Roll of that year as being owed " through Hugh de Beau- champ ;" and as no other notice of its liquidation occurs, we may presume that it was paid through that officer/^* rather than through the Sheriff of the County. At Michaelmas, 1171, however, the Burgesses of Brug account themselves for £\. 13s. 4c?., the "increment of their vill." They had paid it into the treasury, and were quit?^'' At the same time it is quite clear that the Sheriff continued to receive the old/er»i of £5. per annum, and perhaps no inore. — At all events he accounted so much to the Exchequer in his general ferm of the County. This complex mode of accounting for the ferm of the Borough continued for four years longer, viz. 1172, 1173, 1174, and 1175; the Burgesses paying their annual incremsnt, and that part of the Sheriff^s account, which was termed the Corpus Comitatils, exhibiting no reference to the new arrangement. ^i^ But during the last of these fiscal years, the Burgesses had again fined in a sum of 30 merks and two coursers "to have their town at ferm." — And the fidl efl'ect of this second fine becomes both apparent and intelligible on the Pipe Roll of the following year (ending Michael- mas, 1176) .2^7 Then, the Sheriff, being no longer in receipt of 'j65. per amium (the quota of this Borough towards the ferm of the County), discharges himself of the responsibility, taking credit for the said .£5. (which ceased to pass through his hands) in form fol- lowing : — " And in the vill of Brug 100s. whereof account should be ren- dered separately." He was, in short, now responsible for £265. 15*. per annum, less such sums as he was no longer authorized to receive, and among those sums was the £5. in question. Now too, and on the same RoU, the Burgesses render their first annual account of the fuU ferm of their vill. It was 10 merks, 2" Mot. Pip. 16 Hen. 11, Salop. ^^ For Hugh de Beauohamp's apparent connexion with Exchequer, see Madox's History of the Exchequer, 145, note a. 215 Mot. Fip. 17 Hen. II. ^'^ Sot, Pip. de eisdem annis. 217 Rot. Pip.22 Hen. II, Salop. 294 BRIDGNORTH. i.e. 7^ merks (£5.) which they used to pay through the Sheriff, and 2^ merks which they had already paid for five years them- selves. The King also hegins, at this juncture, to issue writs to the BurgesseSj which are in the nature of drafts on their annual debt. In this very year he directed them to make a payment ''in corrody of his sister, the wife of David ap Owen."^!^ And this draft the Burgesses duly respected : they made the said payment, and took credit, to the value, in their own account with the Ex- chequer. Another and permanent payment which the King ordered them to make was 10s. per annum, the tithe due from the Crown, to the Canons of St. Mary Magdalene. This, hitherto an item in the Sheriff's disbursements, was henceforth settled by the Burgesses, At Michaelmas, 1177, the Sheriff again acquits himself of all concern in the £5. above mentioned,^^' and this exemption is either directly entered or substantively reckoned in every Sheriff's account for the next century.^^" With regard to the " fine of 30 merks and 2 coursers," by which the Burgesses obtained their full privilege, they discharged it as follows : — Before Michaelmas, 1176, they had paid £3. 18s. M. in further " corrody of the King's sister:" before Michaelmas, 1177, they had accounted £16. Is. 8d. into the Treasury; and within another year they had delivered two Coursers to the King himself, and were quit.^^^ Their annual /erm of 10 merks (£6. 13s. 4.3 E 53 o .a 60 03 ^ O .s s s «> H « 53 (U g S o fl \^S^ 3 <" 2 is^l 13 c (D TS M c r3 w a c r^ ^ a o CD •3 -a 1-. a P F £"3 Lrl rH ^ 0) 60frv a con en CD :i fc>S-| ■g 3 ' ti b ^ - £ XI S £ iS >Z |> l-H M l-H M PH iX l>H P§ 05 1— I g ; o O iH iH iH tH ;:5 60 1 1 t-3 fl CO -^ CD (N I— 1 l-Tl 1-3 1-3 00 00 CO 60 gag lO CD CO CO CD !D Op O CO BRIDGNORTH. 321 THE CHXJKCH OP ST. MARY MAGDALENE. Earl Robert's removal of the Borougli and Castle of Quatford to Bridgnorth naturally led to the further transfer of the Collegiate Churchj so richly endowed by his Father. The Parish Church of Quatford indeed remained ; nor does the new Collegiate establish- ment appear to have originally combined any parochial cure : in fact it was built within the precincts of the Castle, a situation little consonant with any such responsibility. ^^^ Not a vestige of the history of this Church, or Chapel, remains for the first half century after its removal from Quatford, nor can we expect any further discoveries as regards that period. We have already seen that Earl Roger, endowing his Church of Quatford, granted to it, inter alia, a third of the tithes of Morville. It is also clear that the site of Bridgnorth must have been in the Domesday Parish of Morville, and so possibly this, the Earl's original grant of tithes, may have been apportioned on the sub- sequent Borough. Either in that way, or by some further grant of King Henry I, certain it is that, on the accession of Henry 11, the Canons of Brug were entitled to a recognized composition or annual payment in lieu of the tithes of the King's demesne, which the Borough then was. This sum, 10s. per annum, was paid to the Canons by the Sheriif, and, in turn, charged by him on the Crown in his ac- count for the year ending Michaelmas, 1156.^i* It so continued to be paid and charged in each annual account of the Sheriff till the year 1176, when, in consequence of an arrangement before particularized,^^^ the Burgesses were authorized to pay it, and to 313 The Chapel of St. Michael, m Shrewsbury Castle, was in some respects a similar, though less richly endowed foundation than that of St. Mary Magda- lene. The Sutoricms of Shrewsbwry (vol. ii, pp. 303, 417) seem to have held that a Parish was attached to the former from the earHest period. The evidence given hardly confirms such a view. I am however quite ignorant of the period when a district, with cure of souls, was first assigned to either Chapel. Certainly a petition of the Burgesses of Brug was pre- sented to the Parliament of Winchester in 4 Ed. Ill (1330) praying that they might have the use of the Eing's Chapel as a Parish Church. This is a proof that no such use had been previously made of the Chapel, nor do I think that the petition had any effect even then. 3" Rot. Pip. 2 Hen. II, Salop. 3'* Supra, p. 294. It should be observed that as long as the Sheriff paid this annuity he entered it under the title of "appointed alms," not "tithes." — "Et in elemosynis constitutis — Canonicis de Brug, x.s." This was rather with a view to con- 322 BRIDGNORTH. enter it as a set-off in their own current accounts with the Exchequer. No further change in this respect was made during the period of our present inquiry. The Churchj thus recognised by Henry 11, fifty years after its foundation, continued to enjoy all those privileges and immunities which attached to Royal Free Chapels. Some of these privileges have already been noticed under the respective lists of Prebendaries; others will now have to be detailed. The general constitution of the Church, with that one peculiarity which distinguished it from all other Royal Chapels, have been set forth in the words of John Bromton,'^^ whose account needs neither addition nor correction on this head. His statement as to the independent relations which existed between the Dean and Prebendaries is, however, confirmed by a verbal coincidence, too curious to be passed by ; viz. that the Col- legiate body is frequently described as consisting of six Pre- bendaries, i. e. The superiority of the Dean, a nominal one only, is as often forgotten as remembered. About the year 1196 this Church, or rather its Dean, Simon, was involved ia a contest with Wenlock Priory, as to the Advowson of Dudinton (Priors Ditton) . This Advowson was no part of Earl Roger's original endowment of St. Mary Magdalene, and the grounds of the Dean's claim, which seems to have been the weaker of the two, are not stated. The composition which ensued left Ditton Church with the Priory, but the Dean and his successors were to receive an annual acknowledgment of two pieces of gold, at Michaelmas, from the Priory .^i'' This indefinite sum does not enable us to conjecture the strength of the claim which it repre- sented. At the Salop Assizes, Nov. 1221, the Jurors of the Borough and Hundred of Bruges returned the Church of Saint Mary of Brug venient classification (the Sheriff being charged with payment of other Royal Alms) than to correctness. When the Burgesses begun to pay the annuity, iu 1176, they always entered it under the title of " appointed tithes." " In decimis constitutis." 516 Supra, p. 107. ^" Monasticon, vol. v, p. 74. Note 7. The deed of composition is translated, but not accurately. The Pope who appointed the Arbitrators was Celestine III (elected March 29, 1191, died Jan. 8, 1198). This, with other limits, implied by the names of the Arbitrators and Witnesses, gives within a year the date laid down in the text. If the two pieces of gold were two merks of gold, then the composition for the Dean's claim was considerable, viz. £13. 6«. »d. BRIDGNORTH. 323 as of the King's gift, and that there were six Prebends therein, which six Clerks held, by gift of the King and his ancestors .^^^ A similar presentment at the Assizes of October^ 1237, calls the Church, more correctly, that of St. Mary Magdalene of Bruges, and mentions six Prebends.^^^ 17 Feb. 1228. The King's precept issued to the Sheriff of Salop commanding him to allow to this Chapel all tithes of the King's demesnes of Brug, in Fairs and Mills.^^" 13 Nov. 1234. The King, by Charter dated at Westminster, grants to his Canons of Brug, that they and their successors and their men, holding under them in their Prebends, shall be quit of all suits to the Courts of either County or Hundred.^^^ The general non-residence of the Prebendaries of Brug has been already presumed. It has also been suggested that no parochial jurisdiction ^^^ attached to the Collegiate Church. It may even be doubted whether Divine Service was regularly performed in the Chapel of the Castle, either by the Principals in turn, or by their deputies. This will be inferred from the fact, that, in the fiscal year ending Michaelmas, 1239, King Henry III founded a New Chapel in his Castle of Bruges, appointing thereto a Chaplain who was to perform divine services and receive a salary of 50«. per annum for his main- tenance.^-^ This salary was paid by the Sheriff for the year then ending, and, substantively, remained a charge on the annual accounts throughout the reign of Ilenry III. The immunities claimed by the Church of St. Mary Magdalene extended to all the Churches and Chapels which belonged to its Prebendaries. Nay, these Churches were themselves called Free 318 Assize Roll, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 9 dorso. 3'^ Testa deNevill,^. 54, being excerpted from an Assize Soil. 32» Dodsworth, vol. 103. The tithe of fairs at this period will rather have been a tax on the Borough Revenues than on the King's Exchequer. The same may be said of the tithes of Pendeston Mill, which, a few months earUer, had been set to ferm to the Burgesses (supra, p. 303). 321 Sot. Cart. 19 Hen. Ill, memb. 19. 322 Tijat is not in the Borough. Such of the Prebends as had Churches for their endowment had of course spiritual cures in the Parishes of those Churches. 323 Sot. Sip. 23 Hen. Ill, Salop. This stipend though it appears aa regu- larly paid upon the Pipe Rolls does not seem to have been of that permanent character which we should term an endow- ment,' nor, as in the case of " constituted alms or,tithes,'' was the Sheriff empowered to discharge it without special warrant, e.g. there is an order on the Liberate RoU of 55 Hen. Ill (memb. 2), to the Sheriff to pay " Nicholas, the Chaplain, ministering in the Chapel of the Castle his stipend of 50*. per annum." 324 BRIDGNORTH. Chapels of the King when their privileges were in question. This observation is grounded on the following documents^ whichj though they relate specially to the Church of Claverley, which was part of the endowment of the Deanery of Brug, touched matters which concerned the whole Collegiate body. In Easter Term, 1241, in the Courts at Westminster,^^ Master Peter de Badenor, Official of the Bishop of Coventry and Lich- field and Robert Chaplain of Pattingham were under summons to appear (on April 28th} and show, " wherefore, against prohibition of the Lord the King they had suspended the Church of Claverley, which is a Free Chapel of the Lord King, and had sequestrated the goods of the same Church, and had caused to be threshed the corn of Peter de RivaUis, Rector of the said Church (he was Dean of St. Mary Magdalene) for the purpose of levying a contribution for the Lord the Pope, to the grave prejudice of the Crown and dignity of the Lord the King." The Defendants appeared not, and the Sheriff sent word that they had no lay fee by which they might be distrained to appear. So • mandate issued to the Bishop, that he should have the parties at Westminster in one month of St. John Baptist &c. Accordingly, on the day appointed (July 22), and in continuance of this cause, William de Norbury, Official of the Archdeacon of Stafford, and Elyas Dean of Brug, are stated to have appeared in Court,^^* to show wherefore they had suspended the Church of Claverley against the King's prohibition &c. William and Elyas made answer that they never had received the said prohibition. They were bound over to take their trial by Jury, Giles de Erdinton and William Wymer being their Sureties. I cannot learn the issue of this prosecution, but it is quite evident that the King was at length roused by this, and perhaps some similar interferences with the rights of his Free Chapels, and petitioned the Pope (Innocent IV) on the subject. The Pontiff was not inattentive to the remonstrances of "his beloved and devout Son." A Bull exists, dated at Lyons on July 21, 1245, wherein any " Ordinary, Delegate or Subdelegate is contemporary Dean of St. Marj Magda- lene, whose name was Peter, and who was^ if a party to the cause. Plaintiff. I take Elyas to have been that Rural Dean (pro- bably of Trysul) within whose district Claverley had been assumed to he. ^* Flacita apud Westm. Easter Term, 25 Hen. Ill, m. 28 dorso. This entry is printed in the Abbreviatio Plaoitorum, (p. 113), but under a wrong date. 32* Ibidem, memb. 32 recto. The De- fendant who. is called Dean of Brug in this case must not be confused with the BRIDGNORTH. 325 prohibited from venturing to pronounce sentence of excommunica- tion or interdict against the Royal Chapels, or the Oratories thereof (being in immediate subjection to the Roman Church), or the Canons, or their Servants, contrary to the tenor of privileges and indulgences of the Apostolick See ; or to lay any burden on them, which has not usually been laid upon other exempt Churches, with- out such special mandate of the Apostolick See as shall make express mention of the measure to be taken.'^^ Another Bull, dated at Lyons, on July 27, following, is addressed to the Chancellor of Oxford, whom the Pontiff informs of a com- plaiut which he had received from King Henry, viz. that " the Archdeacon of Stafford, although he has no jurisdiction, ordinary or delegated, over the Chapel of Bruges (which is the King's pecu- liar) , yet attempts to extort Procurations therefrom, and to interdict it, and to suspend and excommunicate its Chaplains, to the prejudice and injury of the said King," who thereupon had " appealed to the hearing of the Pope." The Chancellor is to summon the parties, hear the cause, and decide it canonicaUy and finally, enforcing his decree by ecclesiastical censure.^^''' The neglect which the CoUegiate Church suffered at the hands of its Dignitaries, and that independance of their Dean and of each other, which probably was the chief cause of such neglect, are well illustrated by a Patent of 26 December, 1246. — Kiag Henry, addressing the Canons of Bruges, orders them to render obedience to Peter de Rivallis (he was Dean) in the matter of remedying deficiencies in the decorations of their Chapel.^^^ In March, 1254, the Deans of the King's Chapels of Brug and Salop (St. Mary^s) were commissioned by Letters Patent to assist Berard de Nimpha to collect certain monies, from those who had vowed the Crusade, for the use of the Earl of Cornwall.^*'^ At the Inquisitions of 1255 the Borough Jurors made a detailed statement as to the value and incumbency of the " six Prebends of the King's Free Chapel of St. Mary Magdalene of Brug."33o At the Assizes of October, 1272, the Jurors made a statement as 326 Eymer's Foedera, i, 261. 327 Ibidem. ™ Rot. Fat. 31 Hen. 3. 329 Hoi. Fat. 38 Hen. III. The Cruce signati, or those who had vowed the Cru- sade, were permitted to compound the obligation by money payments, which I occasion, were collected under Papal authority and allotted, to those who, proposed to fulfil their vows personally. 33" Mot. Sund., ii, 59. I hare classified the particulars under the accounts of the several Prebends, as also what was stated by the Stottesden Jurors on the same 326 BRIDGNORTH. to the King's Free Chapel in the Castle of Brug. The number of Prebends belonging thereto they said was five, but they went on to enumerate siXj the first being " the Prebend of Claverley/' which was in fact the Dean's Prebend. ^^^ In 1281, the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (Roger de Molend) having apparently asserted a right of jurisdiction over the Collegiate Churches of Stafford, Wolverhampton, St. Mary's Salop, and Tetenhall, was obliged to relinquish such claim in the case of St. Mary's. The particulars of the treaty between the Bishop and that Col- legiate Church may be seen elsewhere.^^^ The independence of the Church was fully recognized, but the Bishop was, if he pleased, to hold ordinations therein. A similar or even more independent position was doubtless secured to the Chui'ch of St, Mary Magda- lene, for I do not find that the Bishops of Lichfield ever held ordinations there. The taxation of 1291 values the Spiritualities of the Church of Bruges, and its members, at £54. 13s. 4d. This is given under the Deanery of Lappeley and Tresel in Coventry Diocese. ^^^ It pro- bably contemplated the emoluments of the Dean chiefiy. At the Assizes of 1292, the Prebends were duly returned, as six in number, that of the Dean being called the Prebend of Lud- deston.^'* At the same Assizes the Dean and Chapter stood summoned, to show by what warrant they claimed a right of holding pleas of the Crown, and having wayf in the Manor of Bruges. Not appearing, the Sheriff had orders to distrain them through all their lands &c., and to have their persons before the Justiciars who were to be in eyre, at Lichfield in the Octaves of HiUary (Jan. 20, 1293).336 The Record preserves the results of many causes similarly adjourned to Lichfield, but the Crown prosecution of its own Free Chapel seems to have been abandoned. No notice of further pro- ceedings appear on the Roll. ^' Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 49 dorso. ^ History of Shrewslwy, vol. ii, p. 307. ^ Fope Nic. Taxation, 243. TJnder the head of Temporalities in the Archdeaeonry of Stafford, this Becordgiyes also the Manor of Poshale, of £20. annual value, as appro- priated to the Portioners of Bruges. A suhaequent note of cancellation affects the importance of this entry which is to me wholly unintelligible {Taxation, p. 253). Tanner quotes " The College " revenue as 82 merts, equal to £54. 13s. Ad., as in the text. {Noiit. Monastica.) ^* Flacita Corona, 20 Ed., I, memb. 37 dorso. ^ Flacita de uo Warranto, pp. 686, 678. BRIDGNORTH. 327 The visit of Master Rigaud de Asserio to England, in ]317, affected the rights of several Royal Free Chapels, viz. St. Martin's le Grand (London), St. Peter's (Wolverhampton), and the Chapels of Stafford, Bruges, and St. Mary's (Salop). Being Canon of Orleans, Auditor of the Palace, and Clerk of the Papal Chamber, he was deputed by Pope John XXII to enforce the neglected collection of the Peter Pence in England. ^^* In so doing, he was to ignore all customs, privileges, and indulgencies whatever, the Pope decreeing the same to be of no avail. The King (Edward II) interfered in defence of his Free Chapels above mentioned, and by Writ Close addressed to the Nuncio him- self, and dated at Shene, 17 Feb. 1318, forbade him to enforce his exactions against those establishments.^^' The " Inquisitions of the Ninths," taken in 1341, and with which we will conclude this subject, give incidentally one or two hints as to the ecclesiastical divisions which then existed within the Peculiar of Bridgnorth. The Dean and Canons are specially stated to be exempt from the tax then assessed ; and this exemption so far diminished the rate- able value of each Parish or District wherein the Chapter had lands. The effect of this immunity on the assessments of Morville, Quitford, and Eardington, has been already shown or presumed.^^^ Towns, instead of being rated to the value of the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, were more appropriately taxed at the ninth of the goods of their Burgesses. Thus while Shrewsbury was assessed at £56. 2s. lOd., the town of Brugge stood at £16. 10s. Id., a special valuation pro re nata, and not based on the inapplicable taxation of Pope Nicholas. The reasons why it was not rated higher were, — "because the townships of Romsley, Quat, Dudmaston, and Quat- ford, stood taxed under other valuation" (viz. that of the Parish Churches where they were), — " and because the King had taken out in wool, both in England and abroad, the contributions of several Burgesses."^^' The King's demesne Manor of Claverley was also taxed on this '^ He eventually pame to be Bishop of Winchester (Consecrated 16 Nov. 1320. Died 12th April, 1323). ^ Hist. Shrewshv/ry,-7o\. ii, p. 309, where the King's writ is also given more at length. A Close Writ of 2 Ed. Ill (1328), is quoted by Tanner as to the exemption of this Chapel "from jurisdiction of the Ordinary," besides many documents of later date. (Vide Notitia Monastica, Shropshire.) 338 Supra, pp. 39, 116, 123. 33' Inquis. Nonarum, p. 191. 43 328 BRIDGNORTH. occasion, and to the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, being an agricultural district.^*" Its Church had not been separately valued to Pope Nicholas' Taxation, but some other previous estimate seems to have been used as a guide by the Commissioners. They assessed it at £12., and gave reasons why they had rated it so low. They said that " a sixth part of the Borough of Bruggenorth belonged by ancient extent to the Church of Claverley." (By this they must have meant some income which the Dean derived from Quatford, or other property within the Borough Liberties, and which, though it in- creased the value of the said Dean's Church of Claverley, could not be taken to represent aay means of the now taxed Parishioners.) They also said, that "the greater" (but unmentioned) "Church Taxation included items which had nothing to do with the ninth now levied, viz. Jurisdiction" (the Peculiar jurisdiction of the Dean I suppose), "glebe-land, offerings, tithe of hay, and other small tithes." They also said, that " a third of the present assessment, viz. 6 merks (£4.) lay on a part of the parish which was in the County of Stafford." This, if I understand the clause rightly, alluded partly to Bobbington, but surely included lands which must since have been annexed to Shropshire.^*-' The circumstance seems to have been of no import as regarded the tax, but the Commissioners, being appointed to the County of Salop only, probably thought it proper to particularize any deviation from the letter of their in- structions. DEANS OF SAINT MARY MAG-DAXENE. A list of these Dignitaries will necessarily involve the succession of the Rectors of Claverley, which Church was a constant and pro- minent feature among the various endowments of the Deanery of Bridgnorth. Alexander, Dean op Brug, attests a Charter of Richard (Peche) Bishop of Coventry to Trentham Priory, which must have passed between 1161 and 1171.^*^ He is probably the same with "Alex- ander de Bridgnorth," mentioned under date of 1182.^*^ *"■ Inqwis. Nonarnm, p. 194. '*' A part of Bobbington still remains in Staffordshire, but far less than any presutaable third of the Parishes of Clav- erley and Bobbington united. 3<2 Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 35. 3'" Monasticon, viii, 1463, quoting Hutton's and WilHs' Lists. Of course the name " Bridgnorth " is an anticipa- tory translation of Brug. It can have stood on no original document. BRIDGNORTH. 329 Simon, Dean op Brug, circa 1196, and his. composition with Wenlock Priory about the Advowson of Ditton Priors, have already been mentioned.^** Hugo de Tannac, or Tauney, a Poitevin, was appointed to this Deanery 13 April, 1314.^*^ King John, being then at La Reole (in Gascony), writes to the Bishop of Winchester, his Chief Justice and Viceroy, to say that he has granted 100 merks, in Church Revenues, to his beloved Clerk Hugh de Tarmac, brother of his faithful and beloved Geoffrey de Tannac. The Deanery of Brug is to be part of the grant, and the balance is to be made up, out of rents heretofore enjoyed by the Dean of York and Archdeacon of Winchester. The King avows his object in this grant. It is that the friends of the Presentee, "who are very necessary to the King in the parts of Poitou may be placed under obligation." A more formal presentation to the Deanery, dated at Partenay (in Poitou) on May 38 following, is addressed to the Viceroy, and calls the new Dean Hugh de Taunay.'^s At the Salop Assizes, November, 1231, the Jurors of Claverley are represented by the minute-clerk as returning Hugh de " Pettem" for the Incumbent of Claverley Church. It was worth 30 merks per annum, and the said Hugh held it, they said, by gift of King John.^*'' The Incumbent in question was doubtless the Dean pre- sented by that monarch as above stated, but the Jurors describing him by his country, either mutilated the proper words, or were mis- understood by their Registrar. " Hugh le Peitevin" was the name they intended to return. Peter de Rivallis was appointed to the Deanery of the Chapel of Brug, by Letters Patent of Henry III, dated at Westminster, 8 May, 1333. The Chapter is addressed as to the presentation, and the Constable of Brug as to giving possession. ^*^ On 18 August, 1333, the King's Letters Close direct Brian de Lisle to allow Peter de Rivallis 18 beams (fusta) out of Kinver Forest, which the King has given him to repair his house at Claverley.^^ These two entries identify the Rectors of Claverley with the Deans of Brug most satisfactorily. The then holder of this joint preferment came to enjoy a,n uncommon degree of Court favour. 3« Supra, p. 322. 3<5 Rot. Pat, 15 John, memb. 2. ^^ Ibidem, 16 John, memb. 17. ^^ Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 9 dorso. *« Rot. Fat. 7 Hen. III. 3« Claus. i, 561. 330 BKiDGNORTH. On July 11, 1232, he had a grant of the custody (Shrievalty) of the Counties of Salop and Stafford for life, and also of the Counties of York, Berks. Gloces. Somerset, Dorset, Devon, Lancaster, Northumb. Essex, Herts. Lincoln, Norf. Suff. and Kent.s^o This extraordinary Patent did not operate for two years, even as regarded the two Counties granted for life, for on May 15, 1234, Eobert de Haia, hitherto the Deputy of Peter de Rivallis, was appointed Sheriff absolute.^'^ This will he explained by what Matthew Paris tells us of this favourite of the Crown, and his fortunes.^^^ And here I must not hesitate to give some lengthy extracts from that Chronicler. The career of this Dean of St. Mary Magdalene, is connected with great events and interests. His name is the chief feature of our list, and, not having held any other distinguished Church Preferment, it is not probable that his biography has been attempted elsewhere. — Peter de Rivallis (or OrivaUis) was a Poitevin by descent, osten- sibly the Nephew, perhaps really the Son, of Peter de Kupibus, Bishop of "Winchester, the all-powerful Minister, first of King John, and afterwards of Henry III. It was in 1232 that the Bishop's influence (growing greater by the fall of Hubert de Burgh) secured for his relative the appointment of "Treasurer of the Chamber" in the King's household. This ofiBce gave him the custody of all the Crown Escheats and Wardships,^^' and his success in replenishing the Royal Coffers was most unequivocal. In the year 1233 Matthew Paris relates that the Bishop and Peter de Rivallis, with their Deputies (Stephen de Segrave and Robert Passelewe) possessed the sole confidence of the King, and whilst the Bishop disposed all the affairs of the kingdom to his own liking, the custody of the Royal Castles was bestowed on Peter de Rivallis. — This must be an allusion to the various Shrievalties which had been conferred on him in the previous year. It was probably the ascendancy of Peter de Rivallis in Shrop- shire, which, iu January, 1234, drew upon that County the animosity of Richard Marshall, Earl of Pembroke. That nobleman, disgusted with the favour shown by Henry to "the Poitovins," as his Ministers were called, and by the treatment which he himself had experienced from the King, was then in open rebellion. Leaguing with Llewelin he laid waste the County to the very gates of Shrews- ™ Pat. 16 Hen. III. =»i Pal 18 Hen. III. ™ Matth. Paris, passim, sub annis. ^' Tide Hot. Fin. passim, sub aurds 1232, 1233. BRIDGNORTH. 331 bury^ andj if we may credit Matthew Paris, burnt part of the town itself.35* The same Chronicler tells us of a forged letter, by which the Bishop of Winchester and " his son, or relation, Peter de Rivallis," soon afterwards contrived to revenge themselves on the Earl Mar- shall. This letter, addressed to the Magnates of Ireland, and purporting to be sanctioned by the King, announced the forfeiture and proscription of the Earl in England, ordered his instant arrest, if he appeared in Ireland, and promised partition of his estates there, to those who would assist in his capture. Eleven members of the Poitovin government constituted themselves sureties for the King's fulfilment of this promise. The Magnates of Ireland, not satisfied with the form of these instructions, sent messengers requiring the King's sealed-Charter on the subject. To meet their demands the Poitovins are actually said to have forged the required document, and to have afi&xed the the Great Seal without knowledge or consent of the King or his Chancellor, The plot succeeded. The Earl, hearing of the con- sequent invasion of his Irish possessions, crossed the Channel in February, 1334. Entrapped into a skirmish on the 1st of April, he maintained against fearful odds the dignity of his name and office, but fell, dangerously wounded, into the hands of his enemies. His captivity and sufferings, when at length his recovery seemed possible, were aggravated by every species of malice. — The forged Charter, ordering his seizure and forfeiture, was paraded before his eyes. — His lands and Castles were peremptorily required of him. — He was threatened with lawful execution as a rebel taken in battle. — A surgical operation, used indeed at the period, but barbarous beyond expression, was applied to his wound without ostensible necessity. The Chirurgeon employed, wantonly and wilfuUy, increased its severity. The Earl was attacked with acute fever and died on the 16th day of his captivity (April 16, 1234). Thus, by the machination of the Poitovins, fell one who was reputed to be the " Elower of Chivalry in his day."^^^ Meanwhile, that is on Feb. 2, King Henry, in a conference at Westminster, had heard the grave remonstrances of his Bishops. His animosity against the Earl Marshal, the favour shown to ^* Vide History of Shrewsbwy, vol. i, p. Ill, where it is probably enough suggested that only part of the suburbs, viz. Frank- well, was thus devastated. 355 "Mjlitise flos temporum modem- orum." M. f aris. 382 BRIDGNORTH. foreigners, and the increasing powers accordsd to Peter de Rivallis ("whose seal was as necessary as that of the King, when any weighty business was in hand") were the chief matters of com- plaint. A second conference, on April 9th, again confronted the King and his Prelates. The latter, now headed by Edmund, their recently consecrated Metropolitan, recapitulated the grievances which afflicted the whole kingdom : they even threatened the King with excommunication. In a few days the Bishop of Winchester had orders to quit the Court, and Peter de Rivallis to give up his Castles. The latter was also required to render account of all his treasury business, the King swearing (as the exulting Chronicler tells us), that, had it not been for his clerical office, he would have ordered his eyes to be put out.^^^ When Easter (April 23) was past, the King journeyed towards Gloucester. Resting a night at Woodstock,^*'' news reached him of the death of the Earl Marshal in Ireland. The Kiag's grief, genuine or not, was unbounded in expression. At Gloucester he became reconciled with Hubert de Burgh and others, who had pre- viously deserved or provoked the Royal displeasure. There, too, his anger against the Poitovins reached its height, on discovery of the forgery and fraud which had ended in the death of the Earl Marshal.^58 The Poitovins and their accomplices were Murderers, and were immediately served with summonses to appear before the King on June 24 following, and then give account both of their management of the Royal Treasure and their misuse of the Royal Seal. The Bishop and Peter de Rivallis at once took asylum in Winchester Cathedral, Stephen de Seagrave and Robert Passelewe elsewhere. ' An adjourned day was appointed for their trial, viz. July 14, at Westminster. Then and there they appeared, their safe conduct ^^ M. Paris, sub anno. It is CTideut that the political feeling of this Chronicler seriously compromises his accuracy. After this Coimcil (of April 9th) he tells us that the King despatched the Archbishop and several Suffragans into Wales to treat with Lewellyn and the Earl Marshall ; whUe he elsewhere shows us that the Earl had left Wales two months earlier, and was now dying in Ireland. The known date also (May 15) when Peter de KivaUis was deprived of the Shrievalty of Shrop- shire hardly taUies with such an explosion of Boy al anger so long before as April 9th . ^' The Eing was at Woodstock on May Qth {Mot. Fat). ^' This appears to have been on May 29, when also, at Gloucester, the Patent appointmg Robert de Haya, Sheriff of Shropshire, was repeated. The first Pa- tent (that of the 15th) bore date at Winchcumbe. BRIDGNORTH. 333 having meanwhile been guaranteed by the Archbishop and his Suffragans. Peter de Rivallis was first put upon his defence. " He appeared before the King in a Clerical garb with the tonsure and broad crown, but with an anelace ^^^ hanging from his belt. He reverently saluted the King, who was sitting on the Bench with his Justiciars. The King, regarding him with a fierce glance, exclaimed, ' O Traitor, by thy iniquitous device I unwittingly affixed my seal to letters which betrayed the Earl Marshal; also by thy base counsel did I banish him and other born Englishmen {homines naturales) from the kingdom, and alienated their hearts and affections from my person. It was the false prompting of thee and thy accomplices which induced me to levy war upon those men, to my own irre- parable loss and the disgrace of the kingdom ; by which war I grievously threw away my own treasure and honour, and the lives of illustrious subjects.' The King, moreover, required from him account of his treasure and the custodies of noble wards and escheats, with many other sources of revenue which belonged to the Crown." "The accused denied none of the charges which were made against him, but falling on the earth before the King implored mercy in these words : ' My Lord King,^ said he, ' I have been nurtured by you and made rich in temporal goods : ruin not the man of thy own creating ; but at least grant me time to deliberate, so that I may render due account as to the things which you demand.' The King decided that the required deliberation should take place in the Tower. Peter remonstrated, saying that he was a Clerk and might not be imprisoned or given into custody of laymen. The King answered that the accused had ever demeaned himself as a layman, and as a layman he was now required to give account of his " Stewardship ; " he should, however, be given into custody of the Archbishop if the latter would be responsible for the alleged exactions of the Minister. The Archbishop kept silence ; so Peter was committed to the Tower, the King confiscating all his lay possessions, ' because, under his clerical habit he wore a breast- plate and carried an anelace at his girdle, as became not a Clerk.' " Peter remained two days in the Tower, and was then restored by the Archbishop to his asylum in Winchester Cathedral. The trial of Stephen de Segrave resulted in his release, his main **' A large knife used indifferently at table, or as a dagger. 334 BRIDGNORTH. defence being the inculpation of Peter de Rivallis, as his Principal. The disgrace of neither lasted for more than two years, and their full restoration to Royal favour in June, 1236, makes the insincerity of Henry^s conduct, at the time of their trial, only too apparent. The King had most probably acted a concerted part to free himself from the stigma of the Earl MarshalFs death. The descendant of him, who, having instigated the murder of Becket, affected to abhor the deed, but only for a time repudiated its perpetrators, — the Grandson of Henry II seems to have inherited both the malice and the craft of his ancestor. In 1249 Peter de Rivallis appears as joint Gustos of the Great Seal during the temporary absence of the Chancellor from Court.^'''' At the Inquisition of 1255, the Jurors for the Borough of Brug returned his Prebend as involving the Church of Claverley, with its members of Bobiton, Burchton, and Quatford, and being of the annual value of 40 merks.^^^ The more detailed presentments of the Jurors of Claverley, on the same subject, shall be given when we come to that Manor. From November, 1256, to April, 1258, Peter de Rivallis appears in his old ofHce of Treasurer of the King's Wardrobe'; and the last which I have to say of him is in a Charter dated May 20, 1258, whereby the King grants him a piece of land in Winchester at a fee-farm rent of Id. per annum.^*^ The time of his death I cannot determine, but on 18 Feb. 1265, a Patent is on the Rolls, whereby — Stephen de London was presented to the Deanqry of Brug. A second Patent, dated March 2, 1265, and addressed to the Constable, appoints — William de Montfort to the same preferment.^^^ The latter had already (by grant of Feb. 7) a Prebend in the Church. His name, and the period of these grants, sufficiently point out his connexion with Simon de Montfort, the then disposer of the Royal patronage and Keeper of the Royal person. The advantages which accrued to the relatives of that ardent patriot will not have been permanent. I cannot suppose that William de Montfort held the Deanery, thus conferred, after the event of August 4, 1256 ; but I find not the appointment of his Successor, who was Dean in September, 1266. This was — Michael de Fynes. On the 20th of January, 1267, Laurence sa> :Rot. Vat. 33 Hen. III. 1 ^ea jj^^. _ji;„. 42 Hen. Ill, memt. 6. 361 Hot. Mmd. u, 59. | ^ Rot. Pat. 49 Hen. III. BRIDGNORTH. 385 de Brok, as Attorney for the Crown, and Michael de Fynes, Dean of the Free Chapel of Brug, were Plaintiffs against Walter de Coggesheye, Philip de Mutton, and Thomas de Lutteleg, whom they accused of coming to Michael's house at Bobinton and seizing com of 100s. value, which they found at Burton, and which was his property &c. The Defendants appeared not, and had made previous defaults. Walter being a Clerk, the Bishop of Chester was enjoined to cause his appearance on the quinzaine of Easter. The other Defendants had lands in Mutton and Lutley, whereby the Sheriff was to distrain them to appear at the same term.^^* This cause was associated with another which was in progress at the time, some details of which shall be given here, though they might more properly appear under Bobington. It would seem that Walter de Cokesaye, the above Defendant, having been presented to Bobington Church by John Fitz Philip, was ejected by Michael de Fynes, who claimed the Advowson as a member of his. Deanery. The corn, said to have been carried off, was probably the property of the rightful Incumbent, whoever that might be. Thus, while the Dean prosecuted Walter for trespass, Walter sued the Dean for ejectment. The latter suit came before the King himself at Shrewsbury, in August or September, 1267, and was adjourned for farther hearing to Saturday, September lOth.^^^ On that day Walter did not appear, and was pronounced to be in contempt?^^ He was further summoned to appear before the King at Westminster on October 13th, to answer for the said contempt, and to hear sentence in the suit. Still he came not, so his manucaptors, Hugh de Bolinghale, William le Eyr, Robert de Mere, William Provost of Bobington, and Henry de Prestwood, were declared to be in misericordid, and the Sheriff was ordered to have their bodies in Court on February 3, 1268.^^^ On the same 13th of October, William de Gundeville, as Attorney for the King, and Michael de Fines, by his Attorney, appeared against Philip de Mutton, Walter de Cokesaye &e., in the plea of ^^ PlacUa coram Mege. Westm. Hilary Terra, 51 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 recto. ^^ FlacUa coram Mege. Salop 51 Hen. Ill, memb. 4 recto. 366 Tliougb Walter made no appearance on the loth of Sept. it would seem that John Ktz Philip, son of that John Mtz PhiKp who had presented him to Bobing- ton, did. Thus arose a third suit between the Crown and the Lord of Bobington, the whole pleadings in which shall be given under Bobington. ^''' Flacita apnA Westm. Michaelmas Term, 51 Hen. Ill, memb. 6 recto. A summary is given in the Abbreviatio Placitorura, p. 161, but not such as to dis- tinguish the successive moves in the suit. 43 336 BRIDGNORTH. trespass/^^ which thus appears to have been farther adjourned from Easter Term previous. It would now seem that the non-appearance of Walter was attributable to the Bishop, whom thereupon the Sheriff was ordered to attach personally and have in Court on Feb. 3, 1268. On February 3j however^ Walter himself appeared in Court. The trespass with which he was charged was stated to have been com- mitted on Friday^ Sept. 3, 1266. He now denies the violence and injury &c. (in the usual form)^ and appeals to a Jury of the Country. The Sheriff is accordingly instructed to summon such Jury to appear before the King, in five weeks of Easter (circa May 13, 1368) .""^ The same day was given to William de Gundeville (the King's Attorney) and John Fitz Philip, in their cross-suit.^™ On that day (May 13) a further adjournment took place, viz. to .the quinzaine of the Holy Trinity^ i. e. June 17, 1268.'^^ I find no record of what took place then ; but a memorandum or Postscript added to the Roll of Michaelmas Term^ ] 267 (above cited) states what I take to have been the ultimate result of both suits. On July 1, 1268, Michael de Fynes (as Prosecutor for the Crown) and John Fitz Philip came into Court, and John^ by license of the said Court, rendered up seizin of the Advowson of Bobington, saving to himself his right, whenever he should again choose to stir in the cause. The Sheriff was hereupon ordered to give the King full seizin of the aforesaid Advowson. At the Salop Assizes, October 1272^ a new Dean of Brug had been appointed and was then in possession. — Master Bonetas de Saint Quintin was returned by the Jurors of the Borough as holding the Prebend of Claverley, which was of 60 merks annual value.^''^ Pope Nicholas Taxation (1291) does not give the name of the then Dean of Brug, nor does it mention specifically his Church of Claverley or its value^ but^ under the Deanery of Lapley and Tresel, it values the Spiritualities of the Church of Brug at J54. 13*. M.^i^ This, as I have before said, probably referred to the endowment of the chief Prebend or ™ Ibidem, memb. 8 dorso. The EoUs of Easter Term 1267, wliich should con- tain the intermediate step in this cause, are lost. '"^ Flacila coram Rege. Hilary Term, 52 Hon. Ill, memb. 13 reeto. ^'° Ibidem, memb. 12 dorso. ^''' Placita coram Rege. Easter Term, 52 Hen. Ill, memb. 17. ^'- Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 49 dorso. ^^ Pop. Nic. Tax. p. 243. BRIDGNORTH. 337 Deanery. The same Taxation records a portion in the Church of Stottesden which belonged to the Dean of Brug, and was of 6s. 8d. annual value.^'''' This reminds us of that third of the tithes of Stottesden which were granted to the Collegiate Church of Quatford in Earl Roger's foundation-charter.^''^ The non-mention of the Dean's name in Pope Nicholas' Taxa- tion was probably owing to the death of Bonetas de Saint Quintin, at the period of that valuation .^'^^ Certainly his successor^ — Walter de Langton had been presented early in 1291, if not in December 1290.^" At the Salop Assizes of October, 1292, the Jurors of Brug pre- sented Walter de Langton as holding one of the six Prebends of St. Mary Magdalene, viz. " that called Luddesdon." This was the Deanery, Luddesdon, a member of Claverley, being part of the endowment thereof. These Jurors valued the Prebend at 100 merks (£66. 13s. M.) per annum,^'''^ Walter de Langton being a Canon of Lichfield, was elected Bishop of that See 20 Feb. 1296, and consecrated 22 Dec. in the same year. He obtained a license to hold his Deanery in com- mendam, provided he could get a five years' dispensation from the Pope.^''' The latter seems to have been denied him, for on 8 April, 26 Edw. I (1298), the Sheriff of Shropshire had the King's man- date to induct — Amand de Sabaudia (Savoy) to this Deanery. William de Sabaudia was appointed 20 June, 1300 (28 Edw. I), and on his resignation,— Peter de Sabaudia had the appointment, dated 28 May, 1301 (29 Edw. I). In 1 Edw. II (1307-8), the Prebend of Walton was granted to the then Dean, and in 2 Edw. II (1308-9) ,38o_ Engelard de Worlb was appointed to the Deanery. ^* Ibidem, p. 166. 3?5 Supra, p. 109. ^^ He is the first Dean of Brug men- tioned on Willis' List, (Mitred Abbies, vol. ii, p. 190), and is said moreover to have died " about 1293 ;" but that date is not early enough. 377 Sot. Fat. 19 Ed. I, memb. 25. Willis dates his presentation 20 Dec. 1293, where probably the error has arisen from a false calculation between the dominical and regnal years of the perifld. 37S Flacita Coronce 20 Edw. I, memb. 37 dorso. 379 "WUlis, ut mpra. His het is also my authority for the following appointments, except that the dominical year assigned by Willis is inconsistent in each case with the regnal year, which latter I presume him to quote correctly from the Rolls. 33" Pat. 2Ed. II,p.i,m. 20. 338 BRIDGNORTH. Thomas de Eyton seems to liave been presented to this Deanery 19 Feb.^ 11 Ed. II (1318).^^^ It was upon bis presumed death in 1327, and the consequent presentation of — Henry de Harley in the same year^ that a contest arose about this preferment. ^^^ The result was the revocation of Harley's ap- pointment and the reinstatement of — Thomas de Eyton. On Sept. 19, 1334 (8 Ed. Ill)— Thomas Talbot, Clerk, was presented to the Deanery.^^^ The remaining Deans, whose names I take from a collation of second authorities,^^* were, — Thomas Keynes, 1353. William de Wenlok, 35 Ed. Ill (1361-3) . Thomas de Brantyngham, 12 July, 43 Ed. Ill (1369). , Henry de Wakefield, 25 April, 44 Ed. Ill (1370) : but his appointment was revoked, and — Eoger de Offley^^^ appointed, 30 May, 1370. Thomas Sparkford, 15 Sept. 16 Ric. II (1392) . John Door occurs 10 Sept. 1395. Nicholas Slake, 6 Aug. 2 Hen. IV (1401). COLUMBINUS, SON OF GeORGE DE DuNBAR, EaRL OF MaRCH, 26 Feb. 4 Hen. IV (1403). John Marshall, 9 May, 11 Hen. IV (1410). Henry Levek,^^^ 1 Edw. IV (1461-3). Richard Martin, 16 Oct. 16 Edw. IV (1476). In 1535, under the Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and the Archdeaconry of Stafford, the following return appears. ^"^^ — Thomas Magnus, Dean of the Collegiate Church of St. Mary Magdalene, holds the Prebend of Ludston, which is worth in glebe land, clear of deductions, £4<. per annum. He also holds the Rectory of Claverley, which is worth in tithes, offerings &c. £36. per annum. His Deanery was therefore valued at j640. per annum. ^' Motiasticom'-vol. viii, p. 1463, quoting Dr. Hutton's Collections in Bibl. Harl. ^^ The particulars are giren by Mr. Dutes' (Antiquities, page 49). In several lists Thomas deEyton is written as Thomas Knokyn, by mistake of Some transcriber. 283 Fat. 8 Edw. Ill, p. 2, m, 25. He had formerly held the Prebend of Alyeley (vide supra, p. 122). A previous Patent (7 Ed. Ill, p. 2, m. 14) relates to Talbot's appointment to the Deanery, if an " Index of Presentations," at the Tower, be correct. ^^ Monasticon, vol. viii, p. 1463. Dukes' Appendix, p. xxxvi ; Wilhs (ut supra) ; Tauner's Notitia (Introduction, xlv) ; and Blakeway's MSS. 385 Written " Otery." (Monast.) 386 " Henry Sever, 1460," (Tanner). 3*'? Valor ^cclesiasticus, vol. iii, 'p, 199. BRIDGNORTH. 339 I have already noticed a Chantry founded in the Church of Saint Mary Magdalene in time of King Edward I.'^^ I must refer elsewhere for particulars of the Revenues of this once great Collegiate establishment, after its dissolution in 1 Ed. VI (1547) :^^^ so also for a statement as to some life-pensions stiU payable, to certain survivors of the Chapter, in 1553.^^" More consistently with the scope of the present work, I subjoin the names of one or two Prebendaries, whose stalls I have been unable to identify with any show of probability. They were, — John Mansel, who, at his death in 1264, was seized of a Pre- bend here (perhaps Morville and Underdon) . It is fitting to say who he was. Through a period of twenty-five years he was employed in various oflices of honour and trust by King Henry III. He was his Envoy to the Emperor of Germany in 1238 : in 1242, he accompanied the King abroad, and was made prisoner by the French at the battle of Xantoigne : he was Chancellor of England from Nov. 1246 to Oct. 1249 : and Ambassador to the King of Castile in 1254. In July, 1262, he accompanied the King abroad, as Keeper of the Great Seal, and returned with him to England iu December following. When, in 1263, the Queen left England, John Mansel, fearing the animosity and increasing power of the Barons^ party. 388 Supra, p. 114. ^^ DvxkeB' Antiquities (ttt smpra), where the receipts of the whole CoUegiate esta- blishment are stated at £131. 19s. Sid. A MS. in my possession (professing to be an extract from papers of the "Reverend Mr. Richard Cornes, Minister of the parish of St. Mary Magdalene, Bridg- north ") gives a certificate of 20th Nov. (2 Edw. YI) 1548, relative to the value of this Church. The original, which seems to have been in the Court of Augmenta- tions and is possibly stiU preserved, is not rendered in any coherent or intelli- gible way. It may, however, suffice for the following facts : — The gross annual value of the . Church was . . £131 6 2i Thomas Magnus, Dean, had other preferment, and here . 51 18 2 John Synger, Prebendary, had other preferment, and here . 6 8 4 John Fisher, Prebendary, had other preferment, and here . 6 John Leveson, Prebendary, had other preferment, and here . £10 Hugh Coroner, Prebendary, had other preferment, and here . 20 Hamelet Eiug, Prebendary, had other preferment, and here . 6 6 Stipends paid to diverse Curates 22 John Preen, Stipendiary . 4 10 1 £127 .2.7. We have thus a probable statement as to the latest Incumbents of the Deanery and five Prebends of St. Mary Magdalene. This document (the result of at least a second transcription) is so manifestly incorrect that I will not quote it further. 350 Willis (Mi SMprtu), where "a pension of£10.isBtatedtobestLll payable to Hugh Curren, or Curwen, Prebendary ; another of £6. 13s. 4d. to John Leason, Incum- bent, and another of £4. 10s. to John Penne, Incumbent." Each of these names is traceable iu Mr. Comes' List of 1548. 340 BRIDGNORTH. followed her^ and shared her foreign exertions in behalf of the Royal interests^ till his own death in 1264. His chief ecclesiastical pre- ferments were the Chancellorship of St. Paulas, to which he was appointed in 1243, the Deanery of Wimboura (a Royal Collegiate Church in Dorsetshire), the Prepositure of Beverley (Yorkshire), and the Treasurership of York. He was reputed to be the " richest Clerk in the world." He founded the two Priories of Bilsington and Rumney, in Kent. His death happening during the King's captivity, the Earl of Leicester presented Almaric de Montfort to the Treasurership of York.^'^ A similar use of the Great Seal on 7 Feb. 1265, appointed — William de Montfort to the Prebend which John Mansel had held in the Church of Brug.^'^ We have already shown the Deanery to have been conferred on this new Prebendary on the 2d of March following, and that his tenure of either will, under the circumstances of the appointments, have expired in a few months.393 In 1295,— William, son of William de Bruges, was presented to a Pre- bend in this Church ; ^^^ and in 1334— Robert de Tanton had a similar appointment.^'^ CHANTEY OP ST. MART MAGDALENE. The Chantry founded in this Church by Richard Dammas, about 1294, has twice been spoken of.^'^ It remained till the Dissolu- tion, and in 1553, John Sanger, late the Incumbent thereof, was receiving a pension of £6. from the Crown.^s'' OHUECH OP SX. LBONARD.358 As late as the time of Henry VIII, when John Leland visited Bridgnorth, St. Leonard's remained the only Parish Church in the 391 This appointment was expressly re- voked by the King three days after the battle of Evesham, as one which he had made (among many) under coercion of his gaolers {Mot. Fat. 49 Hen. Ill, dated 7 Aug.) 3!i2 Eot. Fat. 49 Hen. III. 393 Supra, p. 334. ™ Fat. 23 Edw. I, memb. 15. 395 Pat. 8 Edw. Ill, p. 2, memb. 25. 396 Supra, pp. 114, 339. 3W Wilhs' Abbies, vol. ii, p. 193. 398 There may be a doubt as to the Patron Saint of this Church. St. Leonard, Abbot of Noblac, whose anniversary was Nov. 6, is usually understood to be the Patron Saiat of EngUsh Churches thus named. But a fair of four days, the first of which was to be " the feast of the Translation of St. Leonard," was granted to this town by Edward III, and seems to be but a Slight alteration from the fair BRIDGNORTH. 341 Town.^^' It is hardly supposable that the Borough, even in its infancy, was without such an establishment. Though the site of Brug was comprehended in the great Saxon Parish of Morville, and though the Mother Church of Morville was, in the days of King Henry I, no mean structure, its proximity can hardly have been sufiBcient for the spiritual wants of a rising Borough. It is, moreover, probable in one case, and certain in the other, that Tasley and Oldbury, subject Chapels of Morville, and nearer to Brug than the Mother Church, were yet unfounded in the begin- ning of the reign of Henry I. To that early period, as coeval with the foundation of the Borough, we may therefore reasonably assign the foundation of St. Leonard's; but, as yet, no architectural or documentary evidence occurs to strengthen this assumption. The earliest written notice to which I can refer on this subject, is an undated deed, which, though it implies the pre-existence of the Church of St. Leonard's, cannot itself be positively ascribed to an older period than the middle of the thirteenth century. — "Roger, Son of Richard Irish (Hybernensis) sells to Walter Palmer, for 6s., a rent of 6d., issuing from certain field-land without the Cemetery of St. Leonard, which land William Sholton held of the Vendor at said rent. — Witnesses : Elias Fitz William and William Aurifaber, Praetors of Brug, Hamo Palmer, Walter Aurifaber, John, Son of William de Cantreyn, Hugh de Eudon, John his Brother, and many others."*"" At the Inquisitions of 1255, the Borough Jurors returned the Church of St. Leonard as being in the King's gift.*"! The Taxation of 1391 does not mention this Church. An inci- dental notice of the year 1292 has already occurred.*"^ This granted by Henry III, on the vigil, the day, and the morrow of St. Luke. This fair, or its modem counterpart, is now held on Oct. 29th, but stiU called " Luke's fair," though St. Luke's day is on Oct. 18th. Now St. Luke's day brings us much nearer to Oct. 15th, the day of St. Leonard of VandoeuTre, with whom also, alone of the two Saints in question, has any legend of the translation of reHcs been connected. I hardly need say that the Patron Saint of a Parish Church is often identical with the Saint on whose anniversary the principal fair of the said Parish is, or was, held. 399 "There is but one Paroch Church in the Towne, a very fayre one and dedicated to St. Leonard." {Itinerary, vol. iv, part ii, fo. 182 a.) 4™ Charter at Apley. Another deed attested by these Praetors is also witnessed by Reginald le Gaugy, who was murdered in 1250-1. We thus obtain the limit, as to date, assigned above. «! Eot. Sund. ii, 59. ■"•2 Supra, page 114. 342 BRIDGNORTH. obscurity of a large Parish Church, during two hundred years, may probably be attributed to the poverty of its endowment, a defect which was remedied in the fourteenth century, by the foundation of one or more Chantries here. The Founders of these Chantries were Burgesses of the Town, and the Revenues granted for their support were derived from Borough property. I must be contented to give references, in a note,*"' to the prin- cipal documents which affected these foundations. It will be sufficient to state here, that, in 1535, the general Valuation of Eccle- siastical Property recognised only two Chantries in St. Leonard's Church, and took no notice whatever of any endowment as attach- ing to the Church itself. — These Chantries are described as those of " St. Thomas and of St. Mary the Virgin."— " William Swanwyke, Chaplain of the former, had lands and tene- ments granted in mortmain to his Chantry, lying within the Town of Bridgnorth and its Liberties (in the Archdeaconry of Stafford, and the Diocese of Coventry and Lichfield), of the annual value of £3. 6«. ^d." " Richard Preste, Chaplain of the Chantry of St. Mary the Virgin, *' Inquis. ad quod i>(Mmm«OT,18Edw.II, No. 131.— Reginald de la Legh, — Ms pro- posed Chantry. Pat. 18 Edw. 11, p. 2, memb. 14.— Li- cense to Reginald de la Legh to found a Chantry in St. Leonard's Church and en- dow it with 1 messuage, 4 acres of land, and 50j. rent in Bruges. Fat. 5 Edw. Ill, p. 3, memb. 8. — Eor the Chantry of St. Leonard of Bridg- north. Pat. 11 Edw. III. p. 2. memb. 4.— License to WilKam de la Hulle, confirm- ing a previous license for endowment of three Chaplains here. (The particulars are more fully given in Mr. Dukes' Ap- pendix, p. xxxvii.) Pat. 24 Edw. Ill, p. 2, memb. 22.— For a Chantry here. Pat. 26 Edw. Ill, p. 2. memb. 19.— License to Peter de Bruges to grant lands of 40*. annual value to a Chaplain, to pray for his soul in the Chapel of St. Leonard and the Hospital of St. James in Bruges. (See Dukes' Appendix, p. xl.) Inquis. ad quod Dammim^ 43 Edw. Ill, No. ^7. — Jurors say that "in diminution of divine worship two parochial Chaplains are withdrawn, viz. one in the Chapel of St. Mary Magdalene and another in the Church of St. Leonard." Inquis. ad quod Damnum, 44 Edw. Ill, No. 23. — William Selmon and others gave to three Chaplains 6 messuages and 18 acres of land in Bruggenorth to celebrate divine service daily in the Church of St. Leonard, for the souls of the Burgesses of the said Town &c. Pat. 45 Edw. III. Recites the last and previous grants (Dukes' Appendix, p. xxxvii). Pat. 12 Ric. II, p. 1, memb. 16.— Grant of 16 messuages, 5 acres of land, and 4.0s. rent to a Chantry in St. Leo- nard's. Mr. Dukes, in his Antiquities (page 50) and Appendix (pp. xxxvii and xxxviii), quotes other and later documents affect- ing these Chantries. BRIDGNORTH. 343 had lands and tenements similarly described, and of the annual value of £2. 14«.«'^ These Chantries were subsequently dissolved, and in 1553, William Swanewick, and Richard KnoUes, Incumbents of a Chan- try, or Chantries, in St. Leonard's, were in receipt of pensions of .€5. each.^os HOSPITAL OP THE HOLY TRINITY. This House, dedicated also to the Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist, is reputed, on good evidence, to have been founded by Ralph le Strange, Lord of Alveley, in the time of Richard I. Records, unconnected with this foundation, and which will be cited elsewhere, inform us of the illness and early death of Ralph le Strange, in 1195, while actively engaged in the King's service in Wales. Such circumstances, and the period at which they occurred (soon after the Crusade of Richard I), fitly associate themselves with the origin of this establishment, as declared by tradition. Referring to other authorities for the constitution and objects of these houses in general,*"^ and for many particulars of this, I will merely state those circumstances which further illustrate its history, and have not hitherto been brought together. The Hospital, usually called St. John's, stood in the Low Town of Bridgnorth, within the angle formed by Mill Street and St. John's Street, east of the former and north of the latter, to which it, of course, communicated its name. Thus placed, the house commanded every highway by which travellers could approach the Town from places lying Eastward of the Severn. In other words, the various roads, which, traversing or skirting the great Forest of Morf, from Pendleston Mill, from •""^ Valor Eocledasticus, iii, 199. ^s Willis' Aibies, ii, 193. ■"" Tanner describes these Hospitals as "houses for the rehef of poor and im- potent people, incorporated by Koyal Patents, and made capable of gifts and grants in succession." "Besides the poor and impotent," says he, "there generally were in these Hos- pitals two or three Religious : one to be Master or Prior, and one or two to be Chaplains and Confessors ; and these ob- served the rule of St. Austin, and probably subjected the poor and impotent to some rehgious restraints, as well as to the local statutes. Hospitals were originally de- signed for rehef and entertainment of travellers upon the road and particularly of pilgrims, and therefore were generally bmlt upon the road's side ; but of later years they have always been founded for fixed inhabitants." (Preface to Notit. Monastica, p. xviii, Nasmith's edition.) 44, 344 BKIDGNORTH. Worfield, from Claverley^ or from Quatford, converged towards the Eastern end of the Bridge, will have first passed within sight of St. John's. This situation was doubtless relevant to the primary object of such a foundation, viz. the relief of travellers. The road by which St. John's was approached from Quatford, on the South, was further called Spital {i. e. Hospital) Street ; but it seems doubtful whether that name was derived from the Hospital under notice, or the Hospital of St. James, presently to be men- tioned. The earliest Royal recognition of the former bears date at Salop, 9 March, 1223, — when Henry III grants to the Brethren of the Hospital of St. John, of Brug, twelve cart loads of dry wood in Morf Forest. This precept is addressed to Hugh Fitz Robert (Forester of Shropshire) and tested by Hubert de Burgh.*"^ On Aug. 30, 1226, King Henry III, then at Bruges, commands the same Hugh Fitz Robert to allow the Master and Brethren of the Hospital of the Holy Trinity of Bruges to have three oak trees in Morf Forest for their fire, of the King^s gift.*"* At the Inquisition' of 1255, in answer to a question as to the alienation of Serjeantries, or of any part thereof, the Jurors of Bruges said, that the Prior of the Hospital of Brug held half a virgate of Ralph de Eudinas (Ewdness), whose tenure was by Ser- jeantry.*"' The Jurors of Nordley Regis and Alveley, on the same occasion, and in .answer to an inquiry as to tenants of lands within those demesne Manors, said that the Hospital of the Holy Trinity of Brug held therein three and a half virgates of land, by Testament of Ralph le Strange. The Jurors knew not by what service the Hos- pital held this land, but they stated that the Priors had withdrawn all suit, from the local Manor-Court, to Brug.^i" In 1274, the Jurors of the same two Manors reported the ancient alienation of 3^ virgates in Alveley, by "Ralph, son of Guy le Strange, who granted the said land in free and perpetual almoigne to the Hospital of St. John, of Brug." *ii In Oct. 1292, the Master of the Hospital of St. John was sued under writ of right, by the Crown, for this land, described as *«i Clans. 7 Hen. Ill, memb. 16. *»* amis. 10 Hen. Ill, memb. 6. ■™ Sot Sund. ii, 59. The Serjeantry and service of Ealph de Ewdness will belong more properly to the futm'e ac- count of that township, which was not in the Borough Liberties. «» Ibidem, p. 73. ■"i Ibidem, p. 102. BRIDGNORTH. 345 "3 virgates in Alvitheleye." *i^ The King's Attorney set forth the Royal Title, as by descent from Henry II. The Master appeared in defence of his right " and in place of the King's Great Assize, put himself on a Jury of the Country, which should make recogni- tion as to who had the better claim to the premises, he or the King." The Jurors found upon their oath, that " the Master had greater right to hold the land as he held it than the King to have it as he claimed it.'^ Therefore the Court gave sentence for the Master, " saving to the King his right" &c. It is thus observable that, during the first century after its founda- tion, this House was variously described as the Hospital of the Holy Trinity, or of St. John, and its chief officer indifferently called Master or Prior, facts which will correct several misstatements on the subject. I must refer to a note for further and fuller accounts of this establishment, or rather for such parts of other accounts as are free from error.*^^ ■"^ Placita de Quo Warranto, p. 674. *'^ See Dutes' Antiquities of Shropshire, pp. 50, 51, where a Seal of one of the Masters of this Hospital is engraved, and some, not irreleTant, documents quoted; but a second Seal and two of the docu- ments, there given, have nothing to do with this house, but relate to the Society of Friars Minors, presently to be noticed, and whose house stood West of the Severn. See also the Appendix to the same work (p. xixviii) for many extracts re- lating to this Hospital as well as a list of its Masters. To the latter I can only add the name of one Prior of the thirteenth Century, viz. Symon, who has already (p. 113) occurred, as witness to a deed, about 1280. See also Neui Monasticon, vol. vii, pp. 663, 664, where however the document (Num. ii) refers to the Hospital of St. James, and where all the documents quoted from Tanner (in note q) as con- cerning St. John's Hospital, belong to the Collegiate Church of Saint Mary Magda- lene. It is further noticeable that the document. Num. i (wherein a Jury of Edward IV's time found John Talbot the then deceased Earl of Shrewsburv to have been lineal descendant and heir of Ralph le Strange, the Eounder of this Hospital) however genuine itself, involves a gross error, and that the Pedigree by which those Jurors supported their finding was a false one. A list of Records which are really given by Tanner, and by other authorities, in reference to this house may be useful. They are — Inquis. ad qiiod Damnum, 10 Edw. II, Wo. 157. "Henr. Can pro Priore de Brugge." "Brugge. De terris et tene- mentis ibidem." (Calendar, page 253.) Fat. 10 Edw. II, p. 2, m. 16. Pro terris in Quatford et Worfield. (Tanner). Inquis. ad quod Damnum, 17 Edw. II, No. 91. "Job. Hubaud pro Hosp. Sanctae Trinitatis. Brugges et More. Messuag. et terra." (Calendar, p. 273.) Fat. 17 Edw. II, p. 2, m. 24. (Dukes' Antiquities, p. 50.) Fat. 3 Edw. Ill, p.2,m.ll. (Tanner.) Inquis. ad quod Damnum, 8 Edw. Ill, (Dukes' Appendix, p. xxxviii.) Fat. 9 Edw. Ill, p. 1, m. 25. (Tanner.) Pat. 18 Edw. Ill, p. 2, m. 32. (Dukes' Appendix, ibidem.) Fat. 19 Edw. Ill, p. 1, m. 19. (Dukes' Antiquities, p. 50.) [Znquis. 346 BRIDGNORTH. The Great Valuation of 1535 mentions this House iu no other connexion than as a dependency of the Abbey of Lylleshall, which had long before obtained custody hereof.*^'"' That Abbey therefore enumerates amongst its temporal possessions an annual income of £23. arising in Brigenorthe and Alveley. This large item probably included other revenue than that which had accrued with this Hospital/^^ for the Abbey had a distinct property in Bridgnorth^ hereafter to be noticed^ and appears to have held several leases of lands at Bridgnorth and Alveley under the Monks of Shrewsbury, the Nuns of Brewood, the Chantry of St. Thomas (ia St. Leonard's Church), the Lords of Oldbury and of Netherton (near Quatford), and, under several Burgesses of Bridgnorth. Some of these leases held, or rather quit-rents payable, by the Abbey of LiUeshall, in 1535, may however have been originally concerns of the Hospital. It is impossible, in short, to distinguish in this Valuation what lands the Abbey held as its own, what it acquired with the Hospital, or what, after it obtained the Hospital, it may have purchased or leased, in addition. Besides these quit-rents, the property of LUleshall Abbey in this quarter was chargeable in other ways. — An annual fee of 8*. %d. was due for regard to the King's Forester of Morf : — Richard Horde, Seneschall of Bridgnorth and Alveley, had a salary of £\. per annum. — The Chaplain of the Chantry of Jesus, in Lichfield Cathedral, was ia receipt of an annual pension of £Q. 13s. 4c?. which had originally been payable by the Hospital. — A similar pension the Abbey also paid to the Chaplain, who still performed divine service in the Hospital Church. — Inquis. ad quod Dammwm, 19 Edw. Ill, No. 11. (Calendar, p. 315.) Fat. 2A Edw. Ill, p. 2,in. 22. (Dukes' Antiquities, p. 50.) Pat. 43 Edw. Ill, p. 2, m. 9. (Dukes' Appendix, p. xxxviii.) Fat. 45 Edw. Ill, p. 1, m. 9 Tel 15. {Calendar, and Tanner.) Pat. 5 Eic. II, p. 2, m. 31. "Pro mortuo bosco, prout in Carta 16 Hen. III." (Calendar, p. 206.) Pat. 11 Edw. IV, p. 2, m. 16. " Cus- todia concessa Abbatise de Lilleshull." (Tanner). <" Valor Ecdesiadicus, iii, 197. ■"* The only notice by which I can identify tlie locality of any original pro- perty of the Hospital, within the Town, is a deed whereby " Christiana and Isabella, daughters of William le Keu, sell to Walter Palmer, Bm-gess of Brug, their house in Kougate,' saving a rent, of Qd. per annum, payable to the Hospital of the Holy Trinity. — Witnesses : Wilham Pal- mer, William Lambert, Provosts, Hamo Palmer, Henry Coyntrel, WilUam Wondao, Philip de Petra, Robert Tinctor, Richard Clerk." (Charter at Apley.) " Cowgate" was the upper part of the present " Cart-way." BRIDGNORTH. 347 Lastly, on the anniversary of Ralph le Strange, as Founder of this Hospital, the Abbot distributed a sum of 16*. 8d. to the poor. The Grantee of this House, on the dissolution (in 30 Henry VIII), was Eowland Edwards, who had it with other possessions of Lilles- haU Abbey. HOSPITAL, OR LEPER HOUSE, OE ST. JAMES. This Establishment belonged to a class essentially distinct from that of the Hospital of St. John above noticed, or of Hospitals in general. The word Hospital, in its commonest modem acceptation, and the Latin word Hospitium convey a contrast of idea very similar. — Sickness or disease are the prevailing notions involved in the former word, hospitality or shelter in the latter. So it was with these neighbouring and almost adjoining houses at Bridgnorth. While such societies as St. John's contemplated the relief of travellers, pilgrims, the poor, the aged, and the infirm in general, St. James's Leper House was intended only as a refuge for persons afflicted with formidable and perhaps contagious disease. In written documents, it is usually described as the Bomus Leprosorum Sancti Jacobi, or as Maladria Sancti Jacobi, the latter term being the Latinized form for the French Maladrarie.'*'^^ It stood East of the road which led from St. John's Hospital towards Quatford, and on the outside of the Town, a situation corresponding aptly with its design. Its Founders were probably the Community of the Borough of Brug, and such an establishment may well have been a part of the internal economy of the Town. The origin or multiplication of these Lazarettos may perhaps be connected with a decree of the Eleventh General Council, which assembled in the Church of St. John Lateran, in March, 1179, under the auspices of Pope Alexander III. The eleventh Canon, there promulgated, was entitled " De Leprosis," and ran as follows : *!''• — •"' There seems to hare been a Mala- drerie near Bridgnorth of older date than that of St. James, being described in deeds as " VetuB Maladria." It lay on the Old- bury side of the Town, and abutted on two ditches or water-courses called "Rey- mund's ditch," and the " ditch towards Aldebur" (sichetum R«ym\mdi et siohe- tum versus Aldebur). {Charter at Apley Park.) ^'7 Chron. Gerras. Inter Decern Scrip- tores, p. 1450. The terms of this Canon and the language used in certain early Charters of these Leper-Houses would 348 BRIDGNORTH. "Whilst the Apostle enjoins that 'more abundant honour be rendered to the weaker members/ yet some men, on the contrary, seeking their own rather than Christ's, allow not Lepers (who cannot dwell with the healthy, nor attend Churches with other men) to possess Churches or Cemeteries, or to be holpen by miaistry of their own Priest. Which thing being evidently quite opposed to Christian piety, we, in Apostolick kindness, ordain that, wherever so many be congregated under a common mode of life as may suffice to build themselves a Church or Cemetery, and enjoy the ministry of their own Priest, they shall be permitted to have such advantages without contradiction. Let them, however, take heed that they injure not the parochial rights of older Churches ; for that which is granted to them for piety's sake, we will not to redound to the harm of another. And we further ordain that they be not compelled to give tithes of their gardens, or of the forage of their live-stock." Many of the large Towns of England had establishments, thus radicated and encouraged, in the thirteenth century. The Leper House of St. James was certainly founded previously to 1224 ; for on 22 September, in that year, King Henry III, being then at Bruges, issued the following Certificate to Hugh Pitz Eobert, Porester of Shropshire : — " Know, that for the reverence of God, and for the health of our soul, and the soul of the Lord King John, our Pather, we have granted to the Leprous Brethren of the Hospital of St. James at Bruges, that they may have one horse, daily plying in our Porest of Morf, to collect dry stumps and dead wood for their fire, imtil we come of age." A similar Certificate was addressed to Hugh de NeviU, Justice of the Porest.*^^ seem to indicate that the term "Leprosy" was applicable only to contagious disease or what was heheved to be so. On the other hand it is well known that paralytic affections were classified under the same term " Leprosy" in the middle ages ; and (whereas Paralysis can scarcely have been accounted infectious even then) it would appear that the term was used to denote severe disease in a much more general sense than modem notions can at once apprehend. It is not improbable, I think, that, in a Monastic age, any chronic or incapacitating disorder may have been taken to suggest the necessity or propriety of the sufferer's abstinence from social intercourse; that those who, under compulsion, or volun- tarily, adopted this theory, formed societies of themselves, and that they came to be called Lepers, because their separate mode of life associated their condition with that of those, whom the well-known Scriptural plague of Leprosy banished from society and united to one another. *^ CloMs. 8 Hen. Ill, memb. 4. This Charter was apparently renewed after the King was of age, viz. in 1232 (Calend. Sof. Cart. -p.id). At all events it was in force in Nov. 1271, when, at the Porest BRIDGNORTH. 349 On 30 Aug. 1226, the Lepers of St. James obtained an order from King Henry III, for three oak-trees out of Morf Forest. The order is in similar terms with that granted on the same day to the Hospital of the Holy Trinity, as quoted above.''^' The next document, which I shall quote in connexion with this House, is a very early Charter of the thirteenth Century, whereby this Society demises a curtilage of their land at an annual rent of 2Qd.*~^ The chief points noticeable in this Charter are, that the Society is constituted without any apparent Superior of its own body, that it acts under the guidance and with consent of the " good men of the Town," that its members are of both sexes, and that the entrance-fine paid by the Lessee is unusually small in comparison with the reserved rent, — showing that the object in view Assizes held at Salop, it is entered on the KoU, with similar Charters to other iudi- ■viduals or Communities. (Forest EoUs, Salop, No. Ti, memb. 1.) *" Clams, ii, p. 135, where the Q-rantees are printed as " Leprosi Saucti Johannis de Bruges." This is a mere mistake, and probably of the original rather than of Mr. Hardy's transcript. There was no such body at Bridgnorth as the Lepers of St. John, and the error possibly arose from the contemporary grant to the Hos- pital of the Holy Trinity, which was also a Hospital of St. John. It is curious, however, that an authoritative document should embody a confusion often made elsewhere. ■^0 In possession of T. C. Whitmore, Esq., of Apley. As the earKest Charter which has occurred to me relating to pro- perty vrithin the Borough, and as having a curious Seal of the House attached, I will transcribe it entire : — " Universis Christi fideUbus ad quos presens Carta pervenerit,Fratres et Sorores DomAs Dei et Beati ApostoH Jaoobi et Leprosorum deBruges, saluteminDomino. Noverit TJniversitas veatra nos cum con- silio et assensu proborum hominum de Bi'uges dedisse et concessisse et h^c pre- senti carta nostra confirmasse Roberto le Woler' quoddam curtilagium in eadem vill&, illud videKcet quod jacet inter terram PhUippi filii Ricardi et terram Ricardi de Porta. Tenendum de Deo et beato Jacobo et Fratribus et Sororibus in domo nostr^ commanentibus et succedentibus predicto Roberto et heredibus suis, in feudo et hereditate, hbere et quiete, bene et in pace et honorifice, pro sex denariis quos dedit nobis de introitu. Reddendo iude an- nuatim nobis et successoribus nostris viginti denarios, medietatem ad festum beatffi Marise in Martio et medietatem ad festum Sanoti Michaehs, pro omni servitio et exactione. Concessimus siquidem pre-- dicto Roberto et heredibus suis dare vel vendere et omne velle suum de predicto curtUagio facere, salvo predicto redditu Deo et beato Jacobo et fratribus et soro- ribus in domo nostra succedentibus et ibidem Deo servientibus. Nos etiam et suocessores nostri predicto Roberto et heredibus suis predictum curtilagium pro predicto servitio warantizabimus. Hiis testibus.Ricardo filio Stephani et WiUiehno filio Grodewini tunc Pretoribus, Willielmo Tinotore, Waltero Hybernensi, Rogero Wendac, Galfrido filio Stephani, AnketiUo Clerico, Andrea fratre suo, Hamundo filio Walteri, Willielmo fiho Thomse, et multis aliis," The Deed is beautifully written. The Seal of green wax, fastened to the deed by a cord of red and white hemp curiously interwoven, shall be given in an Illustra- tion. The Legend (in full) is " SigUlum Leprosorum Sancti Jacobi de Brugia.'' 360 BRIDGNORTH. was a continuous annual income, rather than a present advantage. On Oct. 14, 1259, King Henry III granted letters patent of pro- tection for the Lepers of St. James of Bruges, for five years.*^i The endowment of a Chaplain in 26 Edw. Ill (1352-3), whose duties were partly connected with the Church of this Hospital, has been already noticed.*^^ In 1535, this Hospital is valued as annually in receipt of £4. net income. It was, however, then governed by a Superior, who is called Prior. His name was William Beyste.*^' I refer elsewhere for further particulars.*^ PEANCISCAIir OK GBBY FEIAES. This Order, called also the Order of Friars Minors, was intro- duced iato England early in the thirteenth Century. Its members established themselves in many of our principal towns during the reign of Henry III. The English Province of the Order came to be divided into seven districts, called " Custodies," because a Custos or Keeper presided over all Convents within each such district. The House at Bridgnorth, founded in the time of Henry III, and dedicated to Saint Francis, was one of the nine Monasteries which were subject to the Custody or Wardenship of Worcester .*^^ It lay to the West of the Severn, under the Church of St. Leo- nard's. Some adjoining vaults are still known as the " Friars' <2i Pat. 43 Hen. III. *^ Supra, p. 342, note 403. *^ Valor IScclesiasticus, toI. iii, p. 199. *^ Dukes' Antiquities, Appendix, p. xl, where some traditionary matter is given which relates to this foundation, as also some documents quoted, which show the fate of its possessions after the Dissolu- tion. No reference is given to the autho- rities for the former, which seems to be curious. I would, however, point out the discrepancy which in the first instance attributes the foundation to King Henry I, then to WilUam de Kenegate and others, and thirdly to Justice Freere and Henry Bourchier (second Earl of Essex of his name), who Hved in the reigns of Henry YII and Henry VIII. I am favoured by Hubert Smith, Esq., with an extract of a deed whereby, in June, 16 Edw. II (1323) WUham, Guardian of the House of lepers of St. James of Brugge, grants a Tenement in Spittle Street, bounded on one side by the tenement of Alice and Helen, daugh- ters of Richard de Eoughtou, some time Forester of Morfe. The Feoffee is to pay 12d. rent. ■•25 New Monasticon, vol. viii, p. 1503 (quoting Stevens). The same authority states John, Earl of Shropshire (Shrews- bury) kinsman and heir of Ealph le Strange, the first Founder, to have been the reputed Founder (Patron, I suppose) of this House. Speed also (as quoted Monasticon, vol. viii, p. 1531), attributed BRIDGNORTH. 351 Caves/' and their Great Hall or Refectory is, or was lately, in tolerable condition. ^^^ We have few accounts, and those both erroneous and contra- dictory, as to the origin of this House. If we attempt to associate such establishments with the names of specific Founders, we shaU usually be in error. The sycophancy or ignorance of a later period has invented or believed the falsest tales about the origin of the various English Houses of Friars. The probability is, that the first members of these fraternities located themselves in our large Towns, under no specific or marked patronage, and worked their way onwards as best they could. In process of time, the name of some influential Founder, or Patron, was seen to be a kind of protection, and so adopted by each Society for itself. Not knowing their Founders, the Franciscans extemporized them ; and their new Patrons, the descendants of such alleged Founders, were perhaps not studious to expose the complimentary fraud. In the case of this House at Bridgnorth, which claimed John Earl of Shrewsbury for its Patron, as the descendant of Ralph de Strange, its alleged Founder, the idea was doubtless borrowed from a similar claim of the Brethren of St. John's Hospital, in the Low Town. Such pretence of the Franciscans, though it involved a double falsehood, conveyed also a double compliment to their adopted Patron; for not only did it flatter John Talbot with a fictitious ancestry, but gave to such untrue Ancestor the merit of a founda- tion with which neither he nor his Descendants, real or imaginary, had anything to do. Passing a statement which I cannot substantiate,*^^ and which this House of Grey Friars to Jolm Earl of Shrewsbury, in time of Henry VI. Kalph le Strange however was, as I have already said, no ancestor of John Earl of Shrewsbury. He, Kalph, died when St. Francis (the Founder of this Rule) was not yet fourteen years of age, also fourteen years before St. Francis originated the Order, and twenty-four years before it was introduced into England. Ralph le Strange, therefore, was not the founder ; and neither was John Earl of Shrewsbury, ■who flourished in the reign of Henry VI, or a century and a half after the time when I shall show this House to have been in existence. Similarly false allegations as to their foundership by the Dominican, Austin, and Franciscan Friars of Shrews- bury, are alluded to or exposed by the Historians of that town. (Vol. ii, pp. 445, 452, 460.) '^ Dukes' Antiquities, Appendix, p. xh, where also some further documents con- nected with this House, and of dates 1333 and 1337, are given. The Seal of one of these is also engraved on page 50 of Mr. Duies' book, whereby I perceive that these Franciscans called themselves occa- sionaUv Preacher^ (Predicatores). That title, however, has usually been assigned distinctively to the Dominican or Black Friars. , ^27 Dukes' Antiquities, p. 51, quoting the Assize Roll of 40 Hen. Ill ; but I 45 352 BEIDGNOBTH. alludes to the Friars Minors, as established in Bridgnorth earlier than 40 Henry III (1256), we find them here unquestionably within a year of that date. At the Assizes of October, 1373, the Jurors of the Borough made the following presentment as to'a purpresture on the King's demesne,*^^ viz., that the Friars Minors (Fratres Minores) had, eight years back, enclosed the King's highway on the bank of the Severn ; whereby the King was damaged yearly to the extent of half a merk. " They also take," said the Jurors, " stones and rubbish from the bank of the Severn, and throw them into the River, whereby they have realized to themselves apiece of ground, 150 feet long and 50 feet wide, and this they have enclosed. By which process the (artificial) bank causes the water to pound upon (inundare) the King's mLUs, the damage whereunto is five merks per annum, and this was done 16 years back." At this time, too (1373), the Friars had built their Church, for the same Jurors reported that a Prisoner, who had been imprisoned by Hugh de Acovere, the Sheriff (1355-6), "escaped to the Church of the Friars Minors, and abjured the realm." There is no account of the Revenues of this House in the Valor of 1535 ; but it came into lay hands at the dissolution. I refer elsewhere for a statement as to its subsequent disposal in ,the reign of James I.^^^^ THE HERMITAaE. Another, and stiU more humble. Establishment is associated with the religious history of this Town and its suburbs. The road which led hence towards Worfield, through Morf Forest, before it attains the summit of the hill which faces Bridgnorth on the East, passes under a cave, hewn out of the red sandstone rock of the district. Here, if names and legends are to have due authority, — " Here sat solitary sanctity," for the spot is still called " The Hermitage;" and tradition says that a Brother of King Athelstan ended his days here in retirement from the world .^^^ cannot find tlie entry on the Eoll itself. This and another document quoted by Mr. Dukes, under the Hospital of the Holy Trinity, belong, wherever derived from, to the House of Grey Friars. ^ Placita Corona, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 49 dorso. Similar devices, for increasing their territory, by the Dominican Friars at Shrewsbury, are related {History of Shrewshurt/, vol. ii, p. 446). ■"^ It was granted to John Beaumont in 36 Henry VIII (1544). (Duies' Ap- pendix, p. xli). See also Dukes' Anti- quities, p. 51. 430 rfjjjg tradition has some semblance of probability. King Edward the Elder BRIDGNORTH. 363 Be that as it may, we have it upon better evidence than tradition, that at a subsequent period an Eremitical cell existed in this place, that it was under the declared patronage of the Crown (probably as being situate in Morf Forest), and that the name by which it was known at this later period affords some corroboration to the story of its origin. In the reign of Edward III, several successive Hermits occur on the Rolls, for they were ushered to their Cell with the same forma- lities, of Royal Seal and Patent, as introduced a Dean or Pre- bendary of St. Mary Magdalene to the Constable of Bridgnorth or to the Sheriff of the County. On 2 Feb. 3 Edw. Ill (1328), John Oxindon was presented by the King to the " Hermitage of AthewUdston, near Bridgnorth." ^^ In 7 Edw. Ill (1333), Andrew Corbrigg was similarly presented to the " Hermitage of Adlaston, near Bridgnorth." '^^ In 9 Edw. Ill (1335), Edmund de la Mare was presented to the " Hermitage of Athelardeston." '^^ In 20 Edw. Ill (1346), Roger Burghton was presented to the " Hermitage above the high road, near Brugenorth." '^* I have made no further extracts in continuation of this list, nor is it important to do so. The Reader must judge whether the Legend above cited, when coupled with these traces of the name Athelward, or Ethelward,^' are suflScient grounds for identifying the first Hermit with that literate Brother of King Athelstan, who had, by his three Wives, a numerous &mily. Mahnsbxiry (i>e Qestis Regtmi, vol. ii, p. 25. b) has been particular to record the names and destinies of fourteen children, of whom five were Sons ; but of these five neither appears under circum- stances which can identify him with our Hermit. Athelstan, the eldest, succeeded to Edward's throne ; Ethelward, the second, known only for his love of lite- rature, died soon after his Father, and was buried at Winchester. Edwin, the third, was banished the reahn and drowned at sea under circumstances which affected the reputation of Athelstan, whose interest in getting rid of him was associated vrith a question as to his own legitimacy. Edmund and Edred, the fourth and fifth Sons of King Edward, successively came to the throne after the death of Athelstan. Pear of a fete like Edwia's may possibly have influenced some sixth and unnamed Brother of Athelstan to embrace an eremitical life, or possibly his second Brother, Ethelward, may have been an Anchorite. Three of his Sisters were Kuns. «i Pat. 2 Edw. Ill, p. 1, m. 33. «2 Pat. 7 Edw. Ill, p. 2, m. 27. «3 Pat. g^Edw. Ill, p. 1, m. 26. ^ Pat. 20 Edw. Ill, p. 1, m. 2. *^ The etymology I presume to be AJjelajibef-rran (the stone or rock of Athelard or Ethelward) rather than Ajjelajibef-cun (the dwelling or enclosure of the same). In either case we have a caution as to accepting the modem ter- miuation ton, as always significant of a town. 354 BRIDGNORTH. has been mentioned in the note. We may at least conclude that the Hermitage was of Saxon origin. We have now to speak of some of the principal early tenures which existed within the Borough. We will commence with that which is usually called " the Fee of Little Brug/' and was held of the Crown hj petit serjeantry. LITTLE BRUG. This suburb^ sometimes also called Southbridge^ consisted of two short streets, continuations of Hungary or St. Mary's Street, and of Whitburn or Raven Street. These small streets, which lay outside St. Mary's and Whitburn gates, unite in a road, which, passing first to the North-west after- wards branches off towards Shrewsbury and Ludlow, Thus the angle formed by these streets (one of which is still called Little Bridge Street) and subtended by the town wall, wiU have been nearly identical with the " fee of Little Brug." *^^ In the early history of this suburb we have again to deal with a Legend, and one which at first seems beyond the reach of any secondary test or investigation. The story is, that during the siege of Brug (by Henry I, in 1102) " Sir Ralph de Pitchford, one of the King's commanders, behaved himself so gallantly, that Henry granted him an estate in the neigh- bourhood, called the Little Brugge, to hold by the service of finding dry wood for the King's great chamber in the Castle as often as he should come there." Of all the subjects with which an Antiquary can have to deal, that of ignoring a Legend is the most thankless and distasteful. At the same time we scarcely ever meet with one which can be accepted as true in aU its particulars, and it is no unpleasant task, instead of rejecting the whole, to extract from these shadowy hints of the past that element of reality which must have been the foundation of ■**' I give the Legend in the words of Grose (Antiqiiities oflEngltMid and Wales, Tol. T, p. 3), which are nearly those of Camden (G-ough's Edition, vol. ii, p. 396*). The poiats which require further corroboration are that tlie first Grantee was Ralph de Pichford, and that he ob- tained it in the way stated. BKIDGNORTH. 355 every bona fide tradition. Equally gratifying is it to find some ex- ternal Ulustration, whichj however inadequate to prove the truth of a given Legend, may yet invest it with something of greater credibility than the unwritten memorial could independently command. Thus it is with the Legend before us. — Ordericus *^^ has related, that the three persons entrusted by Earl Robert de Belesme with the defence of Brug Castle were Roger son of Corbet, Robert de Novavilla, and Ulger the Hunter; that William Pantulf, who negotiated with them as to the surrender of the fortress was their kinsman, and that he promised them 100 librates of land, on behalf of the King, as a reward for such surrender. Now, another, and totally distinct, transaction, of the next Cen- tury, shows a probability that there was a relationship between the family of Pichford and the descendants of Ulger the Hunter.*^^ Is it not then possible that the service rendered by Ralph de Pichford at this siege may have been of the same kind as Pantulf' s, the exertion of some influence, with his presumed kinsman withiu the Castle, to procure its surrender ? Reserving a detailed account of the family of Pichford to a future occasion, I will here offer such extracts only as relate to its tenure of Little Brug. A fragmentary Roll, ia the Testa de Nevill, which appears to have been drawn up about 1212, and when Hugh de Pichford had lately been succeeded by a Son Ralph, tells us that the latter then held, in the Hundred of Brug, Little Brug with its appiu'tenances, by gift of King Henry, grandfather (avi) of King John, by ser- vice of finding dry wood, for the Chamber in the Castle of Brug, at the King's coming there .^^ The annual value of the tenure is stated at 39s. At the Inquest on the death of Ralph de Pichford, held April 20, 1253, his tenure in capite here, by service of finding fuel (carbones), is said to involve a receipt of 33«. 2d. rent.**" his name would suggest, his relationship to Picliford becomes still more probable. ^^ Testa de Nevill, p. 56. It must be observed that this record does not rightly compute the relationship which King John bore to Henry I, who was his great-grand- father (proaTUs) . The statement as to ser- viceis repeatedin a contemporary Eoll in the Eed Book of the Exchequer (fo. cxxiii). *«> HscTieat, 37 Hen. Ill, No. 56. «7 Uler. xi, p. 107. 438 The representatives of each contested certain property in Lee Brockhirst under writ of " mort d' ancestre." Moreover it is nearly certain that this same family of Pichford was descended from a great Shropshire Feodary called in Domesday "Norman "Venator," who also had a Bro- ther " Roger Venator ;" and if TJlger Venator were akin to these Brothers, as 356 BRIDGNORTH. At the Inquisition of 1355, the Jurors of the Borough, in answer to a question as to the various services due to the Castle, stated that " the Lord of Albrighton had to find fuel for the Castle in respect of his fee of Little Brug."**i The then Lord of Albrighton was John de Pichford, Son of the last Ralph, and in minority. In November 1274, the Jurors of the Liberty reported John de Pichford as holding a certain fee in capite within the said Liberty of Brug, but they knew not in what way, or by what warrant, or from what time he so held it.**^ In the Inquisitions on the death of John de Pychford, held at Pychford and Albrighton, on April 13, and May 6, 1285, his tenure in capite at Albrighton is mentioned,**^ but that of Little Brug is either omitted, or another Inquisition, relating thereto, is lost. At the Salop Assizes, October 1292, the Jurors of Brug exposed themselves to a penalty for not making a due report as to this Serjeantry.''*'^ It however appeared that " Ralph de Pichford had certain tenants in the vill of Bruges, of whom he received 30s. per annum, rendering one cart-load of fuel (carbonum) for the fire of the Castle, and one cart-load of hay for the wardrobe, as often as the King should happen to come to the Castle." The warranty of this tenure being non-apparent, the Sheriff was ordered to summon the Tenant: and " Ralph de Pichford came, and well acknowledged the aforesaid service, but said that the King had never passed through the parts of Brugge since the said tenements came into his (Ralph's) hands." The Jurors confirmed the statement.**^ A few Deeds and other Documents relating to some under tenan- cies in this fee, should be quoted. By deed, sans date, but which passed before 1252 : — 1. Henry, son of Adam Doresc, of Little Brug, grants to Agnes, Daughter of Walter le Palmer, 18 acres in Little Brug, in the fields of Brug, paying for him to Sir Ralph de Pichford a chief- rent of Is. 6d., and to him a pair of gloves of id. value, annually. — «' Sot. Mmd. vol. ii, p. 59. «2 Ibidem, vol. ii, p. 88. *" Escheat, 13 Edw. I, No. 14. *" JPlacita CorontB, 20 Edw. I, memb. 37 dorse. *« A statement given by Mr. Dukes (Antiquities, p. 51), confuses tbe peculiar service due on Little Brug with other service in Wales. The latter I presume to have been due from the same family of Pichford in virtue of their tenure in ca^te at Albrighton. BRIDGNORTH. 357 Witnesses : Walter Aurifaber and Adam Lugain, then Provosts of Brug &c.«6 2. Robert le Cuppare grants to Robert Tinctor, of Brug, for four merks, the lands in Little Brugia, where the Grange of the pur- chaser is erected, and lying between lands which the same purchaser bought from Roger de Cenobio (elsewhere called "De Abbacia"), and land which was Symon de Cenobio's. Rent to be 2d. — Wit- nesses: William Bonamy, John Tinctor (Provosts), Hamo Palmer, Walter Palmer, John de Castello, Henry Coyntrel, Philip de Petra, Wilham Fitz Hamon (Palmer), Roger de la More &c.**'' 3. Walter Carpenter grants to Lecya, relict of Alan de Berham, for 20s., a messuage in Little Brug, which he bought from William Bonamy, bounded by land which Robert le Coliare held of Hamo Palmer, and by the King's Street &c. — Witnesses : Philip de Petra, William Bolding (Provosts), Robert le Cuppare, WiUiam le Becare, Robert Paber, Geoffrey Faber &c.**^ 4. Robert Pitz William Fitz Adam delivers to Walter Palmer, by way of pledge for 5 merks (less %d.) which he owed him, a messuage in Whytebourne, lying between land of Henry Fitz Robert and land which Henry Textor held, and extending from the King's highway to the wall of the town. He also delivers the land in Little Brug which he had from John, his Brother, and which lay between his own (Robert's) land and the land of Robert le Coppare. And if he shall not have paid half his debt at the Feast of the Nativity of the Virgin, in the 43d year of Henry III (Sept. 8, 1259), and the other half at the Feast of All Saints (Nov. 1) next following, the said Walter "shall have the lands in inheritance for ever, ren- dering to Roger Fitz Elote \2d. annually. And the Mortgagor will, in that case, warrant the premises as if sold for the aforesaid sum. — Witnesses : W^illiam Palmer and William Lambert, then Provosts, Hamo Palmer, Philip de Petra, William Bonamy, Hugh de Eudon, Roger de la More &c.**' 5. Robert, son of Geoffrey Faber, of Little Brug, grants to Roger, **8 Blakeway MSS. (apparently from Otley Charters). **' Charters at Apley Park. «8 Ibidem. *^ Charter at Apley Park. By a pre- vious deed in the same collection John Fitz-WiUiam Ktz-Adam sells for 20*. (and reserving a rent of 1«.) to Walter Palmer, that moiety, which was coming to him by partition, of a house in the street called Wyteboume (describe^ as to boun- dary like the above imessuage^ except that Henry Eitz-Eobert is in this deed called Henry Pitz-Avice). — Witnesses : William Bonamy and Richard Fitz-Eve, Provosts, Hamund Palmer, WiUiam Palmer, Philip de Petra, Hugh de Eudon, Henry Fitz- Avice. 358 BRIDGNORTH. son of Roger de More, of Brug^ for 20s., an acre in the fields of Brug, bounded by the Vendor's Curtilage in Little Brug &c. Rent id. — Witnesses : William de Kantreyn, John de Castello, Roger Hamundj Roger Bonamy, Richard de Petra, Andrew Bolding &c.«o A trial of " Mort d'ancestre " was to come before the King at Salop in August 1267. Richard Fitz Robert Fitz Philip sued SibU, Isabel, Margery, and AHce, daughters of Robert de la Pere (Petra), for some small parcels of land in Little Brug. The Plaintiff with- drew the suit, but a subsequent composition of the matter ended in his remitting all claim. *^i Between the withdrawal of the suit of " mort d'ancestre " and this final composition, another suit would seem to have been insti- tuted under a writ of " novel disseizin," This came on at the same Assises. The question was whether Sibil de la Stone (de la Pere), Philip and William, her Sons, William de Huggel and John de Aldebur (Husbands probably of two of Sibil's Sisters), had disseized Richard Fitz Robert of his tenement in Little Brug. The Defendants proved that Philip de la Stone bequeathed the premises to Emma his wife, for her Hfe, with remainder to Isabel, Alice, Margery, and Sibil, his heirs. The Plaintiff was non-suited.*'^ TESIURB OF HAUaHMOND ABBEY. This was also in Little Brug, but to introduce it circumstantially I must first notice a very ancient Deed, whereby Richard de Piche- forte (who was deceased in 1176) gave, before the year 1172, to Haghmon Abbey, for the health of his soul and with consent of Hugh his heir, the Mill of Pichefort, and half a virgate of land there. — Witnesses : Gilbert, Prior of Buildwas ; Adam, a Monk, Brother of the Abbot ; Nicholas Brother of the Grantor; Engelard ; Andrew Priest of Biriton; Richard Chaplain of Salopesburi; Richard Fitz Odo de Ruttune.^'s **" Charter at Apley Park. ^' Flacita coram Mege, memb. 4 recto. ^^ Ibidem, pemb. 7 dorso. This change in the plaintiff's mode of procedure, though not explained by anything on the face of the record, is illustrative of one. of the special privileges claimed for the Borough of Brag, and before alluded to. The writ of "mort d' ancestre" was not current in Brug, and the plaintiff's original proceed- ing under such writ would have failed on that ground. He, therefore, chose the alternative — a writ of " novel disseizin.' ^53 Haghmon Chartulary at Sundom (fo. 164) compared with Pope Alexander Ill's confirmation to Haghmon, dated May 14, 1172, and preserved in Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 11. BRIDGNORTH. 359 Hugh de Pichford, Son and heir of Richard, and who, having had livery in 1176, died about 1211 or 1213, wishing! suppose to recover Pichford Mill, came to an agreement about the same with Richard, Abbot of Haghmon, whose term of office commenced after 1172, and ended before 1205. By this agreement Hugh gave to the Abbey, ia exchange for Pichford Mill, certain lands at Little Brugia, held by Robert Palmer, William Fitz Osehne, Gilbert and Gerard, shoemakers, and Robert Furnerius.^-Witnesses : Henry Malveisin, William Fitz Simon, Manculin, Gerin Burnel, Alan de Buldewas, Uger de Eton, Oliver his Brother, Geoffrey de la Beche, Unfrey de Bois, Nicholas Barbe.*^* I presume that it was to this tenure in Little Brug that the Jurors of 1255 referred, when they stated the Abbey of Haghmon to be in receipt of 40 pence annual rent within the Borough.*^^ Later, as I think, in the century, the Abbey acquired a rent of 2 shillings in the Low Town, imder the will of Roger Fitz Osbert, of Ludlow. The Testator held altogether, property yielding 4*. 2c?. annually, and John, son of William de Castello, was his tenant of the whole.*^* TENURE OF IILLBSHALL ABBEY. I have already alluded to a source of annual revenue which, in the year 1167, arose to the Crown out of the Borough of Brug, and independently of the annual ferm.^^'^ It was probably from some purpresture, or occupation of a part of the Royal demesne, which had not been taken into account when the ferm of the Borough^ or rent payable by the Sheriff, was settled. At Michaelmas, 1167, the Sheriff accounted 23*. &d. as " the issues of the land of the Bur- gage of Brug."*^^ In the next year the receipt is similarly described, but it was 26«. Gd., and is entered under the head of Purprestures^^^ In 1169, 24s. 7d. was thus received, and 26«. 8^. in 1170, and the same sum in every successive year till 1176 inclusive.*^" At Michaelmas, 1177, the Sheriff accounted, under the head of purprestures and escheats, for " 20«. issues of land of the Borough of Brug, before the King gave it to Walter de Linley."*^^ After ■'*'' Haghmon Chartulary at Suadom, fo. 41, and Blakeway MSS. «5 Rot. Hiind. vol. ii, p. 59. ■•ss JIaghmon Chartula/ry (ut supra). «7 Supra, p. 292. «8 Rot. Pip. 13 Hen. II, Salop. 459 460 461 jg^^, pjp, ,je eisdem annis. 46 360 BRIDGNORTH. this the Sheriff ceases to account for any such item of Revenue. We infer that about July 1, 1177, King Henry II granted to "Walter de Linley certain Crown-lands in the Borough of Brug which had previously yielded an annual revenue of 2 merks. Before the end of the century, the whole or a great part*^^ of this land had passed to a female, variously described as Sibil de Linley and Sibil de Brocton. What may have been her relationship to Walter de Linley I will not here conjecture, but her interest in Brocton arose under feoffment of Richard de Linley, who therefore may have succeeded Walter in this land at Brug, and transmitted the same -to Sibil. She, in whatever way of succession, became doubly a tenant in capite of the Crown, and, as such, her marriage was in the King's gift. Before Michaelmas, 1190, she fined with the King in a sum of 3 merks, "for license of marrying herself.*^^ This license of course involved the privilege of remaining single, and such I imagine to have been Sibil's application thereof, for within nine years following she granted the whole of her lands in Brocton and in Brug to LiUeshall Abbey. She further bestowed her body for burial in that house. This grant was included in King John's general confirmation to LiUeshall, dated 31 Aug. 1199.*^* It is also mentioned in the con- firmation of Pope Honorius III (1216-1227), to that Abbey .*65 Such were the circumstances under which the Canons of Lilies- hall obtaiued their first interest within the Borough of Brug, an interest which in 1255 was represented by the receipt of 30 shillings annual rent.*^^ Their possessions here were greatly increased by their acquisition of the Hospital of St. John in the reign of Edward IV ;«'^ but the "^ I use this qualification with refer- ence to a previous statenient (p. 115, note 49), from which it would appear that the Linley interests in or near Bridg- north did not all centre in SibU or devolve to LiUeBhall. ^^ Sot. Ftp. 2 Eic. I, Salop, where she is called Sibil de Brocton. *■■ It is singular that the Charter of 31 Aug. 1199, as entered on the RoUs of King John's reign {Sof. Cart. p. IV), does not contain this item. But there must have been two Charters of the same date, one rather fuller than the other. The former is rehearsed and confirmed in an inspeximus of Richard II (Sot. Fat. 18 Ric. II, p. 1, memb. 7), and contains SibU de Linley's grant. King John's second Charter to LiUeshall, dated May 31, 1213, mentions the grant, but this is not the Charter inspected by Richard II. (Sot. Ca/rt, R. Johannis, p. 192.) «5 Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 24. The Bull of Pope Honorius also confirms " a fishery which the Canons had in the River of tjie Town of Brug called Severn," but the Grantor of this is not mentioned. «» Mot. Sund. vol. ii, p. 59. <« Supra, p. 346. BRIDGNORTH. 361 Valor oi 1535, before quoted with reference to the subject, leaves the two properties undistinguished.^^s A quit-rent- however of 13*. 4c?. then payable by the Abbey to the Lord of Netherton (Quatford) seems to have been in probable connexion with their Linley tenure. TENURE OF THE WHITE NUNS OE BREWOOD. This House was favoured with the patronage, and perhaps occa- sionally with the presence of King John.*^' Among other things he granted to the Nuns a weir, called " Withlakeswere," in the River Severn, near to Brug. About the year 1325, Alditha, Prioress of Brewbde, and her Convent enfeoffed Henry Fitz Robert of Brug in one half of this weir, reserving an annual rent of 5s.*'''' Cecilia, another Prioress, granted the other moiety to the same Feoffee, and at a similar rent.*™ That the grants were nearly contemporary appears from the same witnesses having attested each, viz. Sir Henry d'Aldithley, William Pantulf, and Walter de Hugford. It would appear that the Abbey of Shrewsbury later in the 13th century acquired some tenant right in this Weir, for two deeds remain on the Chartulary, by one of which William de Brug, son of Richard the Fisherman, quit -claims to the Abbey, all right in the fishery called Withlakeswere. — Witnesses : Sir Albinus de la Rode, Andrew de Northley, Symon de Sabrina.*''! The other deed is a grant to the same Abbey of all his right in the said Weir by John, Son of John Fisherman, of Brug. — Wit- nesses: William de Cantrey, Henry de Arnleg, William Bolding.*''^ The Inquisition of 1255 registers the Nuns of Brewood as in receipt of 6s. 8d. rent within this Borough, and their income ap* pears like that of the Knights Templars and Hospitallers to have been unassessable to the King's Tallages.*'''^ Probably, also, it was *^' Valor Mcclesiastioas, vol. iii, p. 197. ^ King John was at Brewood in April, 1200, January, 1206, and August, 1207. A Charter of his to the White Nuns of St. Leonard, dated Sept. 1, 1212, is extant (Rot. Cart. p. 187), but concerns other localities. The specific grant, quoted above, is not preserved on the Rolls. *"> Salop Chartulary, No. 376. "" Ibidem, No. 143. William, Son of Richard le Pescur of Brug, occurs in 1256. ■"2 Ibidem, No. 139. A deed at Apley dated 1265, is attested by the same three witnesses. *5 Bot. Sund. vol. ii, p. 59. 362 BRIDGNORTH. in this instance understated; for a few years later in the Century the Nuns appear in receipt of other income in the Borough quite unconnected with the Weir above-mentioned. " Cecilia, formerly Daughter of Henry Fesun, in her maidenhood, grants to Nicolas, son of Walter Palmer, for 20s., a plot of land at the Standelf,*''* which she held of the Nuns of Brewode, of the tenement of Solton.*^' — -It is bounded by the lands which Henry de Castro holds of the Lords of Glazel'ey, and lands of Roger Fitz Henry. — She grants it, together with the Grange, and with 2s. 6d. annual rent which the Purchaser is to receive from Curtilages of the same tenement, and pay over to the Nuns. — To hold of the said Cecilia from the Feast of St. Andrew, 6 Edward (Nov. 30, 1277), for 20 years, at a rent of 6d. If, at the end of that term, the pur- chase-money (20s.) be not repaid, the Mortgagee shall continue to hold the premises at the aforesaid rent, till it is so repaid. — Witnesses : Roger de Mora, William Bolding (Provosts) , William de Cantreyn William Palmer, Roger Fitz Henry, Stephen Bolding, Henry de Castro, William Bonamy, Richard de Petra." *''^ The Valor of 1535, gives a rent of only 5 shillings as receivable by the Nuns of Brewood from lands in " Brigenorthe ;" *'^'^ but the Minister's Accounts at the Dissolution tell a different tale. They enumerate the following receipts in " Brignorth :" — Free Rents 3s., Rent of a Croft &c. 2s., Ferm of one tenement 6s.,*^ making a total of 11 shillings. TENURE OE THE KNIGHTS TEMPLARS. An authentic and very curious account of the Templar's posses- sions throughout England, drawn up as early as the year 1185, '"'' A Stcmdelfia a stone-quarry, a place in which to delve for stone {Sistory of Shretosbury, vol. ii, p. 462) ; where how- ever the writers are mistaken as to the probability of the word having been peculiar to Shrewsbury. *'^ A family named Sholtonj'or Scel- tone, occurs in other deeds as holding land near St. Leonard's Church-yard (supra, p. 341) and in Astley Abbots. W Charter at Apley Park. The situa- tion of this land may be gathered from another deed in the same collection, whereby Jane, daughter of Walter Russel, grants to John Pernel, Chaplain, a cur- tilage outside the Postern gate, near the Cemetery of St. Leonard, lying between lauds of Thomas Hichemon and the way towards Cantereyn and extending from the ditch under the town waU to the land ofthe White Nuns of Brewode. Rendering lid. to the heirs of Henry Pesun and a Rose to the Grantor. — Witnesses : John Geffrey and Robert le Knyt Provosts, Stephen Bolding, &c. ■•^^ Valor Ecclesiasticus, vol. iii, p. 193. ■"' New Monasticom, vol. v, p. 731. BEIDGNORTH. 363 contains; under the Bailiwick of Warwick (which included Shrop- shire) the followiag entry : — " At Brugia half a certain mansion came to the hands of the Brethren^ which used to render annu- ally 2*." «9 In 1255 the Templars possessed two houses here, of 5 shillings annual value, and they were not subject to the King's Tallages. Their Tenants were life-tenants, and would not scott with the Burgesses for the trade carried on in the said houses.*^" This, and, it may be added, the former immunity arose from the chartered privileges of this once powerful Order. TENTJEE OE BTJILDWAS ABBEY. The existent Charters of this House do not, that I can find, give any information as to the way in which it acquired property in Brug. In 1255, however, the Abbot is returned as receiving 12s. annual rent here.*«i This rent is in 1291 stated at 16s.«2 About 1296, " Brother William, Abbot of Buldewas, as Executor of the wiU of Master Alan le Palmer of Brug, sells for 6 merks to William Selimon, son of Robert Tinctor, a house in High Street, which the deceased had left to the Abbot's disposal, to seU it, and employ the money in pious uses for the soul of the Testator. — To hold of the Lord of the fee at \d. rent. — Witnesses : Roger de la More, John Glidde (Provosts) of Brug, William de Kantreyn, Nicholas RondoHj Fremund de Erdinton, Robert Crouke, and others." *83 The Conventual Seal remains attached to this deed. In 1535 the rents receivable by the Abbot of Buildwas, in Ruley and Brigenorth, are returned at 13s. (>d,. ; *^* and the Minister's Accounts of the following year estimate the rents in Rowley at 8s., and in Brygenorthe at 5s. 6d.*^^ ^79 MSS. Vol. formerly in custody of the Queen's Bemem'branoer, now at Carlton Eide. Extracts are given, JVeto Motiastioon, vol. vii, p. 821, numb, xxir. <*> Sot. Sund. vol. ii, pp. 59, 60. «i Sot. Bwnd. Tol. ii, p. 59. ^ Pope Mch. Taxation, p. 260. ■iss Charter at Apley Park. ^*' Valor Hcclesiasticus, vol. iii, p. 191. 48S Monastioon, vol. v, p. 361. 364 BRIDGNORTH. Other Religious Communities had property within the Borough in 1255, viz., the Priory of "Wenlock, the Abbeys of Wigmore and Crokesden, and the Knights Hospitallers, their respective annual receipts on the same being 10s., 20«., 10s. and 8s.«8 I can give no further particulars of any of these possessions, except that the Abbot of Wigmore's fee (which might have been acquired during the ascendancy of the Mortimers in the Borough) is described as " terra Campell ; " that it lay apparently in the direction of Old- bury, and that in the middle of the thirteenth century Walter Aurifaber was a tenant therein. We will conclude our account of Bridgnorth with notices of one or two families distinguished in the history of the early Borough, and whose names occur under such circumstances as will best illus- trate the state of manners and society at the period. PALMER OP BRUa. The family of greatest wealth and importance was undoubtedly that of Le Palmer, whose genealogy and branches I give chiefly on the authority of a number of deeds which relate to their interests in and about the Town. One of the earhest members of this house seems to have been — (a) Robert le Palmer. T have no other notice of him than that which has been mentioned above, ^^ where his tenancy in Little Brug was transferred by Hugh de Pichford to Haghmon Abbey. I cannot say that he was brother of Walter. (5) Amilia, his Widow, was a tenant in the High Street, when — (c) Amilia, their Daughter, granted to John Vintner, a native of Warwick, her share of inheritance in the same street, for an entrance-fee of 2 merks and a rent of 3s. — Witnesses: William Hoel and Geoffrey, Chaplains ; Henry Bacon and Roger Pitz WiUiam, Provosts ; Alan Fitz Robert, Hamo Palmer, Roger Wondac, Philip ■^ Sot. Bund. vol. ii, 59. *«! Supra, p. 359. BRIDGNORTH. 365 2. o ^ to g 1-1-''= CO OS BT— P K) hd I OW Q &- O « cc ore; q in- hj CO m , , S !» K lia &, g HI II poOH I e g i bo Q^ ^" I Ml-' g to bo § CD f;^ OS hd i- pj * B a B Pillars'--. cSg HI Otd HI, opow •=^ 3 8 g n tl B S ts M HJ CI. 0< K bO M CO o» to nd ■ B H" a nb- H ta 00 99 M a, e to - B 5w S-S-2 5^ (K) era S 2 - K ESb S, o P CD E§ M HI 366 BRIDGNORTH. Fitz Richard, William Tinctor, William Fitz Godewin, Hugh (e?) Walter le Palmer, the undoubted Founder of two great families in the Borough, has occurred only in the year 1182, as before mentioned.*®' (e) Hamo le Palmer, alias Hamo Fitz Walter. Has already occurred under the various dates of 1225, 1233, 1252, and 1256.*"' On July 8, 1230, he was called upon to warrant half a mes- suage in Brug to Roger Chete, whom Alice, widow of Roger de Stircheleg, sued for the same as her dower.^'^ His alleged complicity in the crime of his Son Walter, and his non-appearance to answer the charge at the Salop Assizes of January, 1256, were subjects of two distinct fines. In the first instance, he had put in bail for his appearance, Philip de Petra being his surety .in the sum of 20s. When however he did not appear, Walter, his Son, compounded the matter, by fine of 15 merks, which covered the bail, and released Hamo from all obliga- tion to appear. The Abbot of Buildwas was surety for the latter fine. It was at the same time stated, that Hamo, who must have now been an old man, had fallen from his horse, and that it was not possible to carry him to the Assizes.*'^ How long he survived these events is a question, but it seems to be he, rather than his son Hamo, who attests a deed already quoted, and which must have passed in or shortly before 1259.*'^ He has already appeared as having served, at least thrice, as Pro- vost of the Borough. His house, in the High Street, was separated from that of his brother Walter, by an intervening messuage, which was sold by Robert Fitz Walter Frut to Robert Tinctor for 14 merks, a good sum at the time of the transaction, which must have been between the years 1251 and 1256. This deed, which is primarily attested *^ CliarterB at Apley Park, which are also my Touchersi for all deeds of the Borough, and statements grounded on such deeds, unless a distinct reference be given. «' Supra, p. 254. «» Supra, pp. 51, 256, 257, and 279. *" Flaciia apud Westminster. Trinity Term, 14 Hen. Ill, m. 14 dorso. ^ Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, m. 10 recto. The Pipe EoU of 40 Hen. Ill confuses these fines with others which were on Master Walter le Palmer's pri- vate account; e.g., he is said to have owed 15 merks for his own transgression, and 40 merks for replevying his Father's lands, which was the converse of the true account. «» Supra, p. 315. BRIDGNORTH. 367 by the Purchaser and Henry Coyntrel (as Provosts), has also for witnesses Hamo Palmer, Walter, brother of the said Hamo, Walter Aurifaber, John de Castello, WiUiam Bonami, WiUiam Bolding, and John Tinctor. From this, as weU as from his earlier appearance in life and earlier death, we presume Hamo de Palmer to have been the older of the two brothers. He is a constant attendant in the Borough Court, and his attesta- tions of deeds are numberless. Besides his property in High Street, his interests in Little Brug, and in the " fields towards Cantreyn," are incidentally mentioned. (/) Walter le Palmek, brother of Hamo, is occasionally called "Walter Palmer, Burgess of Brug," and "Walter Fitz Walter j" each name, I presume, distinguishing him from his Nephew, the Clerk. Of his innumerable attestations of Borough Deeds, and more personal transactions, I find none which I can suppose to be of earlier date than about 1235. In Michaelmas Term, 1249, he is sued as tenant of a Mill at Dudmaston, by SibU, widow of Peter de Dudemanston, who claimed a third of this and several other tenements as her dower.*'* One of his leasehold transactions dates about 1250, and has been already referred to.*^^ At Michaelmas, 1254, he is charged on the Rolls as Walter le Palmer de Bruges, with an amercement of 20 merks, which had been inflicted by Justices of the Forest lately in eyre. It was for trespass with his hounds, and his Nephew, Master Walter le Palmer, was amerced in double the sum for a like offence.*'^ At the County Assizes, January, 1256, he stands first of the Borough Jurors, and seems to have been unimplicated in the dis- graceful affairs which affected so many chief persons of the Town, and, amongst others, his own relations. He occurs again as a Mortgagee, in or shortly before 1259, in a deed already cited.*''' He has also been above noticed under the year 1261. *»8 About March, 1265, he occurs as a Lessee of lands in Astley ^s* Placita apui Westm. 33 and 34 Hen. Ill, memb. 16, recto. «5 Supra, p. 315. «« Uot. Fip. 38 Hen. Ill, Salop, w Supra, p. 315. «s Supra, 316. 47 368 BRIDGNORTH. Abbots. The deed (an Indenture of two parts) is curious, — "I, Walter, son of Walter Gilbert, have made over (tradidi) to Walter Palmer of Brug 5 acres in the manor of Estley which Walter my Father acquired in frank marriage with Emma, my Mother ; — for one Cloak of coarse cloth (pro uno pallio de Burello) which he gave on entry. — To hold from the feast of the Annuncia- tion 49 Hen. Ill for 16 years. — Rendering annually 20d. at Brug." A clause of re-entry, in case of non-payment of the rent, is followed by clauses as to warranty and alternate sealing. — Witnesses : William Palmer, Henry de Arnleg, Provosts of Brug, William de Cantreyn, William Bonami, William Bolding, Roger Fitz Henry, Stephen Bolding.«9 The Assize Roll of Sept. 1267, shows Walter, son of Walter le Palmer impleaded by Nicholas Fitz Richard Brun for disseizing him of two shops in Brug. The action failed.^* At the Assizes of October, 1272, both Walter le Palmer and Nicholas le Palmer, whom I suppose his son, were reported by the Borough Jurors as having sold wine " against the Assize."'"^ And this is the latest notice I find of him in any dated documents. As Purchaser, Lessee, or Mortgagee, of tenements in, or near, the Borough, he occurs in no fewer than 33 separate deeds. His property or interests lay in the fields of Brug generally^ in the fields near St. Leonard's, the fields towards the " Old Maladrerie" and towards Oldbury and " Cantreyn ;" in High Street, " Witeburne" Street, " Hungrey" Street, and " Cougate" Street, in the ground between the Castle and the River, in Little Brug, and in Astley Abbots.502 (ff) Nicholas le Palmer, apparently son and heir of Walter last mentioned, has already occurred, as Nicholas Fitz Walter, in the year 1252, and therefore long before his Father's death.^"' He occurs also, both as a purchaser of land and a witness, in deeds, which, if I mistake not, past during his Father's lifetime. «9 This deed is indorsed coevally, " Soriptum Walteri de Stoeton." "" Placita coram Rege, 51 Hen. Ill, memb. 6 recto. I presume Walter, son of Walter le Palmer, to be so called to dis- tinguish him from his Nephew, and not that the Defendant in this suit was a younger son of the subject of this notice. That class of names which may be called "Patronymics" were especially used in the law courts. ™' Flacita Coronm, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 50 dorso. "" A former account (pp. 314, 316) shows him twice in office as Provost. ^ Supra, p. 257. BRIDGNORTH. 369 He has just been mentioned in conjunction with his Father in October, 1272. In the Inquisitions of November, 1274, he stands sixth on the Borough Jury.^"* He is a frequent witness iu 1277, and from thence till about 1283. In August, 1288, he was deceased, and his Son Edmund in possession of his estate. He added considerably to his inheritance. He occurs as Pur- chaser or Mortgagee in 21 separate deeds, as Vendor, ovlj in one. His interests are mentioned in various localities, besides those wherein his Father had been concerned, viz. in the fields towards Tasley, the fields towards the Hok,^°^ and the fields on Severn-bank ; in premises on the Castle HUl, and in others adjacent to the North- gate; in the Standelf (near St. Leonard's), and in Leceline (now Listley) Street. {h) Of Agnes, daughter of Walter le Palmer, and presumed to have been Sister of Nicholas, I have only the notice already quoted, where she became a grantee in Little Brug^°^ somewhat earlier than the time (1252) when Nicholas (her Brother) first appears. We now pass to the five sons of Hamo le Palmer, first cousins of Nicholas and Agnes. Of these — (i) William le Palmer, often called WiUiam Fitz Hamon and William Hamund, was the eldest. He has already been mentioned as holding the ofiice of Provost during his Father's lifetime, and indeed prior to the year 1251.^°'' In a c'harter of 1250 or 1251 (also before alluded to) William Fitz Hamund appears as a land- holder iu the fields of Brug.^"^ He has occurred already as 7th Juror on the Borough Inquest of 1255, as 5th Juror at the Assizes s«i Sot. Smd. vol. ii, p. 88. 505 This and some other localities, men- tioned in ancient deeds, may be curiously identified by an old Map of the Borough, a copy of which is in possession of Sidney Steadman Sijiith, Esq., of Bridgnorth, and has been my chief topographical guide while engaged with that neighbourhood. This Map (which appears to have been planned soon after the dissolution of Religious Houses) distinguishes a large tract of ground lying to the north of the road, which led from Whytbm-ne-gate to Tasley, as the " Hooke I'eilde." A tree standing in the centre of the said field is also indicated by the Map. This tree (probably an oak, and a well-known land- mark) gave name, I presume, to the field ; for Ak, AJce, Oclc, and Soo, are all old forms of the word now spelt oak. ™ Supra, p. 356. «W Supra, p. 315. ™ Ibidem. 370 BRIDGNORTH. of 1256, as Provost in 1259, as Visor of repairs to the King's house in 1260 ;^°^ and all or most of these were in his Father's life- time. He was again Provost in 1265, 1st Juror for the Borough at the Assizes of 1272, 2d Juror on the Inquest of 1274,^10 and a frequent witness of Borough deeds in 1277. In or about the last- named year he grants to "William Lambert a tenement in Mill- Street (invico versus molendinum) bounded by lands of the Grantee and of William de Baggesovere, and extending from the King's Highway to the Severn. — Witnesses : Roger de la More and William Bolding, Provosts, William de Cantreyne, Emeric Tiuctor, Henry de Arnleg, Eobert le Knyght, WiUiam Kanne,"^ Roger Chete, Stephen Chete. No certain mention of him has occurred as living at any subse- quent date ; but Alice, his widow, consents to a grant by WiUiam their son, about six years later, and which will be presently noticed. The property of William Palmer, in and about Bridgnorth, seems to have lain in High Street and Mill Street, in the fields towards the " Old Maladrerie," in the neighbourhood of the Hospitals . of St. John and St. James, and in Astley Abbots. {k) -Hamo, another son of Hamo le Palmer, also occurs during his Father's lifetime. He is mentioned as Hamo, son of Ha,mo de Brug, as negotiating some fine in 1251.^^^ It must be he, rather than his Father, who officiated as 12th Juror at the Borough Inquest of 1255, ^^^ also certainly he, whom Roger, son of William le Bemer, impleaded for disseizing the latter of a tenement ki Brug, at the Assizes of January, 1256.^-'* Hamo came into Court to answer the charge, but was non-suited. This Hamo has already occurred under dates of 1260, 1267-8, and 1272, when he was third of the Borough Jm-ors."' He also occurs, and generally as 5™ Supra, pp. 306 (iis), 315, and 257. '!» Supra, pp. 316, 309, and 310. 5" The first member, who has occurred to me, of a family afterwards weU known in the Borough, and from which Cann- HaU in the Low Town deriyed its name. An oval seal, attached to this deed, bears the device of a "grey-hound." "2 Rot Pip. 35 Hen. Ill, Salop, Nova Oblata. "3 Supra, p. 306. ™ Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 2 recto. I mention the Defendant's attend- ance in Court, as it happens to distinguish him accurately from Hamo, senior, whose appearance, in any cause at the same Assizes, would have been inconsistent if not impossible. "* Supra, pp. 257, 258. BRIDGNORTH. 371 following William^ his Brother, in deeds of 1376-1277, and as late as about 1383. I find him possessed of lands in the fields of Brug, and a tene- ment under the Castle. His Son, simply called Eoger Fitz Hamon, or Roger Hamund, occurs in several deeds later in the Century, and in one, dated Feb. 35, 1394. (I) Master Walter le Palmer, Clerk, was another son of Hamo le Palmer, Senior. He, too, appears in life, some time before his Father's decease. On April 30, 1350, a King's writ enjoins the Sherifi' of Salop to recover and produce certain chattels of one Eobert de Baudak. who had, " for larceny, abjured the realm." A silver drinking-cup, of 12 shillings value, is specified as in posses- sion of Master Walter, Son of Hamo de Brug,"* In 1254 he had been amerced 40 merks by Justices of the Forest for trespass of his hounds. ^^^ In January, 1356, he appears, as before related, guilty of murder. ^^^ At the same time he was acquitted of disseizing Isabella le Caugi (Gaugi), Jane, Julia, and Florence, her Sisters, of a tenement in Brug, and the latter pro- nounced in misericordid ; but they were pardoned any amercement as being under age.^^^ Under the Manor of Church Stretton, at the same Assizes, Master Walter de Bruges is returned as ofi'ering 100*. fine, to be under plevin, his surety being the Abbot of Buildwas.^'"' This was probably in connexion with his first-named offence. Again, at these Assizes, Edith, widow of WiUiam Turner, impleaded Master Walter de Briges, for a third part, of 30 acres, in Diddlebury, as her dower. Walter called Hugh de Beckbury to warranty. The latter came forward with such warranty, and proved that the Plaintiff's husband had been hung for felony at Coventry. This was fatal to her claim.^^^ On the whole, at Michaelmas, 1256,*^^ Walter le Palmer is entered on the Pipe Boll as having owed £5. for his fine for plevin, 30 merks (balance of his amercement for trespass with hounds), 15 merks " for his fine for transgression " (really for compounding as to the 518 Fines, vol. ii, p. 76. '" Eot. Fip. 38 Hen. III. *" Supra, page 51. *" Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 1 dorso. '2« Ibidem, Placita CoroniB, memb. 4 dorso. ™ Ibidem, memb. 8 dorso. '22 Eot. Pip. 40 Hen. Ill, Salop. 372 BRIDGNORTH. non-appearance of his Father Hamo at the Assizes)j and 40 merks "for having the lands and chattels of his Father" (really, for recovery of his own lands and chattels) . The whole of these debts were paid, before the Sheriff closed the year's account at the Exchequer, the Abbots of Buildwas and Shrewsbury having been the Debtor's Sureties. His occurrence in 1260 has been already noticed.^^' In Easter Term, 1263, he acknowledges, in the law-courts at Westminster, a debt of 8 merks, as due from him to Jane, widow of Hugh de Beckbury.^^ The fine, levied on the same day, between the parties shows the said debt to have been for some land in Old- bury. It has already been set forth. ^^^ Later in the century he occurs as purchasing various parcels of land in the Manor of Astley Abbots, from Adam, son of Matilda English (Anglicse). In the troubled times of which we are speaking (1264-5), Master Walter le Palmer's political sympathies were not those of his family or native town. His previous antagonism with the law was of a kind which is found not unfrequently to generate sentiments of disloyalty. — In the year 1266 or 1267, and before the famous "dictum de Kenilworth" was issued, Roger de Somery and Walter de St. Omer were commissioned, as Justiciars in the County of Salop, to settle amercements and fines on those whose lands had been granted away, or seized, by the Crown, because of the late disturbances. The business of these Justiciars in Shropshire was very trifling; indeed, the total disloyalty of the County may be measui'ed by an arrear of amercements (viz. £17. Ss. 4 . ^ !^ £S o= c.q fe OM w HI HI o s r> 66 CD ^■^,-, o to Q a en so ,_. O B 48 370 BRIDGNORTH. {b) John de Castello, his eldest Son and Heir, was a person mucli more prominently concerned in local affairs. His earliest occurrence is perhaps his attestation, as John Fitz William, of a Borough deed, which passed during the Prepositure of Hugh de Eudon and Simon de Abbatia (called Prgetors) .^^^ He has already occurred as Visor of works in the Castle under the years 1250 and 1257 ;^^* he also sat as-4th Juror on the Borough Inquest of 1255.535 His appearance at the Assizes of January, 1256, will presently be particularized. His tenure in the Low Town, by transfer of the seigneury of which he became a tenant of Haughmond Abbey, has already been mentioned. ^'^ On 6 March, 1258, Giles de Erdington is deputed to try a suit of novel disseizen, which Philip de Roulle and his wife had against John del Chastell, about a tenement in Bruges. ^^^ This suit seems to have led to a final Concord, at Westmiaster, whereby, on July 8, 1 259, " Philip de Roweley and Isabella, his wife, conceded, as of their own gift, to John de Chastel de Brugg and Alice, his wife, 19 acres inNortleg (Nordley),Dunfowe, Brugg, and Aldebyre (Oldbury), whereof had been a plea of tvarranty. — To hold to John and Alice and their heirs, of PhiKp and Isabella and the heirs of Isabella, at \d. rent, and services due to the chief lords. John gave for this a sore sparrow-hawk."^^^ At the Forest Assizes of February, 1262, John de CasteUo de Brug was pardoned an amercement which was chargeable on him for being with greyhounds, in the King's Forest, without war- rant.^^' At the Assizes of October, 1272, the Borough Jurors returned him as a seller of wine " against the Assize."'^ He attests Borough deeds in 1273, and apparently in several subsequent years, but he was dead in 1294 ; for, by deed dated 3 June in that year, a reserved rent, chargeable on land in the " fields of Brug," is so reserved to the " heirs of John de Castro.^' '^ He also, as John de CasteUo, attests a deed which conveyed land within the bafliwick of the Castle, and while Hamo le Pahner and Reginald le Craugy were Provosts. 53< Supra, p. 257. ^ Supra, p. 306. =36 Supra, p. 359. =3r Pat. 42 Hen. III. *38 Fedesfinimm, 43 Hen. Ill, Salop. M' Placitaforestce, 46 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 recto. ^^ Placita Corona, memb. 50 dorso. BRIDGNORTH. 377 (c) Of William, Brother of John de Castello, something has been akeady stated.^*! As Brother of Alice le Gaugy, he will, however, occur presently under date of 1356. {(T) Henry de Castro, another Brother, attests, as such, with John de CasteUo a deed which passed before 1273.5*3 He also attests deeds of 1277. (e.f.ff.) That which I have to say of a fourth Brother, Alan de Castello, and of their Sister Alice, first the wife, and then the widow, of Reginald le Gaugy, shall, as affording the chief points of interest in the story of this family, be told under one head. Reginald le Gaugy, who had married Alice, sister of John de Castello, was a person of some property in the Borough. He had a house in, the High Street, lands in the fields towards Oldburyand Tasley, and in the fields of Brug generally. Having served the office of Provost with Hamo le Palmer, he was murdered at Worfield, in the year 1250 or 1251, leaving a widoWj a son, apparently of full age, and four daughters under age. ^■^ Supra, p. 113, where the deed sup- posed to be "about 1221" should perhaps be put latei?. 642 rpjjjg ^ggij jg tjjg £j.gt; Qf three conse- cutive charters which involye some points of interest connected with former subjects. I therefore give extracts of the three. — 1. Kobert Tedbald grants to Henry, Son of Wydo de Glaselejj for 10 merks pur- chase-money (in gersummam) all the land, tenement, and building in the mil of Brug, which lay between the land of Elyas le Hunte and the land which was Richard Togesel's, and which extended from the King's Street to the land which said Bichard Togesel held of the Brethren of the Lepers of St. James. — Sent Id. — Witnesses : William Bonamy, Henry de Arnleg, Provosts ; John de Castello, Henry his Brother, Bmeric Tinctor, Wil- liam Madok, Eobert le Knyht, William Canne, &c. 2. Avelina widow of Eobert Fitz Tedbald, for two merks, quits to the same Henry de Glaseley all right in the same premises, " which were given to her at the door of the Church of Tetenhale in frank marriage when she was espoused to said Eobert."-— Witnesses : Eoger Mtz Eoger de More and William Bolding, Provosts (which proves the date as about 1273), Emeric Tinctor, Henry de Arnleg, Wil- Ham Madok, Eoger Chete, Elyas le Hunte. A subsequent deed by Hem'y de G-lazeley will have transferred his interests to Nicholas Palmer, for, by indenture — 3. Nicholas Palmer leases (tradidi) to Eichard, Son of Nicholas de Mose, his tenement between the house of Elyas le Hunte, and of Eichard, Son of Eichard Togesel, and extending from the King's Street to the land of said Eichard Togesel. Eent 6s.; with a covenant as to waste and arrears of rent. — Witnesses : John ftefirey, Eobert le Knit, Provosts; William de Kantreyn, John de Castello, William Bonamy, William Madok, Nicholas le Eus, &c. 378 BRIDGNORTH. In the course of the year 1251, Robert, son of the deceased, challenged (appellavit) Giles de Norfolk, a Clerk, and others with this murder. A precept issued from the courts at Westminster, on Nov. 3, 1251, ordering the Sheriff of the County to send this appeal before the King's Council, for further hearing.^** It would appear that this removal was at the instance of Alice le Gaugy, widow of the deceased, whom his Son Robert had included in his challenge as an accessory. From statements made by Alice to the Council, the challenge was declared null, and Robert^ pro- nounced in misericordid}'^ His amercement (half a merk) for a " false challenge" appears charged against him on the Pipe Roll of 1254.645 But this apparent disposal of the whole question seems to have been by no means final. On November 2, 1252, " Alice who was wife of Reginald de Gaugi gave the King 1 merk of gold (equal to £6. 13*. 4>d. of the then currency) for having pardon as to the death of her husband, of which she was appealed. " She had paid the fine to Peter de Chaceporc and was quit."'*'^ This fine ehcited the following Royal Patent, dated at Sandeford, 7 November, 1252.— " Henry d : g : 8sc. We have pardoned Alice, who was wife of Reginald le Gaugy, the suit of our peace, which pertaineth to us, for the death of the said Reginald, her husband, whereof she was under challenge. — So, however, as that she shall make peace with his friends (cum parentibus) and shall take her trial if any one shall choose to sue her." When the Justices m Eyre visited Shrewsbury, in January, 1256, Alice le Gaugy was accordingly put again upon her trial, but she produced the King's Charter and was apparently acquitted of this charge, though (as we shall presently see) she was implicated in another. At the same Assizes (1256) the vill of Worfield was amerced 1 1 shillings for " not making pursuit," after the murder of Reginald le Gaugy. Also^ — °" Flacita apud Westm., 36 Hen. Ill, memb. 32. ^* Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 12 dorso, where the whole of the proceed- ings in this ease are detailed. I, there- fore, give farther references only where another document confirms or illustrates that recital. "5 Rot. Pip. 38 Hen. Ill, Salop. *« Mot. Mn. 37 Hen. Ill, memb. 24. BRIDGNORTH. 379 Alicia de Amelicot, accused as accessory to the same murder^ was declared " not guilty." Also — Egidius (Giles) de Norfolk, parson of Burford, William de Bruges and John de Castello, were put upon their trial for the same crime. The two former, being Clerks, pleaded their privilege as such, and were delivered over to the Spiritual Power; the Jury having first pronounced them to have been Accessories (consenti- entes morti). John de Castello (Alice le Gaugy's Brother) came and took his trial, and was found " not guilty." Furthermore, the Jurors of Brug recorded at these Assizes, that Alan Pitz William (another of the Brothers of Alice le Gaugy), having for some second offence been arrested and imprisoned in the Castle of Brug, had obtained a King's writ, whereby he was given in charge to twelve Sureties, who were botmd to produce him before the King's Justices, when in eyre. Now (January, 1256) they produced him not. And so those Sureties (viz. Walter Aurifaber, William Bonami, Roger Lamberd, Robert Faber, Robert Tinctor, Nicholas le Porter, Nicholas le Sallowe, Almaric Tinctor, Stephen Knotte, William Fitz Richard le Pescur, Roger Feyrchild, and Richard Bacun) were pronounced in misericurdid. Trial was, however, held on the absent Defendant. He (Alan Fitz William) was found to have been guilty of Reginald le Gaugy's murder, but it was also given in evidence that he had crossed the sea to Ireland, and was there dead, according to report. The second offence for which Alan Fitz William should have taken his trial at these Assizes must now be detailed. His Sister Alice le Gaugy, being herein also accused as an accom- plice, her trial will better give the facts than any statement as to her absent or deceased Brother. She was charged with having entertained (pro receptacione) Alan de Castello, her Brother, who was a Robber. " Alan," it was said, " left her house with the intention of committing the robbery in question. He murdered the Lady of Shustock (Warwicksh.) and then returned to the house of his Sister ; so she was suspected of taking part."^*^ " Alice being hereupon asked in what way she chose to acquit herself of this charge, said that she dared not, and would not, put herself upon any Inquisition or Jury." — So the Court ordered her back to prison. — "■^ Assizes at Salop, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 10 recto. 380 BRIDGNORTH, However, -while tlie Justices were apparently still at Shrewsbury, Alice came forward and offered a fine of 10 merks to have " a good Inquisition whether she were guilty of the entertainment of Alan her Brother, who had been attached for robbery at Schuttestok."5*8 "And 12 Jurors of the Hundred of Munslow with 12 of the Hundred of Overes, said that Alice was ' not guilty/ but that this charge was made against her by instigation (per abbettum) of Richard, Son of Hamo Palmer, of Bruges, and his friends, by reason of certain strifes which had been between said Richard and WiUiam the Brother of Alice." Further, at the same Assizes, " Roger Fitz Henry, of Brug, William de Gardino, Amaric Tinctor, and Henry Fitz Amice, accused of robbery and the entertainment of robbers, appeared to defend themselves and put themselves upon a Jury of the country, which pronounced them ' not guilty.' " Also John le Teinturer fined 40*. " to be under plevin, because he was infirm and might not be carried." These statements, together with those which have previously been made as to the family of Palmer, will show that at these Assizes (of January, 1 256) every principal name in the Borough of Brug, was implicated in, or suspected of, some enormous crime. It is singular that Almaric le Teynturer (as Bailiff), William le Palmer, Henry Fitz Avice, and William Bonamy (as Jurors) served on the same occasion.^*' The disorganization produced in a smaU. town by such a general complicity in real or suspected guilt, and by such adversity of interests and natural affinities, cannot well be over-imagined. But, to return to our immediate subject : — I suppose that at this period Robert, Son of Reginald le Gaugy, the accuser of his Mother (or Step Mother) Alice, was deceased, leaving Alice and her four daughters (now under age) the sole representatives of the family of Reginald. We have already seen the same four daughters vainly impleading Master Walter le Palmer for " disseizing them of a tenement in Brug," and this at these very Assizes of January, 1256.^^" **' This fine is entered on the Sheriffs' Boll for the two years ending MiohaelmaB, 1259, as one of 10 merks, due, from Alice widow of Reginald le Gtaugy, for " having au Inquisition under pledge of WiUiam Bonamy and John de Castro.'' {Uot. 43 Hen. III.) "9 Supra, p. 306. *'" Supra, p. 371. BRIDGNORTH. 381 All that I shall further say on the subject is, that 5 separate Charters still exist, whereby, at or about this period, Isabel, Jane, and Floria (Florence), three of the said daughters, sell several parcels of their lands to Walter Palmer, Burgess, of Brug ; that Jane, in a sixth charter, sells a parcel of laud to Koger Tinctor; and that Alice, their Mother, in four other charters, releases her claim of dower in the premises conveyed by her daughters' deeds, or else sells independently and on her own account. In one of the latter cases, and in the event of her non-ability to warrant a certain piece of land in the " fields of Brug" she vouches as a contingent security " the house which she had in High Street between the house of Hamo Palmer and Richard Bacim." Her seal attached to one of these deeds proves her pedigree. The Legend is " S'Alisie fil Willi fil Henrici.""i PITZ ROBERT of BRTJG. Alan Fitz Robert, alias Alan Mtz Avice. Occurs 1221. Living 1235. Defs. 1240. Robert de Brug. =p Avice. Robert Pitz Avice, Defwactus 1251. Henry Ktz Robert, = Henry Ktz Avice. Occurs 1240. I Roger Fitz Henry. Occurs 1240. Living 12Y7. The above genealogy, and a few facts connected with the same, seem to be worth insertion. — *^' In the year ending Michaelmas, 1256, Alice de Gaugi had fined 40«. for some writ {Rot. Pvp. 40 Hen. Ill, Salop) ; but it does not appear on what specific account. One Alice de (Jaugi, and Walter her Son, occur in Stafibrdshire, in April, 1269 (Fines, vol. ii, p. 486). If she be the same person as has been mentioned in the text, her Son Walter vriU probably have been by a second husband. The retention of the name of her first husband by his widow, after her second marriage, was no singularity, though not quite so common as that of her maiden name by a wife. 382 BRIDGNORTH. The Barbican which in the close of King John's reign was added to Bridgnorth Castle^ interfered with the private rights of Alan Fitz Robert. I have already quoted King Henry Ill's order for compensation of the said Alan^ which issued, on July 4, 1321, to the Sheriff of the County. 5*52 It would seem that the King's order was not at once attended to ; for when, in November of the same year, the Justices in eyre came to Shrewsbury, they issued a second precept, in similar terms, to the same Sheriff (the Earl of Chester) .^^^ These same Assizes also interested Alan Fitz Robert in another way. Henry Harshonail sued him for a messuage in Brug. The Defendant requiriug view threof, the cause was adjourned to the morrow of St. Hilary (Jan. 14, 1232), when the same Justices proposed to be at Warwick. On the said day, at Warwick, Alan Fitz Robert essoigned himself; and a further day was given ; viz. the quinzaine of Easter, to both parties. ^^* However, they seem to have settled the matter sooner ; for by fine, at Warwick, dated the same day (Jan. 14) Ralph Horsnad, Plaintiff, remits his claim on a messuage in Bruges whereof was suit-at-law, to Alan Fitz Robert, tenant thereof, the latter paying 3 merks.^^' This will show Alan Fitz Robert to have been possessed of other property within the Borough, besides that for which he was entitled to compensation. He was, in fact, largely concerned in the affairs of the Town, often in attendance at the Borough Court, and once he occurs in the office of Prcetor, as before stated. ^^^ In 1331, Alan Fitz Avice de Brug appears as Surety for the fine of William de Aldenham already noticed.^^'' He was the same person with Alan Fitz Robert. It does not appear when Alan obtained his promised compensation; but, at Michaelmas, 1333, the land which had been " Alan Fitz Avice' s," before the Castle Gate, had been leased by the fcrown to another for three years past.^^^ Alan's equivalent was given him Lessee of tjiis land was Roger Fitz Robert of Hynestook, and his annual rent was, in 1232,1 sHIling. This Lessee was ancestorof another Borough family, that of Fairohild (usually written VeirchUde). Hence the Inquisition of November, 1274, states that Roger Veirchild held a certain messuage in Brug, in fee, of the Lord King in capite, rendering 12 pence annuaUy at the Exohe- 552 Supra, p. 255. 553 Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 7 recto. 55'' WanvieTc Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 1 recto. 555 Pedes finirnn, 6 Hen. Ill, Salop. 55ii Supra, p. 313. 557 Supra, p. 80. 553 Rot. Pip. 16 Hen. III. The Crown BRIDGNORTH. 383 in Morf Forest; but in this same year (1332) he obtained a Royal Charter, which subjected his new acquisition to an annual rent of 1 shilling. Henry Ill's Charter is as follows : — " Henry, d. g. &c. Know ye that we have granted to Alan Fitz Eobert, of Brug, and his heirs, that those eight acres, which we caused to be assigned to him in Warlagh-hay, in our Forest of Morf, in exchange of his houses and land, which he lost by reason of the barbican of our Castle of Brug, be for ever quit of regard, waste, and view of Foresters, Verderers, and of all our Servants. Eendering therefore per annum 12c?. at our Exchequer, by hands of our Bailiffs of Brug, for all service &c. Given at Worcester, 5 June, in the 16th year of our reign.'^^^* And this rent appears on the Pipe-RoU of Michaelmas, ] 233, for the first time, as paid into the Exehequer.^"" So again in 1234 and 1235 ;'^i but the entry is then discontinued. Alan Pitz Robert was succeeded by his Brother Henry, — called Fitz Robert or Fitz Avice indifferently. On Nov. 12, 1240, a fine was levied at Salop^^' between Robert, Clerk, Plaintiff, and Henry Pitz Robert, tenant, of 4 acres of land and 8 acres of wood in Bruges and Wurdefeud (Worfield) whereof was an assize of " mort d'ancestre." Henry acknowledged the right of Robert, whereon Robert, at request of Henry, conceded the premises to Roger, Son of Henry, who was to pay an annuity of 1 merk to Robert for life, and then to hold the same, in fee and inheritance, " of the chief Lords," In 1249, Henry Fitz Robert is entered on the Pipe Roll as having paid the annual/erm of 12^. on 8 acres of land.^^^ Again, in 1251, he discharges the same for the preceding and the current year, and continues the payment annually till the year 1255 inclu- sive, when the entry again ceases. ^^* As Henry Fitz Robert he appears fifth Juror on the Inquest of 1255,^^^ and as Henry Fitz Avice sat as seventh Juror of the Borough quer but the jurors knew not the time when the tenure originated. {Hot. Smid. vol. ii, p. 88.) The tenure was curious, the only one in the Borough whereupon a money-rent, payable by an individual, had been reserved by the Crown. 559 Cartas Antiques apud Turrim Land. PP. 29, and CaletiA. Rot. CdHamm, p. 49. 5«o Rot. Pip. 17 Hen. Ill, Salop. 561 Ibidem, 18, 19 Hen. III. ««2 Pedes finium, 25 Hen. Ill, Salop. This Eobert, Clerk, may possibly be the same with Robert ITitz Avice of the pedigree, and so Brother of Henry Fitz Robert. If so, he was dead in 1251, having been possessed of some ground in High Street, of which, in 1273, Henry Pitz Roger was the owner. ^^ Rot. Pip. de eisdem annis, Salop. SS'' Ibidem. ■''''■'' Hot. Bimd. vol. ii, p. 59. 49 384 BRIDGNORTH. at the Assizes of 1256/^^ when also both he and his Son, Roger Fitz Henry, were acquitted of the charges of robbery, and entertainment of robbers, before recited.^^'' In 1259, Henry Pitz Robert is mentioned as a Tenant in Wyte- bume Street, and this is the latest notice I have of him while living; for though the Pipe Roll of 1267 charges 12 years arrears of 12d. annual rent against the name of Henry Fitz Robert, ^^^ and the Roll of 1273 charges 18 years to the same person,^*' it is clear that he was dead, being spoken of, as " sometime tenant," in deeds of the period. The succession of his Son (in the absence of any payment on account of this annual ferm) was not recognised on the Pipe- RoUs.570 The latter, Roger Fitz Henry, occurs as a witness of Borough- deeds in 1265, 1273, and 1277, in which last year he was a holder of land near the Standelf, as appears by a deed already recited.^'^i With him we dismiss the subject. '86 Supra, p. 306. '*' Supra, p. 380. — where he is written Henry Mtz Amice. 5«8 Sot. Pip. 51 Hen. Ill, Salop. '«» Mot. Fip. 1 Edw. I, Salop. '"• Even where a recurrent debt, due to the Crown, was regularly paid, the later Pipe BoUs of Henry Ill's time are not always evidence that the person entered as paying such debt was alive. Many in- stances of the contrary occur. The only solution of this inconsistency seems to be, that the Clerk of the Pipe being mainly attentive to matters of revenue, and there- fore looking chiefly to the due entry of each proper item, in some form or other, was contented to copy from former EoUs the names, of several Accountants. This was particularly the case with Scutages, many of which are entered as having been paid by specific persons, years after their 5" Supra, p. 362. 385 INDEX OF PLACES. *f* The name of each Place, which has formed the subject of a distinct notice, is printed in Capital Letters. Reference to the page, or pages, of such distinct notice is made by the larger figures. The abbreviation v. stands for " vide," ■». for " note.'' A. Abdon, 150 », 210. Ackleton, 4S. Acton Eound, 188. — — Church, 183. Albrightou, 19, 112, 279, 356. (juita Salop), 199, 200. Albynes, The, 46 n, 54. Aldebyr, v. Oldbury. Albenham, 31, 36, 41, 70, 79-83, 232, 238. , Chapei of, 38 », 83. AlNOCBSTEETT HUITDBED, 17, 20-24, 35, 103, 151, 152. Abewas (Staff.), 249. Alveley, 157 «, 344, 345, 346. Chuech, 109, 120-123. Peebend, 117,120-123, 338». Amboise, 168. Angemar, 167. Anglesey, 112, 243. Apley, 44. Arundel (Sussex), 170. AsTiET (Abbots), 28, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43-49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 70, 78, 125, 212, 362 », 367, 368, 370, 372, 373. Chuech, 48-49, 115. AsTiET Pabta, 28, 30, 43, 49. Aston (juxta Newport), 251. Aston (Botteeel), 19, 67, 112, 215, 222-229. Chuech, 228-229. Aston (Eyee), 19, 36, 39, 41, 60, 109- 210. Chapel, 38 », 140, 200, 206-210. Aston Richant (Line. Dioc), 222. Atcham, 111. Bridge, 44 n. B. Badger, 19, 24, 45, 46, 111. Balaon (France), 243. Barrow, 150 n. Bascherch Hundred, 17, 23. Basqueville (Normandy), 231. Battle Abbey (Sussex), 252. Beekbury, 112. Berrington, 211. Berwick (&reat), 166, 167, 170, 172, 173, 174, 186, 190. Berwyn, The (North Wales), 262. Beverley Minster (Yorksh.), 340. BiiLiNaSLET, 28, 30, 35, 36, 39, 64-67. Chuech, 38 », 66-67. BUsington Priory (Kent), 340. Bilsley (GHoucest.), 64 ». Binnall v. Bunewall. Bishton, 19. Blythe Castle (Notts.), 241. Bobbington, 109, 279, 328, 334, 335, 336. Church, 335, 336. Bolas, 128, 129. Bold, 128, 129, 150 «, 151-159. Chapel, 168-159, 229 ». Bolebec, 18, 24,128-130, 133 n. Boningale, 128, 129. BoschervUle (Normandy), 231. Boscobel, 128, 129. Boseham (Sussex), 247 ». Bourdeaux, 121 ». Bradford Hundred, 7 ». Bradwardine (Heref ), 231, 234, 235, 238, 239. Bramsbury, 131. Brewood, Black Nunnery of, 176. , White Nunnery of, 229, 306, 346, 361, 362. Bridge- Walton, 29, 31, 41, 45, 70, 79. , Peeebhd of, 71», 73-75, 97 n, 274, 337. 386 INDEX OF PLACES. Bbidgnoeth, 31, 33, 41 », 47, 58, 59,70, 83-84, 112, 113, 114, 115 «, 116,124, 125, 215, 241-384. , BoKOTiGH of, 200-820. , Beewood Tentjeb in. 361-362. 363. -, Bridge of, 344. -, Btjild-was Tenuee in, -, Cann HaU, 370 ». Castle, 131, 132, 140, 205, 215, 227, 242-252, 253-289, 301, 304, 312, 355, 356, 368, 371, 374, 376, 379, 382, 383. Castle, Church in the, v. Beidgnoeth, St. Leonaed's Chttech, 114, 253, 340-343, 362 «, 368. , Saint Maey Magda- lene's Chuech, 39, 70, 71-78, 86,87, 88, 97, 107, 114, 116, 117-126, 253, 294, 321-340, 342 j», 345 ». , SeTern-Bank there, 33, 352, 369. Kiver there, 360, 361, 368, 370. , South -hridge, u. Beug Paeta. Saint Mary Magdalene. HiU, 369. , New Chapel in the, 323. -, Cowgate, 346% 368. -, Ebanoiscan Feiabt of, 384. 362-363. -, Spital Street, 344, 350 k. -, Standelf, The, 362, 369, -, Templaes' Tenuee in, , Town WaUs of, 299, 302, 354, 357, 362 ». , Whitburn, or Eaven, 345 », 350-352, ., Friars' Caves, 350, 351. , Hatjghmond Tenttee in, 358-359. -, Heemitage, 352-354. , High Street of, 206, 363, 364, 366, 367, 368, 370, 374, 377, 381, 383 ». , Hoc- or Hook-field, near. 369, 373. , Hungary, or Saint Mary's, Street, 314, 368. , Lecehne, or Listley, Street, 369. 359-861. -, LlLLESHALL TeNUEE in. -, Little Bridge Street, 354. , Little Beug, near, u. Beug Paeta. , Low Town of, 343, 351, 359, 370, 376. -, Maladrerie (The Old) there, 347 «, 368, 370 n. , Mill Street, 343, 370. , North-gate of, 369. -, Reymund's Ditch near. 347 «. ■ , Saint James's Hospital, 342 n, 344, 345 n, 354, 847-350, 370. , Saint John's Hospital, 125, 343-347j 349, 351, 360, 370. , Saint John's Street, 343. Street, 354, 357, 368, 369 », 384. , Withlakesweir, near, 361, 362. Brknstree Hundred, 19, 24. Bristol, 266, 268, 270, 302. Brockton, 19, 50, 111, 360. Brokton, 118 ». Bromley Regis (Staff.), 86, 88, 89, 91,92, 93, 98, Broseley, 19, 111, 240. Brotherton (Yorkshire), 154. Brug, Brugia, or Bruges, v. Bridgnorth. Beug Paeta, 126 », 279, 354-358, 359, 364, 368, 369. Brumlega (Sussex), 170. Brycge, 105, 131. Buildwas Abbey, 42, 306, 363. BuNEWAiL, 43, 60-63. Burcot, 109. Burchton (near Claverley), 334, 335. Buris (France), 107. Burton (Claverley), v. Bui-chton. Burton (near Wenlock), 112, 223. Bui-ton (Staff.), 249 n. Burwarton Church, 146 n. G. Calve'ston 27, 68 ; i>. Cold Weston. Canterbury Cathedral, 168. Canteen or Canteetn, 29, 43, 45, 47, 58-59, 362 », 367, 368. Carrechova Castle, 242, 271 «. Caus Castle, 130 «. INDEX OP PLACES. 387 Caui, Pays de (Normandy), 129, 231. Cerlecote, v. Charlcott. Chacepel Haye, 257. Chaemott, 19, 24, 151-159. Chelemodeston (Norwich Dioc), 77 ». ChelmarBh, 198 ». Chester, 64, 269 », 270, 271 ». , Diocese of, 118, 338, 342. Chetton, 19, 35 », 109, 139, 161, 164- 184, 188, 191, 198 », 214, 226. Chtjech, 143, 161, 172, 178, 183-184, 187. Chinon (Touraine), 76. Chirbury, 131. Chirk, 271 ». Church Stretton, 51, 871 . Ciratonia, v. Siefton. Clarendon (Wilts), 153. Claverley, 295, 327, 344. Church, 109, 116, 324, 328, 329-338. , Pebbend or Deaneey of, 326, 327, 828-338, 340. Clee Hill, 17, 67, 222, 226. Cleobury (Mortimer), 241, 248, 249. Cleobury (North), 215, 232. Clotlegh, 94. Cluu, Barony of, 153. Castle, 226. Coalbrookdale, 67 n.. Cold Norton (Osfordshire), 67 w. Cou) Weston, 27, 28, 30, 67-69. Chtjech, 69. Colebatch, 128, 129. CoLBMOEE, 29, 30, 43, 45, 56. ConedoTre Hundred, 129. Corfham, 77, 109. Corfton, 152. Corve, 140. Cota, 223. C6tentin, The (Normandy), 133. Counsylth (N. Wales), 291. Coventry, 371. Ceibdon, 139, 142, 143, 183, 191-194, 196, 198 «. Ceoite, 28, 30, 41, 43, 45, 50-52, 53, 79. Crokesden Abbey, 306, 364. Culmington, 77 n, 109. Culvestan Hundred, 152. Cumb (Herefordshire), 234. Cundover, 247. D. Danesforij, 105. Daventrey (Northants), 159. Dee, BiiTer, 64 n. . Deepdaie, 43 », 46 », 63-64, 124. Den, 156. Deuxhili,, 19, 192, 193, 196, 217, 219- 222. . Chuech, 198 «, 217, 218, 220-222. Devizes (WUts), 268. Diddlebury, 77, 228, 371, 373. Dinan (Britanny), 130. Ditton (Priors), 150 «, 263, 264 », 322. Dive, Eiver (France), 107. Doningfcon, 19, 35 «. Dover, 282. Droitwieh, 273. Dudmaston, 152, 310, 327, 367. Dunfowe, v. Dunvall. DuNTALi, 29, 30, 43, 45, 55-56, 376. Durham, 271 «. Dyganwy, (N. Wales), 268. E. Eaedingtojst, 19, 103-104, 109, 113, 115, 128, 129, 130, 134, 327. , Peebend of, 117-120. (Warwickshire), 103. Eardisley (Heref.), 231. Easthope Church, 183. Eaton (Conatantine), 133, 136. Eddisbury, 131. Eggelawe Castle, 271 n. EUesmere, 203, 257, 278, 279, 294 ». Elnoestrul Hundred, v. Alnodestrui. Elvein, or Elvel (N. Wales), 265 k, 305. Ely, Isle of, 283. Ertendun (Surrey), 171. Eaton, V. Aston. EuDoif (Buenell), 19, 132, 139, 166, 170, 183, 185-189. Eudon (George), 184. Evesham, 286, 310, 340, 373. Ewdness, 344. F. Fainteee, 19, 139, 159-164, 196 n. Feckenham (Worces.), 265, 266, 273. Fertecote, 28, 33, 68. Ford (near Aston Botterel), 227. Ford (near Shrewsbury), 205, 295. 388 INDEX OF PLACES. Pouswardine, v. Fulwardine. Franbarew (Warw.) 193. Frankley (Woroes.), 190. Frankwell (Shrewsbury), 331 n. Prelleberi (Hants), 170. Ftjlwabbinb, 19, 133, 134 », 137-138. Or. Gasoony, 305. Gflbert, Mount, 17, 94, 310. OrjAxsmY, 19, 35 «, 73% 132, 139, 185, 191, 210-218. Chtjbch, 217-218,220,221. Gloucester, 28 », 248, 249, 264, 275, 281, 283, 305, 332. Grinshill, 159 ». Guldeford, 167. Gunthorp (Notts), 270. H. Hadley, 86, 91, 92, 95. HadnaU, 227, 228. Hagenet Castle, 169. Haghmon Abbey, 155, 201, 202, 203, 212, 251, 306, 358-359, 364, 876. Hamestodesbal, 125. Harcott, 199, 200, 203, 204. Harebache, 62, 64. Haeestobd (or Haepswoob), 28, 30, 41, 45, 70, 78-79, 182. Haseldene, 43 n, 64. Hatton (Cold), 67 n. Hatton (near Shiffnal), 19 his, Hatton Hine-heath, v. High Hatton. HAtraHTOif (near Morville), 28, 30, 41, 43, 45, 51, 52-53, 62, 79. Havering (Essex), 266. Haye, La (Astley Abbots), 43 n, 63. Hatb, La, (Eardington), 123-126. Haywood (Aston Botterel), 227. Haywood (Staff.), 265. Hazlewood, 216. HeUdon (Northants), 237, 239. Hbnlet, 29, 30, 33, 36, 49, 84, 98, 101-102. Hereford, 64 n, 201, 264, 285. Higford, 111. High Hatton, 86, 91, 92, 94, 97. Hintlesham (Suffolk), 92. Hoc, The (Tasley), 93. Holgate, Castle and Barony of, 66, 68, 111, 149, 150, 151, 153, 156, 157, 217, 223, 310. Holgate Church, 158, 229. HoLicoTT, 135, 160, 181-182, 195, 196, 215. Hupton or Hopton, o. Upton (Ceessbtt). I. Ikenild Street, 249 ». Ireland, 379. K. Kakewiohe, 46 », 64. Kantreyn, «. Cautebn. E:enilworth, 157, 178, 286. Keri (N. Wales), 305. Kidderminster, 274, 275, 302. EraaLow, 28, 30, 41, 43, 45, 49, 51, 52, 53-54, 79, 91. Eiuver Forest, 256, 329. Manor, 266. Laitonia, 109. Lambeth, 266, 282. Lappeley andTrysul, Deanery of, 326, 336. Lawton, 235, 237, 239, 241. Lea, Eiver (Middlesex), 104. Lee Brookhirst, 355, ». Lee-Cumbrey, 87 n. Legeceastra, «. Chester. Leicester, 263 ». Lewes, 283. Lichfield, 96, 97, 249 », 264, 265, 326. Cathedral, 346. Lilleshall, 111. Abbey, 172, 306, 346, 347, 359-361. Lincoln, 318. Linley, 50, 115. London, passim. , Tower of, 333. Longnor, 211. Loughton, 227. Chapel, 183, 184. Louth (Lino.), 154. Luddeston, 326, 337, 338, v. Claverley Prebend. Ludgarshall (Wiltshire), 268. Ludlow, 130 n, 264, 289, 295, 354. , Deanery of, 69, et passim. Lutley (Staff.), 335. Lye, 29, 31, 41, 45, 70, 79, 142, 150 «. Lyons (France), 324, 325. INDEX OF PLACES. 389 M. Madeley (Staff.), 165 n. Maine (Prance), 243. Marches of Wales, The, 85 », 235 », 245, 247, 280, 282. Marlborough (WHts), 236 «, 268. Mathraval Castle, 268, 269, 271 n. Matilda, Castle (in Elvein), 277, 305. Meadowibt, 19, 91, 111, 139, 141, 146, 147 », 148-151. Medewegrene, 45, 59, 64. Meifod (N. Wales), 268. Meltesham (Wilts), 268. Mercia, 194. Mereval Abbey (Warw.), 250. Mesnil Hermer (Normandy), 32. Middlehope, 152. Middleton Priors, 81, 157. Chapel, 198«, 220, 221, 222. MiDDiETON (Sceivbn), 19, 192, 194- 198, 199. Milinchope, 109. Montgomery, 130 », 267 », 277, 278, 282, 305 ». , County of, 169. Monk Hopton, 140, 199. Monmouth, 285. MoEE, The, 125, 126-128, 130, 345 ». Morf Forest, 81, 104, 125, 127, 214, 226, 256, 299, 300, 343, 344, 346, 348, 349, 352, 353, 383. MoBViLiE, 19, 22, 25-102, 109, 123, 327. Bridge, 119 «. Chubch, 32-43, 147, 150, 209, 210. Parish, 135, 146, 209, 210, 321, 341. MOETILLE Peebehd, 70, 71-72, 312 », 339. Priory, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43. Mose, 306. Munslow Hundred, 24, 289, 380. Mutton (Staff.), 335. N. Neenton, 36 n. Netherton, 114, 115, 346, 361. Newark (Notts.) 274. New Forest (Hants), 243. Newport, 292, 295. Newton (near Ellesmere), 202. (near Stottesden), 28, 36, 158, 238, 240, 241. Norbury (Staff.), 60, 232. Nordley Regis, 109, 212, 224,289,316,344. Norfolk, 54. NoELEY (Astley Abbots), 28, 30, 43, 44, 45, 46 », 49-50, 58 », 62, 64, 376. Northampton, 267. Northwood, 225, 228, 238, 241. Norton (near Aston Botterel), 227. (near Cundover), 34. Nottingham, 264, 266, 270, 271 ». O. OiDBUEY, 19, 36, 39, 60, 84, 120 », 126, 131-136, 137, 138, 139, 185, 211, 346, 347 », 364, 368, 372, 373 376, 377. Chttbch, 38 », 134 », 135- 136, 341. Old Castle, The (Oldbury), 132. Ombersley (Worces.) 250. Onibury Church, 136 ». jDpton, V. Upton. Oseney (Oxf.), 89. Oswestry, 85 n, 134, 201, 224, 270, 271 m. Overs Hundred, 289, 380. Overton, 195. Ovre, 128, 129. Oxford, 123, 280, 302 n. P. Pain Castle (in Elvein), 265 «. Partenay (Poitou), 329. Patinton Hundred, 17, 23. Penoadayr (near Brecknock), 262. Pendeston Mill, 275», 276, 277, 303, 304, 306, 309, 310, 323 », 343. Petton, 133. Piohford, 356. 1 Mill, 358, 359. Picklebatch, 129 n. PiCKTHOBNE, 19, 83, 225, 230-241. PimhiU Hundred, 7 n. Piperherge, 167. Poitou, 329. Pontigny (France), 167 n. Pont Saint-Pierre (Normandy), 211 n. Portsmouth, 243, 266, 305 «. Poshale (Staff.), 326 ». Posthorne, 152. Preston Oubbalds, 111. Pulverbatch, 129. 390 INDEX OF PLACES. Q.. Quat, 77 n, 104, 126, 279, 306, 327. QuATFOED, 19, 77 n, 84, 104-117, 133, 213, 215, 242, 290, 321, 327, 328, 344., 345 n, 374. Chfeoh, 70 », 106, 115-117, 180, 166, 334, 337. Q.uatorp, 77. R. Eadmore (Staff.), 250, 290, 291. Reading (Berks), 299. Recordine Hundred, 129, 151, 152. Eee, Meadow (Bridgnorth), 126, 216. R&le, La (Gascony), 329. Rewin, v. Rueroft. Rochester, 273. Rode (or Rhodes), 29, 30, 43, 45, 54, 56. Roumare, Forest of (Normandy), 231. Romesley, 306, 327. Rtjoeopt, 29, 30, 43, 45, 59. Ruley or Rowley, 363. Rmnney Priory (Kent), 340. Russock (Worces.) 269. Ruthlan (N. Wales), 262, 268. Ruyton, 215. RytoD, 19, 111. S. Sabrina, 29, f. Severn (Hall). Saint Gregory of MorrUle, u. Morville. John of Lateran, Church of, 347. Martin's le Grand (London), 327. Mary's (Shrewsbury), 325, 326, 327. Michael's (Shrewsbury), 321 n. Milbiu'g, 18, u. Wenlock Priory. Osyth's Priory (Essex), 246. Paul's (London), 340. Peter's (Wolverhampton), 326,327. Saisdone Hundred (Staff.), 17. Salkeld (Cumberland), 76. Saltwood Caatle, 168, 169. Salvata, 270. Salwarp (Worces.), 111. Sandeford, 378. Sandwich (Kent), 168. Schyre, 205 n. Seez Abbey, 34, 35, 36, 65, 66, 67. Seveen (HaU), 29, 30, 43, 45, 56-57, 125. • River, 33, 360 ». Shawbury, 140. Shelve, 7». Shevyn, 221 n. Shirlot Forest, 44, 45, 46, 59, 62, 79, 80, 81, 83, 119)s, 127, 194, 203h, 214, 226. Sidbury, 138, 240. Siefton, 109. Shrewsbury Abbey, 18, v. Morvillej3as.sJm; 201, 202 », 207, 210, 213, 226, 232, 240, 250, 346, 361. Borough, 44«, 290-302 (pas- sim), 307 n, 308, 313, 315, 327, 330, 331. • Castle, 206, 254-286 (pas- sim), 335. , Friaries at (Austin, Francis- can, and Dominican), 351 «, 352 ». Shropshire, 2, 241, 242, 244, 245, 247, 252, 284, et passim. Shustock (Warw.), 379, 380. Silverston (Northants), 270. Skenefrith (Hereford Dioc), 74 n. Southwick (Hants), 88. Stafford, 131. , Archdeaconry of, 338, 342. , Royal Free Chapel of, 326, 327. Stanlei Hundred (Warw.), 17. Stanley, 29, 30, 43, 45, 55, 59. Stanton (Long), 111. Stapeley, 141, 142. Stevinton, 81. Stiperstones Forest, 140. Stockton, 19. Stoneley Abbey (Warw.), 249, 250. Stottesden, 109, 233. ~ Church, 337. Hundred, 18, 24, 38, et passim. Stourton, 273. Strata Via, 109. Stratfleur Abbey, 271. Streford, 211. Stroud (GIouc), 116 ». Sutton, Little, 241. (Haddock), 19, 44, 87 n. T. Tamworth, 131. Tasiet, 29, 30, 36, 39, 45, 4Sn, 84-101, 124, 216, 218, 369, 370. Chapel, 38 n, 97, 98-99, 341. Taswood, 373. Tedstill, 192. INDEX OF PLACES. 391 Tetenhall Church, 326, 377 «. Tewkesbury, 268. ThameB, Kiver, 104. Thonglands, 33. TiokhiU Castle, 241. Tong, 19, 35 n. Torneumb, 167. Toteneye (Aston Boterell),227. Treutham Priory, 328. Troam (Prance), 107. Trysul, Deanery of, 324 », 326. Tugford, 28, 33, 68. U. tTckington, 111. TJffington, 152. Fltonb, v. UpToisr (Cbessett). Underdon, 29, 31, 36, 41, 45, 70, 79. , Pebbehb of, 75-78, 122, 839. Upton, 36. TJpToif (Cebssbtt), 19, 36 », 137, 138- 147, 150, 151, 160. —^ Chitkch, 146-147. UpTOif sijPEE Edge, or TJpton Wabiit, V. TJpioH" (Cebssbtt). Verneuil (Normandy), 118. Vezelay (France), 168. Tymwy, River, 268. W. Wadley, 212, 214. Walkerslow, 65, 213. Wallingford, 248, 249. .Wallflbatch, 129 n. WaITOH", v. BEIDflE WaLTOIT. Walton (Suffolk), 169. Warlagh-hay, 383. Warwick, 90, 131, 364, 873, 382. Weardsbury, 131. Welbatch, 129. Welbetre Hundred (Herefordshire), 238. Wenlock, Deanery of, 158. , Liberty or Hundred of, 19, 219, 238. Wenlock Priory, 18, 53, 103, 105 », 117, 170, 205, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223 », 230, 233, 263, 264 », 278, 306, 322, 329, 363. Weston, 28, 33, 68 n, 102, v. Cold Weston. Weston (near Monk Hopton), 199. Westminster, passim, Westwal, 164. Wetemore (near Burwarton), 227. Wheathill, 150 ». Wheaton Aston, ». Aston Eyre. Wich, 19. Wichardesok, 83. Wigmore Castle (Herefordshu'e),248, 249. Abbey, 806, 863, 364. WiUey, 19, 150 n, 240. Wincheumbe, 322 n. Winchester, 128, 268, 276, 334. Cathedral, 332, 333. Withyford (Magna), 199, 201, 202. Wimboum Churcli (Dorsetshire), 342. Windsor, 123, 244, 245, 282. Witingelega Forest (Hants), 166. Wohnere (Hants), 268. Wombridge Priory, 86, 87, 91, 92. Woodcote, 112, 223. Woodhouse (near Stottesden), 215, 228. Woodstock, 262, 264, 270, 308, 832. Woolward (Worcestershire), 269. Worcester, 140, 154, 180, 204, 247, 265, 266, 268, 273,274,278, 280, 283, 284 n, 299, 850, 383. Worf, River, 303. Worfield, 279, 295, 344, 345 n, 352, 377, 878, 383. Church, 71 », 122, 122 ». Mfll, V. Pendeston MiU. Worthing (Sussex), 137 ». Wrekin, The, 17, i>. Mount GUbert. Wrickton, 65, 197. Wroxeter Church, 73 n. Wurgh, River, v. Worf. X. Xantoigue (Saintonge, France), 339. T. York, 271 », 317 «. Cathedral, 340. 50 392 INDEX OF PERSONS. *#* In the following Index, Names which belong to Official Lists are classified in order of succession, not alphabetically. Where such Lists have been already given, in the body of the work, the Index makes general reference thereto, but does not repeat the individual Names, unless they have occurred in some other connexion. A. Abbatia, Simon de, 314, 376, o. de Ce- nobio. Abesun, v. Aubucun. Abezun, v. Aubucun. Abitot, TTrso d', Sheriff of Worcester- shire, 111. Acton, Eichard de, 82. Adam, Brother of Eudo Dapifer, 22 ». , a Monk, Brother of the Abbot (of Buildwas), 3S8. jEgelfleda, Queen of Mercia, 105, 106, 131, 132, 244 ». ^Inoth, 22. ^Iric, Alrio, or Alurio, v. Elrio. iElsi, 152, u. Elsi. ^Iward, 18 ter, 132, 133, 185, 211. iElwi, 18, 159. Agelric, Archdeacon of Worcester, 111. Ake, Jew of Brug, 311. Albemarle, Earl of, 249 n. Albert, 18, 195. Albescun, v. Aubucun. Albini, PhiEp de, 271. , William de (I), Earl of Arundel and Sussex, 247. , WiUiam de (III), 273, 298. Albinus, 44, v. Bode. Albyns, Adam de, 54 n. , John de, 54 ». Alcher, 18 (his), 195, 199, 200. ■, Descendants of, ii. Eitz Aer. Aldenham, Eolqui (de), 80. , Eulcaius de, 80, 207. , John de, 83, 115. , Walter de, 128, 320. , WiUiam de, 80, 81, 382. , William Eitz William de, 81 n, 82, 83. Aldred, Brother of Siward, 112. , son of Siward, 112. Aldreham, ». Aldenham. Alexander, Prebendary, Chaplain of Wm. de Braose, 118. , Prebendary and Physician, 121. Aleyn, Kichard, 320. Algar, 18. Earl of Mercia, 64, 165. AUechtone, v. Haughton. Ahnain, Eichard King of, 150 », 157, 281 », 310. Ah-ecumb, Robert de. Prebendary, 76. Alsi, 152, u. Elsi. Aluhton, V. Haughton. Aluric, 223, v. Elrio. Alveley, Prebendaries of, 120-123. Ambreslega (Omhersley), Maurice de, 250. Amelioot, Alice de, 379. Andrew (Astley Abbots), 44, v. Norley. Anjou, Eult, Earl of, 243. , Geoffrey Plautagenet, Earl of, 294 ». Anketill, Geoffi-ey, 301. Ansketm, Clerk of Brug, 136, 143, 145, 349 «. , Andrew, brother of, 349 n. Archetel, 18, 159. • Arderu, Sir Richard, (Clerk), 222. Ardnichun, Richard, 113, 315, v. Eitz Eve. Argeutol, Master Thomas de, Clerk and Prebendary, 76. Arley, Henry de, 309, 310, 316 quafer, 361, 368, 370, 377 «. Arras, Jane, Wife of Ralph de, 213, 214. -, Ralph de, 124, 138, 142, 213, 214, 240. 227. , Sir Ralph d', 115, 178, 179, 205, INDEX OF PERSONS. 393 Arthur, Sheriff of * *, 1 12. Arundel, Earl of, 167, 170, v. d'Albini. , Eemigiua de. Sheriff's Clerk, 52. , William de, 176, 190. Ashebome, William de, 318. Asserio, Eigaud de, 327, v. Winchester, Bishops of. Astley (Abbots), Chaplains of, 49, 62, 115, , , Henry, Chaplain of, 49, 52, 62. -, Clerk of, 311. -, Joseph Fitz Henry, Chaplain of, 49, 52, 62. , Bichard de, 57. , Nicholas Ktz Richard de, 57. Richard, Priest of, 44. Richard, Provost there. 44. 210. of, 208, 209. Aston (Botterell), Henry de, 225. , Incumbents of, 229. , Lord of, 223. , Master Richard de. Clerk, 229. , Incumbents of, 60,208, -, Peter de Hoptun, Vicar -, William, Chaplain of, 208. Atte Tate, Henry, 320. A**uard, Richard, 256. Audley, Henry d', 204, 256, 257, 361, V. Sheriffs. , James d', 205. Aubuoun, Peter de. Prebendary, 73 n, 74, 75 ». Augustine, 112, v. Austin. Aurifaber, John, son of William, 318. , Simon, 319 ter. , Walter, son of Robert, 313, 314, 341, 357, 364, 367, 379. , WilUam, 113, 314 bis, 341. Austin, 18, 112, 149. Avelun, v. Aubucun. Axmouth, WilHam de, 296. Azo, 18, 211. B. Bacun, Henry, 300, 314, 364. , Hugh, 366. , Richard, 379. , Robert, 254, 255. Badger, Philip Fitz Stephen de, 44, 45, 46. , Philip de (1291), 68. , Roger de, 60, 299. , Roger de (1301), 158. , William de, 370. Bagot, Walter, 320. BaiUal, Raynald, 109. Baldwin, Walter (of Norley), 38 m. Baliol, Jooeline de, 249, 250. Balistarii, 266. Bangor, Robert Bishop of, 60, 98, 265. Barbe, Nicholas, 359. Bardeley, Thomas de, 56. Baret, Walter de, 320. Baril, John, Under Sheriff, 156, 158. Barley, * *, Prebendary, 78. BaskerviUe (Families of), 79, 80, 230, 231, 238, 240, 241. ■ , Adam de, 232. ■ — ■ , Agnes, daughter of Ralph de, wife of Hugh de Pichford, 234 n. , Hugh de (1242-1259), 240. , Hugh de (1274-1292), 241. , John de (1262-1271), 240. , John de (Lordof Pickthorn), 239. , Juliana, mother of Ralph de (of Pickthorn), 232. , Nesta de, daughter of Ralph de (of Pickthorn), 235, 237. , Nicholas de (a Norman), 231. , * * wife of Nicholas de, and niece of Gumiora Countess of Nor- mandy, 231. , Ralph de (of Pickthorn), 231-235. , * * * widow of Ralph de, wife of Roger Fitz William, 236. , Ralph de (of Eardisley), 234 ». 232. , Ralph, brother of Roger de, , Ralph de (Staff, and Heref., 1192-3), 234. , Ralph de (Warw., 1165), 234 ». , Ralph de, father of Agnes de Pichford, 234 «. , Robert de (of Erdisley), 231. , Roger de, brother of Ralph, 232. 394 INDEX OF PERSONS. Baskervflle, Eoger (I) de, Lord of Pick- thorn, 237, 240. . , Eoger (II) de, Lord of Piek- thorn, 229, 238, 239. -, Eoger, son of Eoger (II) de, Clerk, 229. , Thomas de. Lord of Pick- thorn, 225, 233-237. , Thomas de (1272), 241. , Walter de. Lord of Pick- thorn, 80, 83, 237-239. Basset, Ealph (of Drayton), v. Sheriffs. , Thomas, 264. , William, 296. Bath, Archdeacon of. Master Ealph de Witham, 184. , Bishop of, 244. , Bishop of, Josceline, 304. and Wells, Bishop of (Eobert Bur- nell), 184, v. BumeU. Baudak, Eobert de, 371. BaveKngham, Matilda, wife of Thomas de, 174, V. Tumham. , Thomas de, 174, 175, 190. Baxtere, Walter le, 320. Beauchamp, Hugo de, 293. , Waham de, 3 m, 250." Beaumes, Hugh de, 310. Becare, William le, 357. Beohe, Greoflrey de la, 359. Beckbury, Hugh de, 300. , Hugh de, 134, 371, 372. , Johanna, wife of Hugh de, 134, 135, 372. Becket, Thomas a, u. England, Chancel- lors of. Bedewine, W., Prebendary, 72. Bedewynde, Sir John, Chaplain, 222. Belesme, Eobert de, v. Shrewsbury, Earls of. Belmeis, Family of. 111, 149. , Hugh de, V. Beaumes. , Eanulf de, 149. , Eichard de, 109, 149, 150, v. Sheriffs. , Eoger de, 150. Belswardine, William de, 189. Bending, Adam de, 174, 175, 190. , Ahce, wife of Adam de, v. Tum- ham. -, John de, 176. Eergham, Eobert de, 319 his. , William de, 319. Berham, Alan de, and Lecya his wife, 357. Bernard, Thomas 'Pitz, 7«, 86, 88, v. Fitz Bernard. Berner, Eoger, son of William le, 370. , Wilham le, 314, 370. BemcTall, Hugh de, 273. Bernewell, u. Bunewall. Bersempton, John de, 289. Beverle, Eichard de. Prebendary, 75. Beverley, PrOTOst of, 265. Beysin, Adam de, 65, 67, 213. , Adam (II) de, 240. , AKee de, 66. , Eobert de, 65, 66, 197. , Eobert de, Clerk, 67. , Walter de, 66, 142. Billing, 64. Biriton, Andrew, Priest of, 358. Biset, Manasser, Sewer, 249, 250. Blunt, Geoffrey le, 320, bis. , Ealph, 78. Bobington, John Fitz Philip de (I), 256, 304, 335. , John Fitz Philip de (II), 94, 279, 335, 336. , PhiHp de, 256, &c. , WflUam, PrOTOst of, 335. Boeghan, Eichard, 257. Bohun, De, 238. Bois, Uufrey de, 359. Bold, Adam de, 155. •, Adam (II) de, 155, 156, 158. , Alan (deMara), brother of Herbert de la, 153, 154, 155. , Hem-y de, 157. , Herbert de la, 153, 1 54. , Hugh, Parson there, 155. , Odo de la, 152. , E. de, 153. , Eobert de, 154, 155 lis. , Eoger de la, 157. . , Warin, junior de la, 156, 157. Bolde (of Brug), Adam, 320. , Eichard, 320. Boldmg, Andrew, 125, 311, 312, 317 ter, 317 », 358. , Ealph, Provost of Brug, 114, 317. , Stephen, 362, 368. INDEX OV PERSONS. 395 Bolding, Walter, 311. , Waiiam, 216, 257, 306 lis, 309, 357, 361, 362, 367, 368, 370, 377 ». , William (Junior), 315, 316 Ns, ■ 317. Bolingliale, Hugh de, 335. BoUand, Balph, 240, v. Bossard. Bonami, Roger, 115, 317, 317 », 318 iis, 320, 358. , Wiffiam, 113 his, 257, 306, 309, 310, 315 ter., 317, 357 quater, 362, 367, 368, 377 », 379, 380. Bonewell, v. Bunewall. Bossard, Ralph, 240. Botar, Richard, of Quatford, 115. , , Maud, daughter of, 115. , , Susanna, wife of, 115. Boterell (of Aston), Avelina, wife of Philip, 225. , John (Lord of Aston 1316), 228. , John (Lord of Aston 1393), 229. , Petronilla, wife of Thomas, 227, V. HadnaU. ■ , Phihp (Lord of Aston), 225, 240. , Richard (Lord of Aston), 227- 229. , Thomas (Lord of Aston), 155, 178, 225-227, 229, 258. , Thomas, Priest, 229. , WiUiam (Lord of Aston), 224, 225. ■ , William (Lord of Alcester, &c.), 224. BotiUer, Ralph le, 296. Botide, V. Bold. Braey, AlduH de, Enight, 240. Bradwardine, Ralph de, 234. Br^nche, Johanna, wife of WiUiam, 175. , William, 175. Brantyngham, Thomas de, 338. Braose, Family of, 232, 238. '■ — , William de, 118, 235. , WiUiam de (II), 265. Breant, Fulk de, 268, 271. Brember, Thomas, Prebendary, 123. Brentemersch, Nicholas de, Chaplain, 198. Breos, v. Braose. Bret, Phflip le, 204. , Richard le (Pickthorn), 241. Breton (of Upton Cressett), Adam le, 145, * 160. Breton (of Tipton Cressett), Herbert iitz Robert le, 145. ,Robert le,145. ■ (of Bold), Richard, 154. Brewood, Black Nuns of, 176. , White Nuns of, 229, 306, 346, 361, 362. oress of the, 361. -, Alditha, Pri- -, CeciUa, Pri- oress of the, 361. oress of the, 229 n. , Margaret, Pri- -, Prioress of the. 373. Breyn, Le, v. Brun & Bruyn. Briostual, 18. Bridge- Walton, Prebendaries of,i!. Walton. Bridgnorth, Bailiffs, or Provosts of, 278, 279, 287, 298, 301, 305,306, 308, 313- 319. , Burgesses of, 290-312, 321, 327, 346, 350. , of ParKament for, 125,317, 317 m, 319-320. , Canons of, 70, 71-79, 117- 123, 126, 166, 294, 309, 310, 321-340. -, Chapter, or College, of, 345 », 353, V. Canons of. , Constable of, 71-77, 118, 121, 122, 259-261, 264, 272, 273, 275- 278, 280, 288, 289, 304, 334, 353. , Deans of, 75, 118, 322, 325, 326, 327, 328-338. , Dean of, Symon, 322. -, Franciscan Friars of, 350- 352, 345», 350-352. , Hospitallers of the Holy Tri- nity of, 343-347, 351. ■ — , Chaplaia of the, 346. — , Prior of the, 344- 845, 345 ». 113, 345 K. , Symon, , , Master of the, 344, 345. , Lepers of Saint James of, 313, 345 », 347-350, 377 «. -, Guardian of the, WiUiam, 350 n. , Prior of the, Wil- liam Beystc, 350. 396 INDEX OP PERSONS. Brigida, Adam de, 201. , Richard de, brother of Adam, 201, 212. Bristol, Baihffs of, 302. Briwere, Joan, widow of Wilhain, 277. , Wi]ham,265, 277, 299. Broc, Alice, daughter of Eaniilph de, wife of Wilham Hareng, 173, 177, 178 k, 190. , Qemence, daughter of Eanulph de, wife of William de Malesoures, 173- 178, 186, 190. , Damietta, wife of Eanulf de, 166, 170-174, 176, 185, 190. , Edelina, daughter of Banulf de, wife of Stephen de Turnham, 170-178, 185. , Fehcia, daughter of Eanulf de, v. Alice s'wpta. , Lucy, daughter of Eanulf de, wife of Wm. Maubanc, 173, 174, 177, 190. , Nigel de, 167. , Eanulf de, son of Gyn PorceU, 166- 171, 173, 176, 185, 189, 190, 264. , Roland de, 167. , Sibil, daughter of Eanulf de, wife of Wm. de Arundel, 164-177, 181, 183, 184, 186, 191. , Wido, Uncle of Eanulf de, 167. Brooton, Sibil de, 360, o. Linley. Brody, alias Weston, William, Rector of Oldbury, 136. Brok, Laurence de, 335. Brokton, William de, 118 n. Bromfield, Madoc ap Gruffyth Maylor of, 268 », 269. Bromleye, Eobert de, 310. Bromton, John, Abbot of Jorval, 106, 109 «, 322 and Addenda. Bromwio, Eichard de, 267. Bron, or Broun, d. Brun. Brooke, John, atte, Eector of Upton (Ores- sett), 142, 147. Brug & Bruges, u. Bridgnorth. Brug, Alan, son of Eobert de, 255, 256, 313, 364, 381, 382, 383. , Avice, wife of Eobert de, 381. , Henry, son of Robert de, 306 his, 357, 361, 380, 381, 383-384. , Robert de, 381. , Robert, son of Eobert de, 381, 383 n. , Eoger, son of Henry de, 362, 368, 380, 381, 383-384. Brugge, Elyas, Dean of, 324. , John de, 320. , Peter de, 342 n. , Eoger de, 320. , William, son of William de, Pre- bendary, 340. Brun, Alice, or Avice, wife of Nicholas le, 114, 312 ». , Hugh, 289. , John, 312, 318. , Nicholas le, 114, 312. , Nicholas le, Prebendary, 72, 312. , Nicholas, son of Eichard, 368. , Eichard, 368. Bruniht, 18. Brua, Eobert de. Prebendary, 121 Bruyn, c. Brun. , John, Prebendary, 77. Buckingham, John de. Prebendary, 123. Budde, Henry, 311. Buich, Eainald Pitz Turstin, 33. , Turstin, 33. Buildwas, Abbot of, 51, 363, 366, 371, 372. -, Wilham, 363. , Alan de, 359. , Prior of, Gilbert, 358. Bunewah, Henry Fitz Richard de, 49, 62. , Margery de Fonte de, 63. , Nicholas Pitz Richard de, 63. , Richard de, 62, 63. , Richard de BaUe de, 63. , Eobert de, 44, 62. , Simon de, 62. -, Walter Pitz Eichard de, 63. , WiUiam Pitz Henry de, 63. Bungi, Simon, 61, 62. Burford, Barons of. 111. Burgeys, John, 820. Burghton, Roger, Hermit, 353. Burgo, Bertram de, 53. , Hubert de, 304, 330, 332, 344. — • , William de. Prebendary, 76. BumeU, Family of, 150. , Gerin, 359. , Hugh, 184, 188, 189. , Humphrey, Clerk, 183. , Philip (I), 150. , Phihp (II), 150, 151, 184. , Phihp, Clerk, 184. , Eobert, 150, 156, 178, 179, 182, 184, V. Bath and Wells. INDEX OF PERSONS. 397 Burnell, Robert, uncle of Ealph Purcell, 166 ». , Siba, 189. Burstall, William de, Priest, 221. ButaUles, Herlewyn de, 152. Buterley, Stephen de, 176. Canne, Henry, 319, 345 n. ,WilHam, 370, 377 ». Canterbury, Archbishop of, Theobald, 249, 250. , , Thomas ^Becket, 167-169. 265 ». (elect), 76 ». 333. — , Hubert, 255,264, — , John de Gray — , Edmund, 332, , , John(Peckham), 39. Canteru, v. Cantreyn. Cantilupe, William de, 273. Cantinunt, Cecilia de, 47, v, Cantreyn. Cantreyn, Alexander de, 59. , Cecilia de, 47; , Greffrey de, 47, 48, 58, 58 n., V. De Molendino. , John de, 58, 59, 312. , John Pitz William de, 58, 341. , Philip !Fitz Alexander de, 59. , Robert Pitz John de, 59. , Sibil, wife of Geffrey de, 47, 48, V. Pitz Robert. , William de, 58, 58 n, 59, 6], 309, 310, 311, 358, 361, 362, 863, 368, 370, 377 ». .William Pitz Geffrey de, 48, 58, 58». Carbonel, Pain, 155. , Simon (of Wetenaston), 206. Carpenter, Henry le, 58. , Ealph, son of Robert le (of Criddon), 194. , Robert le, of Criddon, 194. , Walter (of Brug), 357. CasteUo, De (of Brug), 374-381. Castello (of Brug), Alan Pitz William de, 113 n, 307, 375, 377-380. CasteUo (of Brug), Alice Pitz William de, 113«, 375, 377-381. , Alice, wife of John de, 375, 376. , Henry de, 113, 375. Henry Pitz William de. 362, 375, 377. — , John de, alias John Pitz William de, 113, 257, 306, 310, 357, 358, 359, 367, 375, 376-377, 379, 380 ». , William de, alias Wil- Ham Pitz Henry de, 113, 374, 375. -, WiUiam Pitz WiUiam de, alias William de Bruges, 113, 375, 877, 879, 880. CasteUo (of Holgate), Helgot de, 18 ter, 111, 149, 150. , Herbert Pitz Hel- got de. 111, 152. -, Herbert de (1137), , Herbert de (1166), 150, 153. , Martin de, 209. , Walter de. Prebendary, 71. , Warin de, 98. 66. Castile, King of, 889. Cans, Alexander de, 191. Cans, Lords of, v. Corbet. Cementarius, Robert, 257. Cenobio, Roger de, 857, v. de Abbatia. , Simon de, 314 n, 357. Chabbenour, Margery, wife of Thomas de, 90, 91. , Thomas de, 86, 87, 90, v. Thomas de Tasley and Thomas Pitz Odo. -, Thomas (EI) de, 124. Chaoeporo, Peter de, 378. Chamberlain, IsabeUa, wife of Peter le, 163, u. Paintree. , Peter le, 161, 163. ChanceUors of England, v. England. Chaplains of Earl Roger, 26, 27, 29, 82, 85 k. Charlcott, Alan de, 157, 158. , Katherine, wife of Roger de, 157. , Philip Pitz WUham de, 158. , Roger de, 157. , William de, 157 bis, 158. , WiUiam Pitz Alan de, 157, 158. Chelleseye, Alexander de, Clerk, 221, 222. 398 INDEX OF PEESONS. Cheney, Hugh, son of Roger de, 228. Cherleton, Master John de. Priest, 228. Chester, Archdeacon of, Ealph de Maid- stone, 71 «. , Bishop of, Robert, 108, x>. Lich- field. , Earls of, 22 «, 165 ». , Earl of, Hugh (Cyvelioc), 250. , ,Ranulf (Blundevil),76M, 265, V. Sheriffs. Chete (of Brug), Roger (1230), 366. , Roger, 125, 309, 310, 370, 377 «. (1300), 125. -, Roger, son of Roger -, Stephen, 370. Chetinton, Thomas de, 172. , Sic WiUiam de, Chaplain of Quatford, 115. Chetton, Rectors of, 146, 183, 184.. Chetwynd, Adam, de, 94. CMlchehethe, G., Prebendary, 78, 122. Chordewain, Walter, 181. Christian, Robert, 232. Cinevet (of Quatford), Alice Eitz Nicho- las, 125. , Nicholas, 125. Cirencester, Ralph de, Clerk, 118. Cissor, i). Taylor. Citator, John de Exton, ». Exton. ClaTerley, Rectors of, 328-338. Cleobury (Mortimer), Seneschal of, 310. , , John de la Penne, 241. , Geoff- rey le Venour, 226. Cleobury (North), Brice de, 157. Clerk, Richard, 346 n. Clifford, Matilda de, 226. , E^ de, Knight, 226. , Roger de, 283, 284, 285. , Walter de (II), 237. , Walter de (III), 53, 77. Clun, Constable of, 226. Cnolle, Reginald de, 288. Coggesheye, Walter de, 835, 336. Cold Weston, Incumbents of, 69. Colemere, Henry de, 58 ». , John de, 56. , Simon Eitz John de, 56. CoKare, Robert le, 357. Coly, or Soly, Robert, 288. Constantine, Christiana, wife of Richard de, 120, 134. , Helyas de, 133, 135, 137. , Hugh de, 133. — , Richard de, 120, 134. , Roger de, 138. , Thomas de, 60,134,135,138. , Thomas de, Knight,124,155. , * * daughter of Thomas de, wife of Adam de Montgomery, 134. Coram, 112. Corbet (of Cans), Roger, 109, 110 », 111, 242 n, 355. -, , Robert, brother of, 224. -, Roger (1155), 250. -, Thomas, 141. Corbet (of Chetton andChaddesley),Nesta, wife of Roger, 181. , Robert, 156, 161, 178-180, 182, 188, 214, 226. , Roger, Einight, 180, 181. ^ William, brother of Robert, 179. , William, son of Roger, 181. , William, son of WiUiam, 179, 180. Corbet (of Tasley, Hadley, &c.), Ceciha, wife of Roger I, 86, 88-91, 100, 101. , Duce, 93. , Edelina, wife of Roger II, 93, 100. , Hugh, 93. , Roger I, 85-88, 100. — , Roger II, 81 m, 92-93, 97, 100. , Roger III, 97-98, 100. , Thomas I, 88, 90-92, 100. , Thomas II, 93-97, 99, 100. Corbet (of Wattlesborough), Richard, 85re, 86, 87«. * , , Roger, brother of Richard, 85 «, 86, 87 ». Corbrigg, Andrew, Hermit, 353. Corfham, Constable of, 156. CornhuU, Henry de, Chancellor of Saint Paul's and Prebendary, 118, 119 m. Cornwall, Earl of, Reginald, 250, 251, 252, 263 m. , (Richard), 825, v. Almain. Coroner (Curren, or Curwen), Hugh, Pre- / bendary, 339 ». Cound, Rectors of, 183, 184. Courtenay, Reginald de, 264. ,'Robert de, 272. INDEX OF PERSONS. 399 Corene, Ealph-de, 278. Coventry, Bishops of, v. Lichfield. Coynterel, Henry, 306 bis, 310, 814, 316, 346», 357, 367. Crasset, William, 95. Cressett, Thomas, 142 his, 144. Crida, 191. Criddon, Elias de, 194 bis. , Geoffrey de, 141, 182, 192, 193, 196, 220. , Hugh de, husband of Sibil Fitz Geffiey de, 192. -, Hugh de Holioote, 2nd husband of Sibil de (called son of Greoffrey de), 182, 192, 193. , Margaret de, 193. , Reginald Elyes de, 143, 194. -, Kichard, son of Eeginald Elyes de, 143, 194. , Kicholda, wife of William de,191. , Eobert de, 191. , Eobert Niger de, 141. , Eobert, son of Elias de, 194. , Sibil, daughter of Q-eoffrey de, wife of Hugh de Criddon, Hugh de Holioote, Ealph Payn, and John de WoUascott, 182, 192, 193, 196, 220. , Wilham de, 172, 191. , Wilham, son of EHas de, 194. Crofte, Eeginald de, 50. , Eeginald Fitz Eeginald de, 50. , Eiohard de, 50. , Wilham de, 50, 51. Crouk, John, 311, 319 bis. , Eobert, 311, 317, 363. Cumbray, John de, 87. Cuppare, Eobert le, 357 ter. Cydewen, Meredyth ap Eobert of, 268. Cytharista, v. Harper. Dagonel, William, 216. , , ChriBtiaua,daughter of, 216. , , , Agnes daugh- ter of, 216. Damietta (Heiress of Chetton), 166, 170, 171, 173, 174, 190, V. Broc. Dammas, Eichard, Chaplain, 113, 114, 340. Danes, The, 104, 105. Deepdale, Nicholas de, 64. Den, Eya, wife of Eiohard de, 156. , Eichard de, 156. Denton, Nicholas de. Hermit, 310. Despensers, The, 228. Devereux, Matilda, wife of Wilham, 66. , Nicholas, 99. , Wilham, 66. Devon, Wilham de, 320. Deuxhill, Juliana Fitz Warin, niece of Eobert de, 220. , Margery, wife of William de, 220. , Eectors of, 217, 218, 220-221, 222. , Eobert Fitz Owen de, 220. , Eobert, Chaplain of, 220. , Wilham Fitz Pr6tre de, 220. Deyere, Wilham le, 320. Deystere, Eobert le, 318 «. Diddlebury, Wilham de Eos, Eeotor of, 77. Dieulacres, Abbot of, 125. DHum, Geoffrey, 212. Dobyn, Sir Eichard, Chaplain, 229. Dod, Henry, 301. , Eichard, son of Eoger, 63. , Eoger (1322), 320. , Eoger, 63, 64. , Skuon, 311, 317 «, 319. , Thomas, 63. Dodinton, Adam de, 191, 225. Don, Wilham, 320. Donvil, Hugh de, 214, 288, 289. Door, John, Dean of Brug, 338. Doresc, Henry, son of Adam, 356. Dreyton, John de (of Bold), 157, 158. Dublin, Archbishop of, Henry de London, 71 «, 273. Dudley, John, Viscount Lisle, 41, 42 n. Dudmaston, Hugh de, 124, 289. , Hugh de. Junior, 142. , Peter de, 367. -, Phihp, brother of Eichard de, 288. , Eichard de, 287, 288. , Eobert de, 115. . , Sibil, wife of Peter de, 367. Dun, Eoger, 320. Dunbar, George de, Earl of March, 338. , , Columbinus, son of, 338. Dunfowe, Agnes wife of Eichard (II) de, 57. 51 400 INDEX OF PERSONS. Dunfowe, Alexander de, 55, 56. , Milisant, daughter of Alexander de, 56. 55. , Eichard (I), 55, 56. -, Eichard (II), 57. -, Eoger, 38 ». -, Sibil, daughter of Eichard (I), -, Simon, 55, 56, 62. -.William de (1319), 320. Dunstan, Thomas, 77. DunstanviUe, Eobert de, 249, 250. .Walter de, 87. Dunvall, «*. Dunfowe. Durham, Peter de. Prebendary, 119, 121. Durvaall, Eobert, 320. E. Eardington, Alan de, 64, 124. ' , Eremund, de, Clerk, \2Aier. , Eremund Eitz Eeginald de, 115, 124. 125, 126, 135, 311, 312, 317, 363. -, Giles de. Justiciar, 54 », 66, 68, 145, 204, 324, 376. , Prebendaries of, 117-119. , Eeginald Eede de, 124. , Eeginald Eitz Eremund de. 126. 216. -, Eichard Eitz Alan de, 64, 124, 17. Eode. -, Eichard Eitz Eeginald Eud de, 125, Eaton (Constantine), Walter, Chaplain of, 136. Bdric (Middleton), 18, 195. (Astley Abbots), 59. (Bold), 155. Edwin (Stockton), 18. Edwin, Earl, 18. Edwards, Eowland, 347. Egeton, Brother John de. Seneschal, 44. Egymendune, Gerard de, 48. Eitropius, 232. Ehrich, Archdeacon, 111. Elmbrugg, Adam de, Kiight, 179. Ehnund (Fulwardine and Upton), 18 lis, 137, 139. Ehic (Aston), 18, 222, 223. Elsi (Charlcott), 18, 152. Eluric, Dean, 207. Elyes (of Criddon), Eeginald, 143, 194. , Eichard, son of Eegi- nald, 143, 194. , Eobert, 194. Blward, o. ^Iward. Enfant, WUliam le, 57, 68. 288. Engelard, 358. England, Chancellors of, 28 », 334. , Chancellor of, Thomas ^Becket, 249, 250, 252 », 290, 291, 334. -, William de Long- champ (Bishop of Ely), 201, 255, 297. __^ — , Hubert Walter, v. Canterbury, Archbishops of. Simon, Archdeacon of Wells (Keeper of the Seal), 265. , Eichard de Ma- riscis, 273, 299. ham. 122. In. -, John Mansel, 339. -, Henry de Wing- -, John de Kirkby, -, William of Wick- ham, 123. England, Kings, Queens, and Princes of,— K. Alfred. 104. , ^geUeda, daughter of, u. ^gelfleda. K. Edward the Elder. 244 », 353 ». , wives and children of, 353 «. . Edwin, son of. 353 «. . Ethelward. son of, 353 ». K. Athelstan, 352, 353, 353 ». K. Edmund, 353 n. K. Edred, 353 ». K. Edward the Confessor. 18. 20, 22, 24 «, 26, 32, 64, 103, 104, 128, 129 «.132.133. 137, 149, 152. 160, 164, 165, 195, 199. 211, 219, 222, 223. K. Harold, 64. K. WDham I, 23, 27, 28 », 49, 68, 78, 108, 109. 110. , Eobert, son of, v. Nor- mandy. Dukes of. K.WimamII, 23, 28 «. 73, 107, 108. 112. 242, 243. K. Henry I. 23. 31, 32, 34, 44. 102«, 108. 113. 166, 167, 206. 219, 243-247, 290, 321, 341. 350 !», 354. 355. , Matilda, wife of, 244. INDEX OF PERSONS. 401 England, Kings, Queens, and Princes of, — (continued.) K. Henry I, Adeliza, wife of, 247. , Matilda, daughter of, 44, 206, 250. K. Stephen, 23, 37, 66, 78, 102 », 135, 166 «, 206, 207, 247, 248, 250. K. Henry II, 23, 74, 86, 87, 91, 118, 115 », 117, 120, 166, 167-170, 171, 248-255, 262-264, 290-295, 321, 322, 334, 359, 360, 361. , Emma, sister of, 294. , William, son of, 248. -, Henry, son of, 168, 248,262. K. Richard I, 24, 96, 171, 219, 255, 264, 290 », 295, 343. K. John, 71, 74, 76, 88, 89, 97, 118, 153, 154, 171, 185, 236, 237, 255, 260, 262, 265-274, 296, 298, 299, 329, 355 », 360. K. Henry III, 9, 76, 120, 121, 178, 203, 227, 237, 255-258, 260,274-286, 299-309, 312, 323, 324, 325, 329- 336, 339, 340, 344, 348, 349, 350, 378, 382, 383. , Eleanor, wife of, 278, 286, 339. , Edward, son of, 278, 280, 282, 285, 286, 309, v. Edward I. -, Richard, brother of (King of the Romans), 150 », 157, 281», 310, V. Almain. K. Edward I, 9, 228, 258, 339. K. Edward II, 228, 319, 327. K. Edward III, 9, 27, 28 », 353. K. Richard II, 119, et alibi. K. Henry TIU, 9, 123, 209, 340, et passim. English, Adam, son of Matilda, 372. Erdewik, Roger de, 289. Erdinton, Thomaa de, v. Sheriffs. , , Henry, son of. Clerk, 271. Erkalewe, John de, Knight, Escheator, 161. Eslewode, v. Hazlewode. Essex, Earl of, v. Pitz Piers. , , Henry Bourchier, 350 ». Essex, Henry de, Constable of England, 169, 290, 291. Eston V. Aston. Eton (Mascott), Uger de, 359. 135. Eton (Mascott), Oliver, brother of XJger de, 359. Ethelfleda, v. iEgelfleda. Eudinas, Ralph de, 344. Eudo Dapifer, 22 «. , Adam, brother of, 22 ». Eudon, Alan de, 135. , Ahce, wife of Hugh de, 373. , Auger de, 187, v. Tatlinton. , Hugh de, 314, 341, 357 bis, 373, 376. , John, brother of Hugh de, 341. -, MiUsand, daughter of Alan de, , WiUiam de, 320. Everard, Chaplain, 244. Ewyas, Barons of, v. Lacy. , Roger d', 232. Exton, John de, Clerk, called Citator, 113. Extraneus, o. Strange. Eyr, WilKam le, 335. Eyton, Peter de, 213. , Richard de, Portioner of Holgate Church, 158. , Thomas de, Dean of Bridgnorth, 338 ijs. Eyvon, Richard, 320. P. Paber, Emma, daughter of Wilham, 64. , Geoffrey, 357. , John, 60, 61. , Richard, son of William, 64. , Robert, 306, 357, 379. , Robert, son of Q-eofirey, 357. , Walter, 109. Eabrica, WilHam de, 254. Faintree, Adam de, 160-163, 178, 187. , Alice, daughter of Adam de, wife of Henry le Taylor, 162. -, Clemenoe, daughter of Adam de, wife of Richard de HoUcote, 161, 162. , Isabel, daughter of Adam de, wife of Peter le Chamberlain, 163, ; John de, 164. , John de Knotyn, Lord of, 162. -, Mabel, daughter of Adam de. wife of Hugh le Mazun, 163, 164. ■ , Margery, daughter of Adam de, wife of Henry de la Porte, 161. 402 INDEX OF PERSONS. Paintree, Petronilla, daughter of William Fitz John de, 164. , Philip Fitz Philip (de), 164. ,.Eobert de, 145, 160, 181. , Waloheliae de, 18, 159, 160. , William Ktz John de, 164. Farlow, ffuy de, 240. , Philip de, 181. Faye, Beatrix, alias Katherine, wife of Kalph de, v. Tumham. , Ealph de, 167, 174, 190. Feckham, Wilham de, 72. Felde, John de la, Aoolite, 221. Ferrers, Earl, 234, 262, 273. , Henry de, 22 n. Fesun, CecUia, daughter of Henry, 362. Feyrchild, Eoger, 113, 317, 379. , Eoger, sonof Eobert (of Hyne- stock), 382 n. Fiscamp, William de, 72. Fisher, John, Prebendary, 72, 339 n. Fitz Adam, William, 357. ■ , , John, son o^ 357 «. , , Eobert, son of, 357. Fitz- Adeline, William (Sewer to Hen. II), 264. Fitz-Aer, {sive, Fitz Aleher), 192,195, 199. , Alina, 193. , Christiana, wife of William sou of Hugh (I), 193, o. Eedmarleye. , Emma de Say, wife of Eobert (II), 202, 203. , Hugh le (I), 193, 206. , Hugh (P),sonof Hugh(I),206. , John, 155, 196, 205, 206, 227, 258. , Margery, wife of Wilham, 205. , Eobert (I), 36, 80, 140, 195, 206, 207. -, Eobert (II), son of Eobert (I), 200, 201, 202, 208, 212. , Eobert (III), 202, 203. , WilUam,143, 145,195,203,204, 210. , WiUiam {aire. 1200), 204 «. , Wflliam, son of Hugh (I), 198. Fitz- Alan, 30, 84, 85, 92, 133, 134, 135, 137, 139, 140, 142 «, 166, 167, 183, 185, 186, 191, 192, 195, 204, 211, 214 «, 223, 224, 263. , WUliam (I), 73 k, 206, 247 », 250-252, 260, 263, 290, 291. Fitz-Alan, William (II), 85, 89, 91, 98, 102, 264. , John (II), 134, 141, 187, 188, 191, 192, 205, 225 lis, 283. -, Eichard, 94, 134, 138, 141,162, 188, 193, 196, 197, 215. Fitz-Albert, 195, 196. , Hugh, 195. Fitz Algar, Warlance, 112. Alice, William, 312. AJuric, Edrio, 112, 223. Aucher, Henry, 277. — — Avice, Henry, 306, 357 «, ti. Fitz Eobert. Bernard, Ealph, 174, 190. , , Eleanor, wife of, v. Turnham. , , John, sou of, 175. , * * * dar. of, 175. -, Thomas, 7 », 86, 88. -, Walter, 276 m. Count, Bbrard, 108, o. Earls of Shrewsbury. Daniel (of Brug), William, 59. David, Adam, 81. Edwin, Eoger, 181, 195, 196. Eve, Eichard, 315, 357 a. Flaald, Alan, 244. Gerold, Warin, 249, 250. Q-odewin, William, 313, 349 n, 366. Henry, Eoger, 232. . Eoger (of Brug), v. Brug. Heri, v. Fitz-Aeri. Hubert, Aveline, 240. Hugh, Osbem, 3 n, 196. John, Pagan, ■o. Sheriffs. Lambert, Ealph, 254. Luun, Eobert, 223. , Eobert (II), 224. Odo, Thomas, 86, 90, 124 «, v. Chab- benour. , William, 246. Ordrio, Ealph, 44. Osbert, Eoger (of Ludlow), 359. , William, Chaplain, 210. Oseline, William, 359. Pagan, Geoffi-ey, 246. Peter, ■«. Fitz Piers. — - Phihp, Henry, 312. , Philip, 164. Piers, Geoflrey, 88, 153, 213, 236, 255, 265. INDEX OF PERSONS. 403 Ktz Prfitre, Andrew, 255. .William, 220, v. Douxhill. Ealph, WiUiam, 264. Eedwi, Abraham, 254. Eeginald, Terricus, 314. Eeiufrid, Gilbert, 273. ' Eiohard, Osbert (of Burford), 111. -, Philip (of Brug), 349 », 864, 365. -, WiUiam, 181. ■ Eobert, Alan, v. Brug. , Hugh, 278, 344, 348. , John, 315. , PhOip, 314. ■ , Eoger, 382 n, v. Feyrchild. , Sibil, 48, V. Cantreyn. , Walter, 313, 314, v. Auri- faber. Eoger, Eichard, 181. Simeon, WiUiam, 254. Simon, Eoger, 58 ». , WiUiam, 359. Siward, Eoger, 181. Stephen, Geoffi-ey, 349 n. -, PhiHp (of Badger), 44, 45, 46, 253, 254. , Ealph, Justiciar, 295. , Eichard, 313, 349 «. ■ Tedbald, WiUiam, 115. ■ Tetbald, Eobert, 112, 377 n. , Aveliua, wife of. 377 «. Thomas, Henry, 123. , Eichard, 95. , WiUiam, 349 «. Turold, Henry, 255. , WiUiam, 47, 48. 237. ■ Urse, Eeginald, 169 ». ■ William, Alan, 307, ». de CasteUo. ■ , Andrew, 300. ■ , Elyas, 314, 341. ■ , Eichard, 257. -, Roger (Northants), 235- 364. -, Eoger (of Brug), 314 lis, , Vivian, 254. , WUliam, 255. Florence of Worcester, 105, 108, 131, 244. FoUot, Eeginald, 209. , Eiohard, Eector of Chetton, 146, 184 Foliot, Eobert (Master), 209. Folqui (Aldenham), 80. Forcer, Henry le, 50. , WiUiam le, 115 «. Forde, Richard de, Subdeaoon, 229. , WUliam de, 68. Forester, Alexander the, 44. Forestere of Shropshire, 203. Fougeres, Eoger de, 267. France, Kings of, 23 n, 76. , King of, Philip (II) Augustus, 76. , , , Louis, son of. 274. -, Saint Louis IX, 283. Frankley, Emma, daughter of Simon de, V. Luttleton. , Simon de, 186, 190. Fraxino, WiUiam de, 93. Frederic, Archdeacon, 110. Fredesent, Osbert, 254. Freere, Justice, 350 ». FrevUle, WUUam, Knight, 65. Frut, Eobert, son of Walter, 366. Fulcoius (Aldenham), 80. Fulwardiue, MatUda de, 138. Fumerius, Eobert, 359. Fyleby, Adam de. Prebendary, 77. Fynes, Michael de, 334, 336. G. Gamages, Matthew de (Stottesden), 200, 212. Gant, Maurice de. Justiciar, 155. Gardino, WiUiam de, 380. Gatacre, John de, 51. , MatUda, aunt of John de, 51. Gaugy, Alice, wife of Eeginald le, 113 », 375, V. de CasteUo. , Alice le, and Walter, her son, 381«. , Reginald le, 59, 113 n, 314, 341 n, 375, 376 », 377-380. -, Florence, Isabel, Jane, and Julia, daughters of, 371, 375, 381. -, Eobert, son of, 375, 377, 378, 380. Geoffi-ey, Chaplain, 364. Geoffrey, Henry, 320 quater. John, 310, 316, 317 fen, 362, 377 ». -, Eiohard, 320. -, WUUam, 320. 404 INDEX OF PERSONS. Gkrard Sutor, 359. Gerardus (de Tomai), 18. Germany, Emperor of, 339. Gervase of Dover, 249. Gervase Gooh, 87. , Griffin, son of, 87. , , Madoc,sonof,87n, ®. Sutton. Gethne, 18. Geime, Henry, 81 «. , Michael, son of Henry, 81 », 82. Gtiffard, Adam, husband of Sibil, 65. , Earl Walter, 22 ». , Hugh, 237. , John, 239. , Sibfl, 65, 80. , SibU, wife of Hugh, 238. Gilbert, Emma, wife of Walter, 368. , Prebendary, 75. Sutor, 359. , Walter, 368. , Walter, son of Walter, 868. Girrhos, Henry de, 232. , Robert de (I), 153. , Robert de (II), 153, 154, 155, 156. GlanviU, Eauulf de. Justiciar, 200, 297. Glazeley, Agnes, wife of Laurence de, daughter of Walter de fiaselwod, 216. , Alan (I) de, 212, 213, 218, v. Pierrepoint. -, Alan (II) de, 115, 178, 179, 213, 214, 215, 218, 258. , Alan (III) de,126, 215, 216, 218. , Guy (I) de, 213, 218. -, Guy (II) de (Wydo), 115, 142, 143, 182, 215 qnater, 218. -, Henry, son of Guy (I) de, 115, 213, 215, 218, 377 ». , Ingelbert, Priest of, 217. , John de, 214, 215 gnater. -, Juliana, wife of Guy (I) de, 124, 213, 214, 218. , Katherine, daughter of Guy (II) de, 215, 218. , Katherine, wife of Alan (11) de, 114, 115, 215, 218. , Laurence de, 216. , Lords of, 362. , Rectors of, 217, 218. -, William, son of Guy (I) de, 213, 216, 218. Glazeley, William, son of Alan (III) de, 216, 218. Gloucester, Abbot of, Thomas Carbbnel, 76 «. Gloucester, Arohdn. of^ John de Gray, 76. ^.Earlof, Robert the Consul, 250. , , William, 250. , , (Gnbert de Clare), 285, 286. — : , MUo de, 247. , Restoia, Monk of St. Peter's of, 111. , Walter, Constable of, 246. Glydde, John, 135, 317 bis, Sll n, 318 », 319 ter, 363. Godebald, Priest, 109, 110 », 111. Godeva, The Countsss, 18, 164, 165. Godewyn, William, aerk, 114, 216. {alias Godene), John, Vicar of Aston Riohant (Lino. Dioo.) 222. Godhit, 18. Goldsmith, ». Aurifaber. GoreweUe, Richard de, 181. Granger, William (of Tasley), 93. Gratelou, Buohard de, 269. Gravenhunger, Ralph de, and Lucy, his wife, 240. Gray, John de. Prebendary, 76. Qrendon, Robert de, 280, v. Sheriffs. Griffith, Peter, Rector of Glazeley, 217. Grimbald, Physician, 246. Grimesby, Bernard de. Prebendary, 71. Gtossus, Aldred, brother of Siward, 112. , Siward, 112. Gundeville, William de, 335, 336. Gwenwynwyn, 264 », 268, 275. , Sons of, 275. H. Hacket, Walter, 181. Haer (Bold), 154, 155. Hadley, Alan de, 86, 100, 202. , Cecilia, daughter of Alan de, wife of Roger Corbet and of Baldwin de Hodnet, 86, 88-90, 97, 100, 101. HadnaU, Petroml, widow of Wido de, 227, V. BotereU. , Wido de, 227. Haloton, v, Haughton. Hamefrid, Archdeacon, 110. v. Hereford, Archdeacons of. INDEX OF PERSONS. 405 Hanewode, John de, 85 n. Harcourt, WiUiam de, Prebendary, 120. Harding, 103. Hareng, Alice alias Felicia, wife of Wil- liam, V. Broc. , Emma, daughter of WiUiam, wife of * * de Hotoft, 173, 174, 190. , FeUcia, daughter of WiUiam, wife of Nicholas de Wanoy, 173 », 174, 190. , William, 173 », 177, 190. Harley, Henry de, 338, , Malcolumb de, 82, , Fitz Richard de, 156, , Richard de, 156. Harper (of Upton CreBsett), Alan le, 141, 143, 145 ter., 146. , Albrea, grand- mother of William le, 143. -, Dionisia, mo ther of WilHam le, 145. -, Edith, step mother of William le, 145. , Herbert Pis- tor, father of William le, 145. -, MatUda, wife of WilHam le, 143. -, William le, 143, 145 ter., 160. Harpesfort, Alduin de, 44, 78. Harshonail, Henry, 382. Hastings, Henry de, 279. , Robert de. Rector of 01dbury,_ 60, 61, 62, 136, 209, v. Haughton. Haughmond, Abbot of, 155. , , Richard, 859. , Canons of, 202, 204, 251. Haughton, Reginald de, 44, 52. , Richard, son of Robert de, 61. , Robert de. Rector of Oldbury, V. Hastings. -, Siba de, 51, 53. Harerbache, Alan de, 63. , Henry de, 58 n. HaverhuU, William de. Prebendary, 121. Hay, Alan de la, 123, 124. — — , Herbert de la, 124. , John del, 124. , Nicholas del, 59, 63. , Reginald de la, son of Fromund de Erdintou, 125. , Robert de la, 63. Hay, Simon del, 56, 63. , Thomas, son of Alan de la, 124. , Thomas, son of Herbert de la, 124, 125. Hazlewode, Agnes, daughter of Walter de, ■wife of Laurence de GHazeley, 216 ter. , Phihp de, 216. , Richard de. Brother of Phi- lip, 187, 188, 216. , Walter de, 216. Hedinges (or Heddmg), v. Hastings. Helgot, 18 ter., Ill, 149, 152, v. De Cas- tcHo. , Herbert, sou of, 110 «, 111, 152. Hempton, William de, 288. Hendemon, John, 320 ter. , Richard, 311, 316. Henedou, John de, Prebendary, 75, n. Hoveden. Herbert (Chamberlain of K. Henry I.), 244. Granuuaticus, 109, 110. Hereford, Archdeacon of, Heinfrid, 110. , Archdeacon of (Salop Arch- deaconry), William, 110, 223. , , Peter, 207. , Bishop of, 68 », 178. , , Robert Losing, 110. , , Geoffrey de Olive, 34, 101«. 34. -, Richard de CapeUa, -, Robert de Betun, 35, 37, 44, 48, 66, 75, 80, 98, 135, 139, 207, 208. , , Gilbert FoUot, 101, 248, 250. 60, 98, 208. 101 », 102, 265. 48. stone, 71 n. -, William de Vere, -, Giles de Braose, -, Hugh de Mapenore, -, Hugh FoMot, 204 «. -, Ralph dfi Maid- -, Thomas de Canti- lupe, 10, 184. , Chapter of, 37, 73, 76. , Dean of, Ralph I, 207. , , Ralph II, 101. -, , Geoffrey II, 73, 76. 406 INDEX OF PERSONS. Hereford, Dean of, Halph de Maiden, estan, 71 n. , , Anselm, 73 re. , Earl of, Boger, 248, 250. (Henry de Bohun), 265. -, Prior of, Thomas Carbonel, 76. -, Adam de, 181. -, Adam de, Chaplain, 220. -, Herbert de, 232. -, Hugh de (Bold), 157. -, Sir Nicholas de. Canon of Hereford, 184. , Robert de, 232. Herefordshire, Sheriff of, 277. Herwinton, William de, 179. Hesding, Reginald de, 202. Hibemensis, Geoffrey, 49. , Nicholas, 254, 255. , Richard, 253, 254. — , , Roger, son of, 341. , Walter, 349 re. Hichemon, Thomas, 362 n. Hide, Thomas de la, 196. Hobaud (of Harpesford)^ WiUiam, 135, 182. (of the MiU), MabH, wife of William Pitz WiUiam, 182. , William, 182. — , William, son of William, 182. Hobor, William de, 320. Hodnet, Baldwin de, 89-91, 100. , Cecilia, wife of Baldwin de, 89- 91, 100, V. Hadley. -, Odo de, son of Baldwin, 100, 280. Hoel, William, Chaplain, 864. Hokumbe, WiUiam de, 320. Holgate Castle, Lords of, v. de Castello,- Helgot,- Mauduit,- Almain,- Knights TemplarB,-Bumel. Church, Matthew, Rector of, 158. , Rector of, 229. , Richard de Eyton, Rec- tor of, 158. ^, Robert, Rector of, 158. HoUcote, Alan de, 182. , Clemence, wife of Richard de, 161, 162, 182, V. Eaintree. -, Hugh de, son of Q-eoffrey de HoUcote, Hugh de (1194, 1220), 172, 181 bis, , Hugh de (1255, 1272), 178, 181, 182 ter., 192, 193. , Hugh de (1297), 182. , John, son of Richard de, 216. , Richard de {ante 1272), 216. , Richard de, 161, 162, 182. . — , Roger de. Knight, 182. -, Sibil, wife of Hugh de, 182, v. Oriddon. Hondes, WiUiam, 320. Hoorde, PhiUp, 193. ■ , Thomas, 193. , WUUam, Prebendary, 119. Horde, Richard, SeneschaU, 346. Horsnad, Ralph, 382. HospitaUers, Knights, 361, 364. Hotoft, * * de, 190. , Emma, wife of * * de Hotoft, v. Hareng. , Peter de, 174, 175, 176, 177, 190. Criddon, 141, 182. , Robert de, 178. Hoveden, John de, Prebendary, 75 «. HoviU, Hugh de, 175, 190, -v. NeoviU. Howel, John ap, 147. Hubaud, John, 345 re. Hugford, Walter de, 361. Huggel, WiUiam de, 358. Hugh (Stockton), 18. (Sutton), 44. Hulger, Clerk, v. Ulger. HuU, John de (Chetton), 180. , WiUiam de la, 318 bis, 320 bis, 342 re. Humez, Richard ^de. Constable of Nor- mandy, 250, 251, 252. Hunnit, ISter. Hunte, Elias le, 377 re. Huvaratun, Geoifrey de, 240, v. Overton. Idel, Wmiam, 228. Ingulphus, 165 re. Ingwardine, WiUiam de, 300. Ireon, Walter de. Acolyte, 69. Isenham, John de, 320 bis. , Thomas de, 311, 817 re. INDEX or PERSONS. 407 Janitor, Nicholas, 257, c. de Porta. Jerusalem, King of (1222), 301. Jooeas, Ciiaplain of Eanulf Earl of Chester, and Prebendary, 76. Jorval, Abbot of, v. John Bromton. Jude, Eobert, 82. Jumieges, Williani de, 231. , ,Continuatorof,231. K. Eanne, v. Canne. Kenefare, John de, 311. Kenegate, WiUiam, 350 «. Kenleye, Thomas de, 189. Kent, Earl of, v. Hubert de Burgo. Ker, John de. Prebendary, 75. Kerleton, Adam de, 153. Keu, William le, 346. , , Christiana and Isabel, daughters of, 346 n. Keukyn, William, 318 ». Keynes, Thomas, 338. Kilmayn, WiUiam, 51. Kilpec, John de, 60. King, Hamlet, Prebendary, 339. Kinslow, Geffrey de (I), 52, 53, 54, 61. , Geffrey de (II), 54. , Geffrey de, Clerk, 99. , Hugh de, son of Geffrey (I), 45, 53, 61, 81, 150, 178, 240. , Malcolm de, Acolyte, 99. , Richard de, 48. Kinyer, Koger de, 51. Kirtby, John de, 7 n. Knight, Hugh le, 61, 62. , Bohert le, 317, 362«, 370, 377 ». Knokyn, John de, 162. KnoUes, Kichard, Prebendary, 343. Knotte, Stephen, 379. Kyngtone, John de, 320 bis. h. Lacoc, Koger de, Prebendary, 71. Lacy, Hugh de, v. Shrewsbury, Abbots of. Lacy, Eobert de, 281. Lacy (of Colemere), Hugh de, 251. Lacy (ofEwyas), 231. , Hugh de, 231. , Eoger de. 111. Lambert, Eoger, 379. , William, 309, 315, 846 », 357, 370. Lambhethe, William, Prebendary, 78. Langley, Henry de. Prebendary, 71, 72. Langton, Walter de, 337, v. Bishops of Lichfield. Lantrey, William, 309, v. Cantreyn. Lanval, William de, 264. Lectone, Eoger de. Clerk, 184. Lee, John de la. Knight, 227.' , Thomas de la. Knight, 229. Leghe, John de la, 319. Leicester, Earl of, Eobert (II), 248, 250, 251, 252. , , Eobert (III), 169, 262, 263 «. , , (Eobert IV), 265. , , Simon de Montfort, 282, 283, 284», 285, 286, 308, 334, 840, 373. , , ^- — , Eobert, son of. 283. 286. , , , Simon, son of, , Master John de, Clerk, 71. Leinthale, PhiUp de, 812. Leland, John, 259, 340. Lever (or Sever), Henry, 338. Leveson (or Leason), John, Prebendary, 839 «. Leofric, Earl of Mercia, 165. Leonibus, Peter de, 267. LeweUyn ap Owen, 247. Lewellyn, Prince of North Wales, 180, 203, 830, 332 ». Leybourn, Eleanor, wife of Eoger de, 173, 190, V. Turnham. , Eoger de, 173-175, 186, 190, 283-285. Leye, Eeginald de, 811, 318, 319, 320 bi-s, 342 «. Lichfield, Bishop of, 51, 120, 247 w, 312, 324, 335, 336. . , , Eobert (deLimesey), 108, 110, 244. bis. -, Eobert (Peche), 246 , , Walter (Durdent), 249, 250. , ■ , Geoffrey (de Mus- charap), 118, 265. 53 408 INDEX OF PERSONS. Lichfield, Bishop of, (WiUiam do Corn- hull), 273. , , Roger (de Molend, or de Longespee), 326. , , Walter de Langton, 10, 97, 134, 337. Cathedral, Chaplain of the Chantry of Jesus in, 346. Lilleshall, Ahbot of, Alan, 176. , Canons of, 360. Lincoln, Bishop of, Bemigius, 22 ». , , Robert, 246. , (William de Blois), 265. , Earls of, v. Chester. Linley, Lords of, 50, 115 «. , Biohard de, 360. , Sibil de, 360. , Walter de, 359, 360. Lisle, Brian de, 256, 273, 329. , Viscount, John Dudley, 41, 42 ». , WiUiam de, 278. Logain, Adam, 112, 314 iw, 357. London, Bishop of, Richard, v. Behneis. , , Henry de Wingeham, 122. , Henry de, 71 »■ , John de. Prebendary, 78. • , Nicholas de. Prebendary, 78. , Stephen de, Dean, 334. , Walter de. Prebendary, 78. Longespee, Matilda de, 226. Lorimer, WiUiam, 256. Louther, Hugh de, 96, 97, 114. Lowe, Ralph de la, 240. , WiUiam de la. Priest, 198. Luci, Fulco de, 181. .Richard de, 117, 252, 253, 254, 263 », 264,295. , Walter de. Abbot of Battle, 252. Ludlow, Joan, wife of Sir John de, 69. , John de, 143. , John de. Knight, 69. , Laurence, de, 68. , WiUiam de. Clerk, 221. Lutes, Sir John de, Prebendary, 119. Lunun, 223. , Robert, son of, v. Fitz Luun. Luthgarshal, H** de, Prebendary, 72. Lutley, Thomas de, 335. Luttleton, Emma, daughter of Thomas de, wife of Auger de TatUnton, 186 n, 190. Luttleton, Emma, wife of Thomas de, daughter of Simon de Frankley, 186 n, 190. , Thomas de, 190. LuveU, Osbert, Huntsman, 297. M. Madoc, WiUiam, 310, 377 n. Magnus, Thomas, 338, 339 m. ^ Maidenestan, Osbert de. Prebendary, 71. , Ralph de, 71 «. Malesoures, WiUiam de, v. Tatlinton. MalmsbiU'y, WiUiam of, 247 n. Malvern, Prior of, 126. Maminoht, Walcheline, 250. Mansel, John, 339. Map, Henry le, 49. Mara, Alan de la, 153-155, v. Bolde. , Walter de, 156. Marchers, Lords, 235 «. Mare, Edmund de la. Hermit, 353. Mareschall, John (12] 2), 299. Marham, Thomas de, 193, 289. Marmion, Robert, 264. MarshaU, John, 338. Martel, WiUiam, 231. Martin, John, Clert, 198. , Richard, 338. Massan, Reymund, 77. Massuu (or Mazun), Hugh le, 161, 103, 164. ■, MabU, wife of Hugh le, daughter of Adam de Eaintree, 163, 164. MatUda, the Empress, v. England, Kings &c. of. Matthew, Constable of Brug, 267, 288. ^-, Walleran, brother of, 267. , Master, Physician Royal and Prebendary, 76. -, Portioner. of Holgate Church, 158. Maubanc, Lucy, wife of WiUiam, v. Broc. , WiUiam, 174, 177. Maucovenant, Nicholas, 85 n. Mauculiu, 359. Mauduit, Robert, brother of Thomas, 154, 155, 156, 276. , Thomas, 150, 154, 155, 156, 275-277, 279, 304. , WUliam, 150, 155. Mauveysin, Henry, 202, 359. INDEX OF PERSONS. 409 Medler, Nicholas le, 127, 128. , Eiohai-d le, 127. -Meilnil Hermer, Hubert Ktz Eichard de, 32. Meilnil Hermer, Bichard de, 29 », 32. Meisy, Robert de, 296. Mellent, Wallerau, Earl of, 246. Melrose, Monk of. Chronicler, 286 n. Mercia, Earls of, 22, 64, 103, 129 », 165. , Queen of, «. ^gelfleda. Mere, Robert de, 335. Meredyth ap Lhywarch, 247. Meverel, "Walter, 255. Middlehope, Richard de, 278. , Thomas de, 289. , , Geoffrey, brother of, 289. Middleton (Priors), Incumbents of, 221, 222. Middleton (Scriven), Adam de, 181, 196. , Alan, son of Hamo de, 197. ' , Hamo de, 197. , Incumbents of, 198. , Eichard de, 197. , Eichard, Cleric of, 197. , Robert (de), 196, 197. , Robert, grandson of Robert (de), 197. , Stephen de, 181, 196. , Stephen, nephew of Robert (de), 196, 197. , Warinde (1194),181, 195,196. , Warin de (1292), 163, 196 ». , William de, 192, 196. Milburg, Saint, ». Wenloct, Prior and Convent of. Miller, Robert the, (Bold), 155. , , William, son of, 155. Mol, Roger, 320. Molendino Grcoffrey de,47,48, c.Cantreyn. Montfort, De, u. Leicester, Earls of. — , Almario de, 340. , Robert de, ■;. Sheriffs. , Wilham de, 334, 340. Montgomery De, «. Shrewsbury, Earls of. , Adam de, 134, 138, 178. , Owen de, 134. , Seneaohal of, 267 n. Morcar, Earl, 18 his. Mora, (or More), Andrew, son of William de, 113, 172. , Guy, Prebendary, 119. Mora, Nicholas de k, 127, 128, v. Medler. , Eichard de la. Clerk, 221. , Richard de la (o. 1290), 115. , Richard de la (Erdinton), 127, «. Medler. , Roger de la, 309, 311, 312, 316, 357 lis, 362, 370. , , Eoger, son of, 216, 316, 317 ter, 317 », 318 gnater, 320, 358, 363, 377 ». , William de la (Erdinton), 128. , William, father of Andrew de, 113. , William de (1297), 135, 182. Morf, Forester of, 346, 350 n. Mortimer, Henry de, Enight, 115, 179. , Hugh de (of Cheknarsh), 126, 156. ■ , Hugh de. Knight, 178, 179. . Walter de. Clerk, 198. Mortimer (of Wigmore), 3, 364. , Edmund de, 193, 196,220, 312. , Hugh de, 247-252, 291. , Eoger (I) de, 237. , Eoger (II) de, 157, 226, 241, 283, 284, 286, 310. , Eoger (III) de, 198, 228. MorTille, Canons of, 25 », 26, 32, 35 «. , Chaplains, or Incumbents, of, 39-40, 52, 115. , Prebendaries of, 71-72. , Prior of, John, 38. , , John Wallensis, 38 n. , , JohuPerle, 38 », 49. , — , Eichard Marshall, 40», 41, 42 n. , Eichard, Chaplain of, 150. -, Eichard, son of Eoger, Chaplain of, 39, 40, 52, 53. , Eoger, Chaplain of, 39, 40, 52, 53. Mose, Nicholas de, and Eichard, his son, 377 ». , Ealph de, and John, his son, 306. Moste, Eobert de, 320. Mouner, Eoger le (Cleobury), 157. Mount- Walter, in Champagne, Prior of, 71. Mubber, * *, Prebendary, 75. Mudle, Sir Eobert de, Chaplain, 221. Mukley, Eichard de, 205, 206. Muleton, Thomas de, Justiciar, 155. 410 INDEX OF PERSONS. Muntvyron, Eichard de, 179. Mutton, PhiUp de, 335. Mydelton, Nicholas de, 241. Myler, Jew, 311. MylUnchop, Walter, Clerk, 229. N. Neenton, Eichard, Eeotor of, 142. Neovill, Hugli de, 175, v. Hovill. Netherton, Lords of, 346. , NeTiU, Alan de, Justice of the Forest, 253. , Hugh de, 265, 267, 348. Nicholas, Chaplain of the New Chapel in Brug Castle, 323 n. Nimpha, Berard de, 325. Norbury, WilUam de, Official, 824. Norfolk, GUes de. Clerk, 378, 379. Norley, Andrew de, 50, 62, 150, 361. , Bermer de, 44. , Godith, wife of Henry de, 58 n. , Henry de, 58 ». , Eichard de, 58 ». , Stephen, son of Henry de, 58 n. Norman Tenator, 112. , Eoger, brother of, 112. Normannorum Scriptor, 248, 249. Normandy, Duke of, 23 n. , , Eichard I, 231. , Duchess of, Gunnora, 231. niece of, wife of Nicholas de Basker- Tille, 231. -, Duke of, Eobert, 243, 244. Northwood, John, son of Thomas de, 241. , Eoger,son of Thoma's de,241. '■ , Thomas de, 241. Norton, Henry de, Monk of galop, 61. , Hugh de (Brug), 255. Norwich, Bishop of (Herbert), 244. , — , Everard, 244. , , John de Gray, 76 ». NoTavilla, Eobert de, 355. Nowe, Eichard, 147. o. Offley (or Otei?), Koger de, 338. Okeman, Sibil, wife of William, 192. , Wilham, 192. Oldbury, John de, 132, 135, 138 «, 182, 358. , John, Eeotor of, 136. , Lords of, 346. , Sectors of, 60, 136. Ordericus (Vitalis), 2, 108, 110,111, 242, 243, 290, 355. Ordric, 18, 159. , Simon, 254. , Stephen, 314. , , William, son of, 314. Ordui, 18 his, 159. Oi-ped, William, 316 n. Osbem, IS ter. Osbert, Archdeacon, 110. Overton, Geoffrey de. Knight, 240. , Eichard de, 195. , Eichard de (of Brug), 255. - Oweine, Eichard, Prebendary, 122. Oxindon, John, Hermit, 353. Oxford, Chancellor of (1245), 325. , John of (Dean of SaHsbury), 168. P. Paoey, Eoger de, 167. , WiUiam de, 167. Pahner (of Brug), 364-374. , (Master) Alan le, 363, 365, 373- 374. , Agnes, daughter of Walter le, 356, 365, 369. , Alice, dar. of Eobert le, 365. , -, wife of WiUiam le, 365, 370, 374. , Amice, wife of Edmund le, 365. , Amiha, wife of Eobert le, 364,365. , ,dar.ofEobertle,364,365. , Edmund le, 312 «, 318, 319 bis, 320 his, 365, 369, 374. , Hamo, son of Hamo le, 257, 258, 306, 309, 365, 370, 371. , Hamo, son of Walter le, 51, 59, 113, 256, 257, 279, 314, 315, 341, 346 », 357 quater, 364, 365, 366-367, 369, 370 », 371, 372, 376 », 377, 379. , Henry le, 256. , John le, 365. , Juliana le, 365. -, Nicholas le, 59, 124, 257, 310, 312 », 362, 365, 368-369, 374, 377 ». -, Eichard le, 320, 365, 374, 380. INDEX 0¥ PERSONS. 411 Palmer, Robert le, 359, 364, 365. , Robert (son of Roger) le, 318 quater, 319 ter, 320 guater, 365. I Roger, son of Hamo le, 358, 365, 371. , , son of William le, 365. , Walter (I) le, 254, 364, 365, 366. , Walter (II) le, son of Walter (I), 54 », 113, 306, 810, 314, 315, 316, 341, 346 n, 357 ter, 365, 366, 367-368, 381. , (Master) Walter le, 51, 52, 53, 58 n, 134, 135, 365, 366, 367, 371-373, 380. , William, son of Edmund le, 365. -, WiUiam, son of Hamo le, 113, 257, 306 Us, 309, 310, 315 lis, 316, 346 », 357 fer, 362, 365, 368, 369-370, 380. , William, son of Roger le, 320 his. 365. , WiUiam, son of WiUiam le, 365, 370, 374. Palude, Master Gruy de. Prebendary, 77. Pannyng, Richard, Walter, and William, 320. , Stephen, 318 «. Pantulf, ofWem, 101. , Alice, mother of CeoUia de Had- ley, 87, 100. , Hugh, 7«, 118, V. Sheriffs. -, R * * *, son of Hugh, Prebendary, 118. , WiUiam (o. 1102), 355. , William (o. 1225), 361. Paris, Matthew, 330-332. , , Continuator of, 283; Parliament, Burgesses of, for Bridgnorth, V. Bridgnorth. Passelewe, Robert, 330, 332. Pattingham, Robert, ChapUin of, 324. Payn, Ralph (of Salop), 193. , Ralph, son of Ralph, 198. , Sibil, wife of Ralph, son of Ralph, 193, V. Criddon. Pelliparius, Osbert, 254. Pembrote,Earlof(WilliamMarshall),265. , , RichardMarshall, 330- 884. , , William de Valence, 285 «, 286. Pencris, Richard, son of WiUiam de, 816». Penkridge, WiUiam de. Monk, 45. Penne, Hugh de la. Prebendary, 122. , John de la. Seneschal, 241. Pennynge, Stephen, v. Pannyng. Pemel, John, Chaplain, 862 ». Peter, Archdeacon of Salop, (Heref.Dioc), 207. , Balistarius, 266. , Chaplain, Gustos of MorvilleBridge, 119 ». Petit, John le (Bold), 157. Petra, Robert, son of Philip de, 358. , .Philip (son of), 306, 815 ter, 316, 346 m, ZZI gnater, 358, 366. , , ■ , Emma, wife of, 358. , , Richard (son of), 216, 809, 317 lis, 858 ter, 362. , , Nicholas (son of), 315. , , AKoe, Isabel, and Margery (daughters of), 358. , , Sibil, daughter of, wife of Robert Tinotor {alias Robert de Petra), 358. , , , Phihp, son of, 358. , , , WiUiam, son of, 206, 358, 11. Selymon and Tinctor. , Robert de (alias Tinctor), 357, v. Tinotor. Petraponte, De, «. Pierrepoint. Pettem, Hugh de, v. Taunay. Petyfit, Richard, 135. Peverel, Hamo, 44, 246. , William (of Dover), 246. , WiUiam (of Nottingham), 249 ». . William, 167. PhiUp, Clerk, 229. , Seneschal of Stottesden, 212. Piohford, Engelard (de), 358. , Hugh de, 355, 358, 359, 364. , John de, 258, 279, 356. , Nicholas, brother of Richard de, 858. 356. -, Nicholas de (of Brug), 318. -, Ralph de (1102), 354, 855. -, Ralph, son of Hugh de, 355, -, Ralph de (1292), 356. -, Richard de, 858, 359. Pickthom, Bvarard de, 240. Richard, Miles, 234, 235 «. Pierrepoint, (Family of), 211. , Adam de, 214. 412 INDEX OF PERSONS. Pierrepoint, Alan de, 113, «. Glazeley. , Godfrey de, 211 ». , Eobert de, 211 n. , Simon de, 73 », 211, 212, 213. , "William de. Prebendary, 73, 74, 86-88, 97 », 211-213. Pilardinton, William de, 157, 158. Pincerna, Richard, 18, 26, 27, 30, 84, 85, 92, 99 ». , Eobert, 133. Pinzun, Robert, 250. Piperherge, Osbert de, 167. Piscator, (or le Pesour), Hugh, of Brug, 44. , John, son of John, 361. , "William, son of Richard, 36^, 361 n, 379. Piasato, Maurice de, Clerk, 184. Pistor, Hugh, 320. , John, 309, 310, 317. — , Ralph (of Upton), 143, 145, ». Harper. Pleidour, Henry le, 289. Poer, Alan le, 120 ». Poitou, Earl of, 244, v. Shrewsbury, Earls of. Ponthieu, Earl of, 244, v. Bobert, Earl of Shrewsbury. Pope Innocent II, 65. Alexander III, 73, 847, 358 ». Celestine III, 322 «. Honorius III, 360. Innocent IV, 324, 325. Alexander IV, 73 n. Nicholas IV, 8, et passim sui armo 1291. John XXII (1317), 327. PorceU, Oyn, 166, 167, 190. Port, Adam de, 232. Port, De la {alias Le Porter, oKas Janitor) . , Henry, 163, 309. , , Margery, wife of, 163, ». Eaintree. , Nicholas, 257, 289, 306, 379, V. Janitor. , Richard, 254, 349 «. -, Eobert, 267. Possethorn, Eichard de, 68. Powis, Princes of, 268. Powis, Eoger de, 85 », 251. Praunce (or Paunce), Eichard, 320. Praunce (or Paunee), "William, 320. Preen (or Penne), John, Prebendary, 339 ». Preste, Richard, 342. Preston, Gilbert de. Justiciar, 296. Prestoue, Richard de, 95. Prestwood, Henry de, 335. Preux, Engeram de, 271. PuU, Nicholas, 311. Puleter, Osbert le, 305. PurceU, Radulf, 166 m, 167 m. Pusey, Ebrard de, 113. Pykemalot, "Wiffiam, 312. Q. Quatford, Chaplains of, 115, 116. , Reginald de, 113. , Simon, son of Reginald de, 113. Quatorp, "William, Parson of, Prejiendaiy, 77. Quinci, Saber' de, 264. R. Eadenor, Master Peter de, 324. Eadenore, Eoger de, 239. Radulf (Oldbury and Eulwardine), 18 lis, 133, 137. Eape, Nicholas, Prebendary, 119. Redmarleye, Christiana, daughter of John de, 193, B. Pitz Aer. , John de, 193. Reed (Red or Rud, de Erdinton), Fro- mund, son of Reginald, 124, 125. , Reginald,- 124. , Richard, son of Reginald, 125. (of Brug), Nicholas le, 318». Reginald, Prebendary, 75, 76. Eeod, Richard, 320. Eesting, Reginald de, 167. Rewin, Edric de, 55. — — , Henry, sou of Edrio de, 55, 59. , Sibn, wife of Henry de, 55. Eeygat, Sir Gilbert de. Clerk, 221. Ribeford, Simon de. Justiciar, 280. Eibel, Geoffrey, 154, 155. Eichard (Meadowley), 18, 149. , Chaplain of Salopesburi, 358. , Dean, 207. , Monk of "Wenlock, 111. (Sutton Maddock), 44. INDEX OF PERSONS. 413 Eivallis, Peter de, 324^325, 329-334, v. Sheriffs. Eobert (Badger), ] 8. , Portioner of Holgate, 158. , Eichard, 317, 318 fer, 820 ifw. , Clerk, 383, u. Bx-ug, Eobert, son of Eobert de. Eode, Albinus de la, 53, 54, 361. , Nicholas de la, 50, 54, 61. , Eeginald de la, 58 ». , Eichard de la, 54. , Eichard de la, son of Alan de Erdinton, 64. , Simon de la, 54. , WUliam de la, 44, 54. Eodinton, Eanulf de, 203. Eoger, the Dean, 155. Prebendary of Walton, 73, 75. — - — Venator, 112. Eomans, King of the, ii. Eichard, King of Almain. EonduUj Alice, wife of Nicholas, 57. , John, 319 ter. , Nicholas, 57, 311, 312, 318 qua- ter, 319 Us, 363. Eos, WiUiam de, Eector of Diddlebmy, 77. Eoshale, John de (1316), 197. , Nesta, wife of Thomas (II) de, widow of Eoger Corbet, 181. , Eobert de, 143. , Thomas (I) de, 195, 197, 279. , Thomas (II) de, 181, 197. , Vivian de, 196, 197. EotariuB, Eoger (of Brug), 298. Eoton, Nicholas de, Prebendary, 119. Eouen, Walter, Archbishop of, 170, 200, 201. Eoughton, Eichard de. Forester of Morf, 350 ». , , AJice and Helen, daughters of, 350 ». Eoulle (or Eoweley), Philip de, and Isabel, his wife, 376. Bud, v. Eeed. Eufus, William (Fermor of Arundel), 170. Bus, Nicholas le, 377 ». Bussel, Walter, and Jane his daughter, 362 «. Buttune, v. Eyton. Eyton, Eichard de, 300. , Eichard Fitz Odo de, 358. 8. Sabrina, Nicholas, son of Simon de, 57. , Simon de, 45, 56, 57, 58, 59, 361. , Simon, son of Simon de, 57. , Stephen de, 56. Sadoc, Gilbert, 63, 240. , Eichard, 232, 240. Sagon, Ealph, Priest, 67. Saint Alban, E * * de, Prebendai-y, 77. ■ Amaud, Almaric de, 74 n. , John de. Prebendary, 74. • Augustine, 343 ». Clair, Hubert, alias Hugo, de, 248 «. Dayids, Bernard, Bishop of, 246. Francis, 350, 351 b. George, Adam de, 178. Jahn of Jerusalem, Knights of, 306, 361, 364. Leonard, Abbot of Noblao, 340 ». , Abbot of Vandoeuvre, 341 ». Leonard, Master Luke de, 136. Martin, Nicholas de, 372, 373. Martin, Walter de, 231. Mary's Salop, Dean of, Henry de London, 71 ». ■ • Maxent, WiUiam de, Prebendary, 76 ». — — MUburg, M. Wenlock. Omer, Walter de, 372, 373. Paul's (London), Chancellor of, Henry de CornhuU, 118. , Dean of, Ealph de Diceto, 249. , , Henry ■ Prebendary of, Master John Wyteng, 118 n. Quiutin, Master Bonetas de, 336, 337. Trinity (of Brug), Symon, Prior of, 113. Salford, Peter de, 142. Salisbury, Bishop of (Eichard Poore) , 304. , Earl of, William de Longespee, 265, 274. Sallowe, Nicholas de, 306, 379. Salop, Master Eobert de, 98. Sanger, John, 340. Sarracen, John, son of Peter, 74, 274. , Peter, 74, 274. Savage, William (I), 47. , WiUiam (II), 47, 59. de CornhuU, 118 ». 414 INDEX OF PEESONS. Savoy, Amand de, 337. , Peter de, 337. , William de, 337. Say, Emma de, v. Ktz Aer. Scot, Geoffrey, 320. Scotland, King of, Malcolm (IV), 262. , , (Alexaader II), 271, 274. Seez, Abbot of, 65, 66. , Eeynald, Monk of, 111. Segrave, Stephen de, 305, 330, 332, 333. Sely, Nioliolas, 320. Selymon, Nicholas, 318 «. , William, 132, 135, u. Tinctor. Seqant, Adam le, 320. Sessi, 18, 199. Sheriff of Shropshire, 245, 247 «, 260, et , Warin, 30, 33, 68 », 101, 102 k, 110«, 147», 199. -, Eainald, 18, 30, 38, 84, 85, 112, 133, 137, 139, 185, 195, 199, 211, 222, 223. , Richard de Belmeis, 32, 102 «, 109, 149, 217, 223, 245, 246. , Pagan Ktz John, 246, 247. , William Fitz Alan (I), v. Fitz- Alan. -, Guy le Strange, v. Strange. -, Geoffi-ey de Vere, 233, 254, 262. -, Hugh Pantulf, In, 118, 254. -, WiUiam Fitz Alan (II), o. Fitz Alan. 266. -, Geoffrey Fitz Piers, v. Fitz Piers. , William de Hauterive (Oustoe), , Thomas de Erdinton, 266, 267, 271, 272, 273, 299. , Eanulf, Earl of Chester, 76 », 256, 273, 274, 275, 298, 299, 382. , Hugh Despencer, 275, 304. , Wilham, Earl of Sahsbury, 275. -, John Bonet, 256, 261, 276, 277, 296. , Henry de Audley, 257, 277, 296. , John de Munemue, 277 «. , Peter de Eiyallis, 277, 330, 332 «, ■«. EivaUis. , Eobert de Haya, 278, 330, 332 ». , John le Strange, 278, «. Strange. , Thomas Corbet, 278, 308. Sheriff of Shropshire, Eobert de Grendon, 257, 278, 279, 280, 296. , Hugh de Acour, 225, 226, 257, 279, 280, 352. , Peter de Montfort, 280, 283, 284. , WiUiam Bagod, 257. , Wilham CaTersweU, 257, 281. -, James d' Audley, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286. , Eoger de Somery, 282, 283, 372. , Hamo le Strange, 282-286. -, Ealph Basset of Drayton, 278, 281, 282, 284, 285.. , Eobert de Grendon, 284. , Walter de Hopton, 258, 286, 288. , Hugh Mortimer of Chehnarsh, 156, 287. , John Barn (Under-Sheriff), 811. , Ealph de Mortimer, 287. , Eobert deTrillek (Under-sheriff), 258, 287, 288, 811. , Eoger Sprenghose, 289. Sheyntou, William de. Prebendary, 75. Shineford, Eobert de, 301. Sholton, William, 341. Shorde, Christopher, Clerk, 198. Shrewsbury, Abbot and Convent of, 26, 91, et passim under Morville, 123, 125, 136, 207-210, 232, 240, 346, 361, 372. , Abbot of, Fulchered, 28 », 34. 60, 98, 209. alias Baker, 40. -, (Godefred), 34. -, Eobert, 44, 76 n. -, Adam, 200. -, Hugh de Lacy, -, Henry, 61. -, Adam (II), 57. -, WiUiam, 45. -, Luke, 227. -, EichardMarshaU, -, Thomas Boteler, 40. , Abbey Foregate, Nicholas, Provost of, and Hugh, his brother, 240. — , Archdeacon of (Chester Dio- cese), Herbert, 110. , Austin Friars of, 352 n. , Burgesses of, 285, 292-296, 299, 801, 307 «, 327. , Dean of, 812. INDEX OF PERSONS. 415 Shrewsbury, Dominican Friars of, 351 », 352 «. , Earls of, 23 n, 24, 79. , Earl of, Eoger de Montgo- mery, 18, 20, 23 », 24, «, 26, 29, 30, 31, 82, 34, 35, 38, 45, 49, 50, 68, 69, 70, 77m, 84, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108-112, 117, 128-130, 149, 152, 159, 164, 166, 199, 211, 222, 242, 244, 321, 322, 337. , Earl of, Boger de Montgo- mery, Mabil, wife of, 107, 108. wife of, 106, 107, 108, 109. Adelissa, , , , Robert, son of, V, Eobert de Belesme, Earl of Shrewsbury. -, Hugh, son of, 109, V. Hugh, Earl of Shrews- bury. -, Eoger, son of (Earl of Poitou), 65, 243, 244. , , , Amulf, sou of, 243. son of, 109. -, PhiHp, , , ^, Ebrard, son of, 107, 108, 244. , Earl of, Hugh de Montgomery, 31, 33, 36, 43, 65, 70, 83, 101, 102 », 109, 112, 242, 243. -, Kobert de Belesme, 31, 65, 70 », 112, 131, 241-245, 290, 321, 355. , Earl of, John Talbot, 345 », 350 «, 351. -, Franciscan Friars of, 352 ». -, Monk of, Eaynold, 111. -, Porter and Warder of, 260. -, Prior of, WiUiam, 76. -, PrOTOsts of, 313. -, Saint Mary's, Dean of, 325. , WU- liam le Strange, 120 n. Shropshire, Foresters of, 119 n. Shustock (Warw.), Lady of, 379. Sidbury, Henry de, 157. , Hugh de. Knight, 224. Simon, Dean of Brug, 329. Siward Grossus, 112. , Aldred, brother of, 112. , Aldred, son of, 112, Slake, Nicholas, 338. Smyht, Jane, wife of Eichard le, 164. , John le (of Westwal), 164. , Eichard, son of John le, 164. Smyth, Eoger, of Bridgnorth, 42, «. Faber. SneU, William (Middleton), 197. Sparkford, Thomas, 338. Spereman, Stephen, and Emma his wife, 124. Sprenohose, Ealph, 178. Squier, WilUam, Priest, 198. Stafford, Archdeacon of, 110, 324, 325. , , Henry, 71, 296. Stafford, Eichard de (of Bridgnorth), and Milisand his wife, 135, v. Eudon. , Eobert de. Sheriff of Stafford- shire, 252, 291. Stanford, Eichard de, Clerk, 7 ». , Sir Eobert de. Clerk, 99. Stanley, Juliana, wife of Stephen de, 55. , Nicholas de, 59. , Stephen de, 55. Stanton, Helgot de, ». Helgot. Stapeleye, Alan de, 143. , Hugh, son of Alan de, 143. , Eichard, son of Alan de, 143. , WiUiam de, 163. Stel, Eichard, 320. ~ Stenulf, 18, 128, 130. Stepleton, Eobert de, 278.^ Stircheley, Eoger de, and Ahce his wife, 366. Stocton, Walter de, 368 ». Stoneley (Warwickshire), Monks of, 250. Stottesden, Bailiffs of, 288, 289. Stottesden, Dean of, 198, 207, 221. , , Master Y— , 136. , , Eoger, 155. -, Henry de, 240. , Jurors of the Hundred of, 38, et passim. , Seneschal of, Philip, 212. Strange, 115 «, 211. , Guy le, 73 », 120, 120 n, 212, 254, 262-264, 344. , Hamo le (brother of John I), 120* , Hamo le (brother of John III), V. Sheriffs. -, Johrile (I), 73 «, 120 », 211 bis, 212, 251. 53 416 INDEX OF PERSONS. Strange, John le (II), 87, 201, 203, 213. , John le (III), 213, 214, 240, v. Sheriffs. , John le (V), 215. -, Ealphle, 343, 344, 345 », 347, 350 b, 351. , Wmiam le, Clerk, 120, 134. , * *, sister of WiUiam le, wife of Alan le Poer, 120 w. Stranuelone, Alan, 52. Suel, Adam, 320. Sutton, Gerrase Q-oeh de, 87. , Griffin, son of Gervase de, 87. , Madoc, son of Griffin de, 87 n, 121. Swauoote, Robert de, 318 ». Swanwyke, William, Priest, 342, 343. Swereford, Alexander de, 2 n. Sydenhale, John de, 143. Synger, John, Prebendary, 339 n. T. Tailor, Thomas, 310, v. Taylor. , , John, son of, 311. Talbot, John, Earl of Shrewsbury, v. Shrewsbury. -, Thomas, Prebendary and Dean of Bridgnorth, 122, 338. Tauton, Robert de, Prebendary, 340. Tasley, Incumbents of, 99, 101. , Peter de, 95. , Thomas de, 86, 88, «. Chabbe- nour. Tassewood, Henry de, 93. , Phihp de, 93. Tatlington (oKoaMalesoures), Alexander, son of Hamo de, 176, 186, 190. , Auger (I) de, 190. , Auger (II) Ktz William de, 176, 177, 178, 184, 186, 187, 188, 190. -, Clemence, wife of WiUiam de. ■u. Broe. , Emma, wife of Auger (II), de, V. Luttleton. -, Hamo Fitz WiUiam de, 176, 186, 190. , Nicholas de Frankley, son of Auger (II) de, 190. , Nicholas de (II), son of Nicho- las, 190. Tatlington (oKasMalesoures), Simon, son of Hamo de, 176, 186, 190. , WiUiam Fitz Auger de, 174, 176, 177, 186, 190. , William, son of Hamo de, 176, 186, 190. , WiUiam de (1253), 186, 187. -, William Fitz Thomas de, 187. Taunay (or Tannac), Geoffrey de, 329. , Hugh de, 329. Taylor, Alice, wife of Henry le, 162, v. Faintree. , Henry le, 161, 162. Tedstill, Agnes de, 193. . — , Alan de, 191. , Alan, son of Alan de, 191. Temple, Knights of the, 306, 361, 362, 363. , ^i , Lords of Castle Holgate, 150 «, 157, 310. Teneray, Robert de, 40, 49, 52, 53, 273, 288. , Siba, wife of Robert de, 40, 80. Testard, Robert, 167. Textor, Henry, 357. Thonglands, Rainer de, 33. , Thomas de, 68. , 'WiUiam, son of Rainer de, 33. Thorold, Sheriff of Lincolnshire, 165 ». Tinctor (of Brug), Almaric, 257, 306, 310, 315, 316, 370, 377 «, 379, 380 bis. , Henry, 255. , John, 315, 357, 367, 380. , Robert (alias de Petra), 306 iis, aUbis, 316, 346 «, 357, 363, 366, 379. , , Sibil, wife of, 358, v. Petra. , , WiUiam Selymon, son of, 132, 135, 206, 317, 318, 319, 342 «, 358, 363. -, Robert (o. 1290), 114, 311, 317 ter. , Roger, 258, 309, 381. , WUUam, 349 », 366. Tochi, 18, 112. TochU, 222, 223. Togesel, Richard, and Richard, his son, 377 ». Tornai, Gerard de, 253, v. Gerardus. Tornour, Stephen le, 311. Torrue, John de. Clerk, 265. INDEX OF PERSONS. 417 Tottenhole, Master Andrew de, 114. Tracy, William de, 169 n. Tretis, Theobald de, Prebendaay, 77. Trussel, "William, 279. Trysul, Elyas, Dean of, 324 «. Tuf, Richard, 320. Tu^ord, Osbert de, 68. , Eeginald de, 210. , Reyner de, 33. , William, aou of Reyner de, 33. , William, brother of Reginald de, Chaplain, 210. / TurberriU, Robert de. Prebendary, 75, 97. Turgod, 18 ter. Turner, William, and Edith his wife, 371. Turnham, Alice, daughter of Stephen de, wife of Adam de Bending, 174, 175. , Alianore, daughter of Stephen de, wife of Roger de Leybourn, 173. , Alianore, daughter of Stephen de, wife of Ralph Fitz Bernard, 174, 175. , Beatrix, aZ. Katherine, daughter of Stephen de, wife of Ralph de Fay, 174, 175. , Beatrix, a?. Katherine, daughter of Stephen de, wife of Hugh de HoviU, alias NeoviU, 175. , EdeHne, wife of Stephen de, 170-178, 190, V. Broc. -, Eatherine, daughter of Stephen de, V, Beatrix , Mabil, ofo'a* Matilda, daughter of Stephen de, wife of Thomas de Bave- Ungham, 174, 175. -, Stephen de, 170-177, 185, 190. Turold, 18. , William, 47, 48. Tyrel, Richard, 68. - — , Roger, 68, 69. tr. Ulchetel, 18, 159. TJlger, Canon (or Prebendary), 117, 118, 253, 254. TJlger Venator, 242 », 355. tnuiet, 18, 159. Underdon, Prebendaries of, 75-78. Urri, Bernard de, Balister, 266. Upton (Cressett), Adam Eitz William de, 143, 144, 194. , Alan de, 140, 144, 207. , Constance de, wife of Thomas Cressett, 142, 144. , &uy de, 142 sexies, 143 bis, 144. , Hugh de, 40, 140, 144, 145, 150, 181, 299. , Hugh de (amo 1256), 141. , Hugh de, son of Guy, 142, 143, 144. , Isabel, wife of John de, 142, 144. , Johanna, wife of John de (II), 142, 143 bis, 144. , John de, 141, 142, 144, 150, 151, 182. , John (II), son of John de, 141, 142, 143, 144, 151, 194. -, John, son of John (II) de, 142 bis, 144. , John, Rector of, 142, 147. , Margaret, wife of Guy de, 142, 144. , Margaret, wife of Hugh, son of Guy de, 142, 144. , Nicholas, son of John (II) de, 142, 144. , Rectors of, 142, 147. , Thomas de, 141, 144, 150. , William de, 140 «, 141, 144, 145, 146 bis, 194. , William Goiun (alias Groon) de. 140, 144. Upton (Waters) Walter de, 203, 204. Ursus Viceoomes, v. Abitot. Val, Robert de, 181. Veil, Richard le, 212. Venator, Norman, 112, 355 n. , Roger, 112, 355 n. , Ulger, 355. Venour, Greoffrey le. Seneschal of Cleo- buiy Mortimer, 226, 227. , Robert le, 306 bis. Verdun, Walter de, 272. Vinitor (of Brug), John, 298, 300, 364. Vipont, John de, 271 n. , Robert de, 71 », 268-271. VitaUs, v. Ordericus. Vitheler, Robert le, 320. 418 INDEX 01? PERSONS. W. Wade, Alan, of Brug, 318 «. Wadeley, Eoger de, 212. Wakefield, Henry de, 338. Walchelmus, 18, 159, 160, v. Taiatree. Walensis, Robert, 181. , Roger, 85 ». , Wrenoc, 273. , Yto, 181. Wales (North), Prince of, Owen, 262. , Prince of, David ap Owen, 294. , , , Emma, wife of, 294. 272 B. Lewellyn, 267 - 271, , Joan wife of, of, 264, 265 «. davighter of E. John, 271. Wales (South), Prince of, Griffin, 64. , Prince of, Rees, 262. , , Ct-riffin ap Eees, 264, 265 b. ^ * * * * wife , , ,]VIaelgon, bro- ther of, 265 n, 268. , , ReeB ap Maelgon, 271. , , Rees ap Griffin, 268. Waleys, Henry le, 193. WaUeran, brother of Matthew Constable of Brug, 267. Walton, Prebendaries of, 71 «, 73-75, 274. Wancy, Felicia, wife of Nicholas de, v. -, John de, 176. -, Michael de, l73. -, Nicholas de, 173 «, 174, 190. -, Nicholas (II) de, 177, 178, 190. Wanton, Master Simon de. Justiciar, 145, 186. Warde, Sir Henry, Chaplain, 222. Warren, Earl (1101), 244. , Earl (WiEiam Plantagenet), 265, 298. 286. (John Plantagenet), 285 », , William de, 211. Warwick, Earl of (1204), 265. Wascon, PhiHp, Prebendary, 119. Waskebache, Richard de, and Walter, his brother, 124. ' Wauton, Gerrase de, 174. Wauwar, William le, of Aldenham, 81. Welbe, Robert de, and Agnes, his wife, 114. Weldebof, Robert, 237. Wells, Canon of, Malcohn, 184. , Deau of, John Sarracen, 74 ». Wendac (Fanuly of), 58, 59. , Ceciha, daughter of Robert (II) 47, 58, V. Cantreyn. , Nicholas, 59. ^-, Robert (I), 47. , Robert (II), 44, 47. , Roger, 59, 349 », 364. -, SibU, daughter of Robert (II), 47, 58, c. Cantreyn. , William, 59, 346 ». , WiUiam, son of William, 59. Wengham, ». Wingeham. Wenlock, Adric de, 112. , Prior and Convent of, 217, 219, 220-222, 230, 233, 238, 239, 322, 329. , Prior of, Reinald, 207. , , Humbald, 200. , , Aymo, 205. , , John BayUs, 12 «. , Richard, Monk of. 111. , Wflliam de (Dean of Brug), 338. Weston, Hugh de, 280. Weston, Richard de, 69. , Roger, son of Roger de (Bold), 157. , (alias Brody), WiUiam, Rector of Oldbury, 136. Westwode, Hawise de, 182. , John de, Chaplain, 142. , WiUiam, son of Hawise de, 182. Wichard, Richard de, 62. Wickham, William of, 123. Wido, uncle of Ranulf de Broc, 167. Wigmore, Abbot of, 183, 184, 364. WUliam, Archdeacon, 110. William (Tenant oi Eton, 1086), 18. , Chaplain, 209. , Chaplain (Bold), 157. , Qerk of Geoflrey de Ver,, 254. WUyneten, Adam de. Priest, 221. Winchester, Bishop of, (Henry dc Blois), 167. INDEX OP PERSONS. 419 Winchester, Bishop of, Peter de Bupibus, 74 «, 76 «, 213, 298, 304, 330-332. , Kigaud de Asse- rio, 327 n. -, WUliam of Wick- ham, 123. Windsor, WUliam de, 167 his. Winterton, Walter de, Constable of Brug, 288. Wiugeham, Henry de, 92, 121, 122. Witeleg, Henry de, 153. Wiuar, 18. Woderove, Hugh, 320. Wodeton, Robert de, 278. Woler', Eobert le, 349 ». Wolloscott, John de, 193. , Sibil, wife of John de, v. Crid- don. Womboume, John de, 289. Wombridge, Prior of, 92. Woodcote, Lord of, 223. , Robert de, 224. Worcester, Archdeacons of, 111. , Bishop of, Wulstan, 110. , , John, 249, 250. , , Roger, 200, 208. , , (WiUiam de Blois, 1224), 275. Worcester, Monk of (Chronicler), 283. , Prior of, Ralph, 200. , Warden of the Franciscan Friaries in the district of, 350. Worfield, Rectors of, 71 «. , Rector of,HughdelaPenne,122. Worle, Bngelard de, 337. Wrocwardine, Emma, wife of William de, 163. , William de, 163. Wrotham, Richard de, 278. Wrottesley, Hugh de, 114. Wyohard, Richard, 82. , William, 82. Wygod, Robert, 225. Wymer, William, 324. Wymundham, Prior of, 297. Wystaneston, William de, 288. Wyteng, Master John, Prebendary, 118. York, Archbishop of, Roger, 249. Tpra, Stephen de, 254. Z. Zuche, Alan la, 283. ADDITIONS AND COSHECTIONS FOR VOL. I. Fage 16, (The Map), for Brown Q-lee Hill, read Brown Clee Hill. — 19, col. 4, I. 9. . for Brimstree (as the Modem Hundred of Deuxhill), read Stottesden. — 26, «. 32 for £3. lis., read £3. Is. — 35, « 18, I. 3 . for Churches, read a Church in each place. — 45, i!. 22 for Contreyne, read Cantreyne. — Z2, nlQ for No9. 100, 102, read Nos. 100, 103. — 69, Z. 11 ... . for 1340, read 1341. — 70, » 198, 1. 1 . for Tetua domini cum, read vetus dominicum, — 73, »218, ^Z.3,4, dele in possession of Mr. George Morris. — — — l.S, dele also. — 80, ?. 4 for Pulcoins, read !Pulcoius. — 81, II. 18, 20 . . for warrantry, read warranty. — 92, i. 13 for co-escheater, read co-esoheator. l.Xi for £3. 6*. Sd., read £6. 13s. 4d. — 93, Z. 13 for Vederers, read Verderers. — 101, « 372, 1. 2 . for Assigns, read assigns. — 106, Z. 10 .... for either written, read once said to be either written. — — » 6, i. 1 . . for Ch/ron. Jok. Bromtou, read CTi/ron. Joh. Bromton. — — — 1.2 . . add Two Abbots of this name are inserted in the lists of Abbots of Jorval, under the dates 1193 and 1436. It is quite clear that if the original Chronicle were written in the reign of John, the printed one was the work of a Transcriber, who inter- polated many passages, and must have hved after the accession of Edward III (1327). The use of the name " Bruggenorth " (as in the text), is apropos to the question of this writer's sera. That place was never so written in John's reign, nor indeed till the next century. — Ill, I. 22 ... . for Baron of Cans, read Ancestor of the Barons of Caus. • — 125, 2. 33 ... . for Chete, senior, of Brug, a culture, read Chete senior of Brug, of a culture. — 130, Z. 18 . . . . for many, read many. — 137, II. 4, 18 . . for Edmund, read Elmund. — 139, Z. 28 . . . . for Edmund, read Elmund. — 141 , 2. 3 for Cane, read Caus. — 142, l.\ for 1244, read 1344. — 144, Z. 4 for Gouin, read Goiun. — 150, M 5, 2. 5 . for Abdon (Priors), Ditton, read Abdon, Ditton (Priors). — 158, Z. 7 for Afrer, read After. — 178, l.\2 . . . . for bu tonly, read but only. — 180, ?. 35 for 1829, read 1289. — 181, l.\ for Kobert Corbet, read Roger Corbet. — 197, Z. 18 . . . . for Wrichton, read Wrickton. — 206, 1.2 for (1222-3), read (1292-3). — 211, 2. 3 for Elunard, read Eluuard. — 256, 2. 33 ... . for Bolbington, read Bobbington. — 282, » 171, 1. 2, for notice, read original evidence. — 334, ?. 8 for only for a time, read never honestly. LONDON: PEINTED ET ELIJAH TtTOKEE, PKEET'a I'LACE, OXFOED STREET ANTIQUITIES OF SHROPSHIRE. ANTIQUITIES OF SHEOPSHIEE. THE REV. R. W. EYTON, RECTOR OP RYTON. Non omnia grandior Betas Quse fugiamus habet. VOL. II. LONDON: JOHN EUSSELL SMITH, 36, SOHO SQUAEE. B. L. BEDDOW, SHIFPNAX, SALOP. MDCCOIiT. TITOKEE, PEINTEB, PEBBT 3 PLACE, OXrOED STREET. LIST OF ENGRAVINGS. VOL. II. ISeal of Saint James's Hospital, Bridgnorth To face page 16. ■! (Vide Vol. I, p. 349). I^Seal of Philip de Burwardesleg. To face page 42. Dooe-wat, South Side, Linley. — — Font, Linley. fSEAl. of Griffin son of Gervase Goch (Vide j.t| p. 124, note 65). To face page*S4.-i Seal ofMadocdeSutton(Fi(rfep.il9, note 42). Seal of Henry le Strange of Brockton {Vide p. 125, note 68). AlBElGHTON ChUBOH. WHITE-LABrES. ToNa Chuboh. SoTTTH Aisle, Tong. CoEEEL in South Aisle, Tong. Monument — of Sir Eichard Vernon, as sup- posed, — Tong. Tomb — of Sir Walter de DunstanvUl (I), as supposed — Abbey Church, Shrewsbury. Shiffnal Chuech — North side of Chancel. Chancel, Shiffnal. Section of Chancel- Arch, Shiffnal. FiNiAL and Dbtice over the Western face of Chancel- A.rch, Shiffnal. 5. To face page 162. 6. To face page 190. 7. 8. To face page 252. 9. 10. — — 11. To face page 283. 12. To face page 338. 13. — — 14. — — 15. — — A. M. Maw, del. I. H. Maw, del. EeT. J. Brooke, del. Eev. J. L. Petit, del. Eev. J. L. Petit, del. Eev. J. L. Petit, del. E. Petit, del. Eev. J. Brooke, del. Eev. J. Brooke, del. Eev. J. Brooke, del. Eev. J. Brooke, del. Eev. J. Brooke, del. ^Inotresmu f^untireU. We have now concluded our survey of all that territory which, having been in the Domesday Hundred of AlnodestreUj passed, or may be presumed to have passed, in time of Henry I, to the then created Himdred of Stottesden or to the extra-hundredal Liberty of Bridgnorth. We now proceed with those Manors which, on the said dismem- berment of Alnodestreu Hundred, went to constitute the newer Hundreds of Munslow and Brimstree. The Manors allotted to Munslow Hundred were but two, Broseley and Willey.^ Each of these, like Deuxhill already noticed, was, in the third place and in time of "Richard I, transferred to the Liberty of Wenlock, then first created. In that Franchise they have ever since remained. And first of — IrcseU^* In determining the etymology of this name it is probable that neither the Domesday word (Bosle), nor the one now in use (Broseley) will afford so safe a guide as that current in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, viz. Burwardsley. This I take to be nearly the Saxon name, unmutilated by Norman scribes, and unabbreviated by that Anglo-Saxon genius of language which came to eschew a multiplicity of letters as much as a redundancy of words. The name Burhredsley (Sax. Buphpebj-lea}) would be perfectly intelligible as the lea3, or district, possessed by some Saxon Burhred, ' I do not place Linley or Caugliley in this category, because they were not Domesday Manors. TI. 1 2 BROSELEY. and with this attempt at an etymology, I leave the question. Domesday notices the place briefly and as follows : — " The same Helgot holds Bosle. Gethne held it (in time of King Edward) and was a free man. Here is i hide geldable. There is arable land (sufficient) for ii ox-teams. In demesne is one (such team), and (there are) mi serfs, and iiii boors and i radman with I team. In time of King Edward, the value (of the Manor) was 16s. Id., now it is 12s. He (Helgot) found it waste." ^ I cannot confirm my identification of Bosle with Broseley, by showing any interest as possessed in the latter by Helgot's suc- cessors. I find no evidence of this kind; but the question of identity is not thus to be determined, for Broseley was not the only Domesday manor of Helgot which passed out of his ordinary succession : moreover it became absorbed in the Liberty of Wen- lock, a circumstance which is known to have effaced all, or nearly all, posterior hints of the original tenure of other Manors. I shall presently show that Broseley was long afterwards rated as a Manor of I hide (the Domesday measurement) .^ I can say nothing of the place during the half century following Domesday, but some circumstances, to which I shall allude more particularly in the sequel, have induced me to think that the Lords of Burwardsley in the next succeeding period, were descended from that "Warin de Metz who appears to have acquired a considerable influence in Shropshire during the reign of Henry I. It is well known that whatever in the way of lands and honours that monarch had to bestow was usually given to men of little previous notoriety, and probably with less regard to any claims of descent than with a view to strengthen the influence of the crovra. Henry's favourites were however persons of ability and conduct, and the allegiance which the King won by a free gene- rosity in giving to new men, seems to have been of a truer stamp than that which resulted from his general character for impartiality and wisdom. Of the number thus advanced I take Warin de Metz of Lorrain to have been one. The mere error by which this Warin de Metz has been identified with Warin the Bald, the first Norman Sherifi" ' Domesday, fo. 258, b. 1. ^ An attorney of Petrouilla, wife of Warner de Williley, in 1204, is written as " Bernard de Bosleie." (I'lacita de Banco tempore Eegis Johanuis, No. !?5, m. 12 recto.) This is nearly the Domesday or- thography of Broseley, and serves to settle the question of identity. BROSELET. O of Shropshire^ has long ago been pointed outj and needs no refu- tation here.8 Most of what we know, or rather read^ about Warin de Metz, originates with those curious Chronicles which compiled from the songs of Trouveres, profess to give account of him and his suc- cessors, the Fitz Warins of Whittington and Alberbury. These Chronicles, besides that portion of them which common sense rejects at once as fabulous, are replete with anachronisms, contradictions, and improbabilities. Nevertheless, like all other legends, they have their value, and it is our business to extract whatever element of truth they may contain. We must accept all that is reasonable in itself and which we cannot disprove by better evidence. We must not only accept but greatly prize whatever is confirmed by independent testimony. Now the facts, which may be selected from these Fitz- Warin Chronicles for our present purpose are these, — that Warin de Metz lived in the time of Henry I,* — that his marriage allied him with the family of Peverel, then very powerful in Shropshire and in the Marches, — that he was related to the Dukes (or Earls) of Little Brittany, consequently to the family of Le Strange, whose progenitor Guy is represented indeed as coming to, and ultimately settling in, England by suggestion of Warin. Accepting thus much as fact, I now hazard a conjecture, bolder than any which I liave yet ventured upon in these pages and in justification of which I can refer to no previous Writer. My supposition, which must be tested by the sequel, is, that either Warin de Metz himself, or William his younger son, acquired this Lordship of Broseley in time of Henry I,- — perhaps by exchange. 2 Dugdale himself is responsible for this error, which, in a general inquiry like his, was a most likely one to arise. (Vide Saronage, toI. i, p. 443.) Finding, from the Salop Chartulary, that 'VVarin and Fulcoius were early Sheriffs of the County, and finding, from the Fitz-Warin Chro- nicles, that Warin de Metz and Fulk his eon, were men of great trust and repute, in an era nearly as early, Dugdale na- turally identified one pair with the other. This identity is uniformly ignored by Mr. Blakeway, when noticing any of the indi- viduals concerned, and in one instance (Sheriflfs, p. 31) Dugdale's error is obvi- ously the one alluded to. Mr. Wright, in his History of Ludlom (p. 83), has speci- fied another of Dugdale's omissions, in his account of the Fitz- Warins ; but the whole question of their descent requires that re-examination which I hope to offer on the earliest occasion. * The Chronicle says that he came into notice before the death of WUliam the Conqueror, and implies that he survived the accession of Stephen. These two data of course iavolve the third fact, of his living in the time of Henry I ; but I by no means advance them both as fully correct in themselves. 4 BROSELEY. perhaps under a partial forfeiture of the previous Lord, perhaps by feoffment of the then Baron of Holgate, though the seigneural interest of the latter can be traced no further. The Archidiaconal Chapter which, about a.d. 1115, sat at Castle Holgate under presidency of Richard Bishop of London, has been already alluded to.^ Among the fourteen lay witnesses who attended, were two whom it is to our purpose to mention here, viz. Hamo Peverel and Warinus. The subject which engaged the Chapter's attention should also be remembered. — It was the Parochial jurisdiction of Wenlock Priory, and the frequent attestations of subsequent Lords of Burwardsley, which appear in deeds concerning that House, will render it possible that the Warin, who attested about a.d. 1115, so attested with reference to some similar connection. At the same time we must mark the concurrent appearance of this Warin with Hamo Peverel and with the Viceroy of Henry I. For the sake of showing my hypothesis to be free from chrono- logical objections I must now notice the first occurrence of the sons of Warin de Metz.^ Of these, Roger appears to have been the eldest, Fulk the second, and eventually chief of the family ; and William, if rightly assumed to have been son of Warin, will have been younger than either. The documents which suggest this view are as follows — A charter whereby Walcheline Maminoht (one of Hamo Peverel's coheirs) between the years 1136 and 1141 exchanged lands with the Abbot of Shrewsbury is attested by Roger Fitz Warin.'' — A charter by which the same Walcheline, about the year 1 145 granted Bradford Mill to Haughmond Abbey is attested by Roger Fitz Warin and Fulk his Brother.** Of the presumed third Brother, WiUiam, we do not hear so early, but when he at length occurs it is chiefly in connection with the coheirs of the Peverels. — An act of restitution to Salop Abbey by Hugh de Dover and * Vol. I, pp. 217, 223. " With the same view of preserving a clear chronology, I should also notice two mis-statements of the Fitz-Warin Chro- nicles. The first is, that Warin de Metz married as late as the accession of Owen Gwyned to the sceptre of North Wales, i. e, after 1137 : the second is, that it was his son, Fulk Fitz-Warin I, who mar- ried Hawise de Dynan. It was Warin's grandson (Fulk II) who espoused that coheiress. ' Salop Chartulary, Wo. 28. ' Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 39 ; and Harl. MSS., 2188, fo. 123. BROSELEY. Matilda his wife (one of the said coheirs) , and which passed between the years 1161 and 1172, is attested by William Eitz Warin of Burewasley.' A similar and probably contemporaneous act by Ascelina de WaltervillCj another of the said coheirs, is also attested by William Fitz Warin of Burewardesley.i" It was doubtless the individual under notice, in whose favour the following precept of Henry II issued early in that King's reign : — " Henry King of England and Duke of Normandy to the Sheriff and his Ministers of Salopesire. I concede that William Fitz Warin may hold and have his assarts in Salopesire and may turn them to his profit at his own pleasure. Witness — The Chancellor at Faleise." " It was about this time (but specifically in 1170 or 1171) that Fulk Fitz -Warin I, the presumed elder brother of William, died. We are also fortunate in having proof that William was ere long succeeded at Broseley by another Warin. We thus complete a parallel between the two presumed brothers. This Warin, the successor and almost surely the son of William, "was a person of note in his day. The earliest mention I find of him is in a deed which passed while Peter w^s Prior of Wenlock, i.e. between the years 1169 and 1176. This deed is attested by Warin de Burwardesl' and Philip his brother.^^ About September 1176, the three Justices appointed to that circuit under the Statutes of Northampton, visited Shropshire. Amongst others they inflicted a fine of two merks on " Warin de Burwarley, because he was present when excuse was made about the death of John." ^^ A murder, I suppose, had been hushed up by the laxity of some manorial or provincial court or jury which should have investigated the case more fully, and of which Warin was a member. At Michaelmas 1177, Warin de Burewardesley appears as one of those who had been amerced by the King himself for trespass on the Royal Forests. His fine of ten merks, when compared ■with his position and that of others more heavily punished, indi- s Salop Chartulary, No. 30. 1" Ibidem, No. 31. " Dugdale's MSS. in Bibl. Ashmol., vol. xvii, fo. 54, quoting evidences of Sir 0. Smyth, Kut. The attesting Chancellor is doubtless Thomas h Beoket, and so the date of the precept probably May 1162. '- Wenlock Begister at Willey, fo. Y. " Sot. Pip. 22 Hen. II, BROSELEY. cates no very aggravated offence. He discharged half the debt in the current year and half in the year following.^* I now come to a most important entry relating to this Manor^ the appearance of which on the Staffordshire and not the Shrop- shii'e Pipe-RoU is remarkable ; but such transfers are by no means unprecedented. During a recent visit of the King's Justices a fine had been negotiated by Fulko son of Fulko Fitz Warin, which he had paid before Michaelmas 1183. He had proffered "one merk that he might prosecute in the King's Court (instead of before the Justices) the suit which he had concerning one hide of land in Burewardes- ley."" We have here not only a satisfactory correspondence between the Domesday measurement of Bosle and the subsequent contents of Burwardsley ; but, according to my view, hitherto presumptive, we have the son and heir of the elder brother suing his first cousin, the son and heir of the younger brother, for his inheritance. We shall See presently that the probable ground of this suit was heirship, i. e. that the parties derived their claims from a common ancestor. I have no evidence of the result of this suit, but what may be gathered from subsequent events. About this time Warin de Burward' attests a charter which has been already cited as relating to Corve (near Monk Hopton).i^ As Warin de Burwardesley or Burwardele he stands last witness of two charters which passed somewhat later in the century, and by which Isabel de Say, Lady of Clun, and her third husband William Botterell ensured her extensive grants to Wenlock Priory.^'' At^ Michaelmas 1188, Warin de Burewardesley had been fined a merk by Justices of the forest, " for building a mill without regard," i. e. without view and license of the proper authorities.^^ IS Mot. Fip. 34 Hen. II, Salop. This probably arose from the contiguity of Broseley to Sliirlot Forest. The rights and jurisdictions appurtenant to a Royal Fo- rest were by no means confined to the actual limits of the Tiaye or chace. All sorts of imposts were assessable on neigh- bouring and often on distant Manors, and every Manor thus liable was said to be "within regard" of such and such a Forest. " Rot. Pip. 23 and 24 Hen. II, Salop. '» Rot. Tip. 29 Hen. II, Staff. Nova Placita et Novffi Conventiones per Tho- mam filium Bernard! et Alanum de Fur- nellis et Eobertum de Witefeld. Fulko filius Fulkonis filii "Warini reddit compo- tum de 1 marc4 pro habenda loquel^ sua in Curi^ Regis de 1 l^id4 terrse in Bure- wardeslega. In Thesauro liberavit. Et quietus est. « Supra, Vol. I, p. 110. " Monastiaon, vol. v, 76; Nos. iv & v. BROSELEY. 7 During the captivity of King Richard, Warin de Burwardsley was one of those who aided in the treasonable designs of John Earl of Moreton, nay, he was actually in the employment of that Prince at Nottingham. On the surrender of that Castle in March 1194, he would appear to have been of the garrison, and his manors and effects were seized into the King's hands in consequence. But the records (admirably consistent with and illustrative of the history of this eventful period) shall tell their own story. — At Michaelmas 1194, the Gustos of the King's Escheats, under the head of "Salopescire" renders account of the following re- ceipts, viz — of £3. 8s. 6d., of the ferm of Warin's Burwardeley, for half a year ; — of £10. for the corn of the same vill which had been sold; — of 175. of the ferm of the same Warin's Bradelea (Bradley near Broseley); — and of 6s. 8d. for hay of thesame vill which had been sold.^^ At the same period (Michaelmas 1194) "Adam de Beissin accounted five merks for pardon, whereas he had married Mabel le Strange of Burwardesley without the King's license and for having his lands in Shropshire in peace." He had paid the whole fine.^o This requires some explanation. Adam de Beysin of Billingsley, Wrickton, Walkerslow, and Ashfield, the last three of which he held in capite of the Crown, had married Mabel eldest daughter and eventually coheir of Warin de Burwardsley. This being without license he was liable to fine and forfeiture, not because he had married an heiress or ward of the Crown, which was not yet Mabel's condition, but because he himself was a tenant in capite. But a still more important hint is contained in this Exchequer entry, — Mabel daughter of Warin de Burwardsley is called " Mabel le Strange." This, in conjunction with our previous assumptions, reminds us of the inferences drawn from the Fitz Warin Chronicle, viz. that Warin de Metz was not only akin to the family of Le Strange, but might himself be well described by a name, which, if I mistake not, was originally borne by or applied to more than one family. Very shortly after Michaelmas 1194, Warin de Burwardsley redeemed his forfeited lands, for the Escheator who accounted at 19 "Escbeat-EoU of Divers Counties," I =0 jjoj. pjp. g Eic. I, Salop, inserted in Rot. Pip. 6 Kic. I. I 8 BROSELEY. Michaelmas 1195^ had received nothing therefrom during the past year. Moreover among the fines which had been offered and accepted by the King since " his return from Almagne " was one to the following effect — " Warin de Burwordesle renders account of 20 merks for having the King's goodwill and his land, who was with Earl John in Nottingham Castle. He has paid it and is quit." At the same period (Michaelmas 1195), Warin de Burewordesle is entered as omng 2| merks, a further fine which he had proffered "for having trial about half a knight's fee in Rowlton and EUar- dine, against Griffin, son of Hereverth (so written for Gervase). Warin's pledge was John le Strauge.^-"^ The whole of this fine was not discharged tUl Michaelmas, 1201. Here again we are reminded of the connection between Warin and the family of Le Strange ; and once more, when, some years later, John le Strange made a grant, in Cheswardine, to Haugh- mond Abbey, Warin de Burward' was a witness.^^ Tliis is not the place to hazard any surmise about the grounds of Warin de Burwardsley's claim on Kowton and Ellardine. Suffice it to say, that those two Manors, together with Sutton and Brock- ton, constituted the Serjeantry of Griffin, son of Gervase Goch, who had in the previous year (1194) succeeded to his estates. Griffin's title was questioned in another instance than this, and in that other instance he is known to have compounded the adverse claim of Ralph de Sanford by a grant of land in Brockton. Something of the same kind probably resulted in the case of Warin de Burwards- ley; for an Inquisition taken about a. d. 1251 records that" Griffin de Sutton formerly alienated 2 virgates of his serjeantry at Sutton to Warin de Burwardeg."^' At the County Assizes (October 1203), Warin de Burwardsley sat as a juror in causes which were tried by the King's grand Assize."^ I must not omit to mention that besides his estates at Broseley, Bradley, and Sutton, Warin de Burwardsley was also a tenant in capite of the C'rown. A Roll of Crown Tenures in the County of Stafford, which appears to have been taken in 1211, records that " Warin de Burewardesley holds the Manor of Esseleg by service of the fifth part of a knight's fee, for which he is liable to do ward => Mot.Fip. 1 Eic.I, Salop. 2- Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 43. ^ Testa de Nevill, fo. 274. ^^ Salop Assizes, 5 John, memb. 4 recto. These jurors were usually Knights, or men of knightly degree. BROSELEY. 9 at Srawrthin." ^^ The Manor which he thus held was Ashley-upon- Tern, in Pyrehill Hundred, Staffordshire. It had been Earl Roger's at Domesday. The Castle, to which the service specified was due, was that of Shrawardine, and at the period in question it was a Royal Castle. Within the three years ending Michaelmas 1213, Warin de Burewardesleg had fined with the King in a sum of 20 merks, but for what purpose we cannot say. — The fine had been paid. Within the same period, and probably towards its close, he had been amerced in a similar sum of 20 merks, for a breach of the forest laws. Of this heavy penalty he had paid three parts, and the King (John) had excused the rest.^^ I can say little more of Warin de Burwardsley, except that about 1196 he attested a composition about Priors Ditton Church already noticed; about 1200, a grant by William Mauveysin of Ridware (Stafi'ordshire) ; about 1201, a grant by William Pitz Alan (ii) to Richard de Leighton ; and between 1205 and 1211, a grant by Ralph de Sanford which concerned land at Brockton, near Sutton.^'' A very usual witness with Warin de Burwardsley was his neighbour Warner de Wililey, and the appearances of both indicate a high position in the County Court, if not some more specific and official connexion. I find no later notice of Warin de Burwardsley than that above mentioned, in the year 1212. He had then been in possession of his estates nearly forty years, and he certainly did not survive many more. At his death (between 1212 and 1220), he left two sons, Philip and Roger, and three daughters, Mabel, Alice and Margery. Philip de Burwardsley, the heir of Warin, occurs first as having fined with King Henry III for a weekly Market at "Eist" (Ashley) . The Record of the Fine does not seem to be preserved, but on May 20, 1220 (the King being at Shrewsbury), Philip paid by hand of Walter de Saint Owen, a palfrey for this privilege. Accordingly a writ close dated 2d Oct. 1220, orders the Barons of the Exchequer to discharge the debt from their accounts.^^ At the County Assizes, Nov. 1221, William Fitz Richard and 25 Testa de Nevill, fo. 249. 21' Hot. Pip. 14 John, Salop, which combines (without distinguishing) the Sherifif's aocountg for three years. The Fine Soils for the whole period are lost ; so is the Forest BoH, which should contain the entry we are iu need of. 2? Supra, vol. i, p. 322. Shaw's Staf- fordsliire, vol. i, p. 170 ; and Charters at Leighton and Haughton. 28 Rot. Claus. vol. i, p. 431. 10 BROSELEY. Emma his wife, who had arraigned an assize of novel disseizin against Philip de Burwardesley and William le Bretun concerning a tenement in Wenlock and warranhj of a Charter, withdrew theii- suit, receiving 20s. from the latter.*^^ In 1230, Philip de Burwardsley appears in the Courts at West- minster as being sued by Fulk Fitz Warin (the third of that name, as I discover) for his inheritance, or so much thereof as had not been involved in the litigation of their respective Fathers nearly fifty years before. The steps which were taken in this new suit should be given as they occur on the Rolls. On the Quinzaine of St. Hilary (Feb. 17) 1230, Fulco Fitz Warin names Henry de Waneting as his Attorney against Philip de Burwardel.^" On June 23, 1230, the cause came on. — " Fulco Fitz Warin, by his Attorney sues Philip de Burwardel for 2 carrucates of land in Edulvescote (Arlscot), and 2 carrucates in Bradelegh (Bradley), both in Shropshire ; also for 2 carrucates in Offelegh (so written for Ashley), Staffordshire. — Philip asks view of the whole. The cause is adjourned to the Octaves of St. Martin," (Nov. 18, 1230).^^ I can trace nothing of this suit for many succeeding Terms, but on July 8, 1333, I find that the cause was still standing for trial by Grand Assize, and that Philip's Attorney, Warner de Bradele, essoigned himself by Roger Brun. An adjournment to Nov. 12 was the result. That day was given to such Recognizors as were in attendance, viz. to Robert de Essington, Robert de Halgeton, Adam de Brimton, John de Acton and William de Wilbricton of Staffordshire, and to Nicholas de Wylilegh and Robert de Sta- pelton of Shropshire : and the Sheriff was to produce the others (non-attendants) bodily in Court. ^^ On the day named (Nov. 12,1233), the "Great Assize between Fulco Fitz Warin, Plaintiff, and Philip de Burwardesleg concerning laud in Asselegh, was respited to one month of Easter (i.e. to May 31, 1234) by reason of the default (non-attendance) of the Re- cognizors." ^^ On that day Warner de Bradele, Philip's Attorney, had essoign 2' Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 3 dorso. Philip de Burwardsley served at these Assizes, as a Juror, in several important trials, and was apparently a Knight. ^ Flac'da apnd Westm. Hilary Term 14 Hen. Ill, memh. 12 recto. 31 Ibidem, Trinity Term 14 Hen. Ill, memb. 11 dorso. 32 Ibidem, Trinity Term 17 Hen. III. 33 Ibidem, Mich. Term 17 & 18 H. Ill, memb. 25 recto. BROSELEY. 11 through Richard de Beysin till Oct. 27 ; which day was also given to Adam de ArundeU/ Robert de Clifton, and Nicholas de Wylilegh, Recognizors, who were in attendance ; and the Sheriff had the usual order to produce the Defaulters.^* The RoHs of Michaelmas Term 1334< are lost, and of every Term till that of Easter 1236, when nothing further of this suit appears. We are however most fortunate in having a hint as to its probable termination. In the year 1259, the then Fulk Fitz Warin of Whittington was in receipt of an annual quit-rent of 7s. chargeable on one third of the Manor of Ashley .^^ He probably had a similar lien on the other shares of the Manor, and indeed evidence of that fact occurs.^® This brings round the more general and interesting question of descent with which we are concerned. — It matters not whether the Fulk Fitz Warin of 1259 held this rent-charge as an inheritance derived from a succession of an- cestors, or whether after long disuse the hereditary due had been re-established by law. — It was clearly a seigneural right, and represented a bond fide claim. As such its existence is in perfect conformity with, nay a circumstantial proof of, the theory which has now, I think, been established, viz. that the family of De Burwardsley were Fitz Warins, they and the Fitz Warins of Whittington descended respectively from a younger and elder Son of Warin de Metz. That certain Armorial Bearings were at an early period common to both houses may perhaps be taken as a final and conclusive evidence on the question.^'' *• JEsson. apud Wesim. Easter Term 18 Hen. Ill, memb. 27 recto. 35 Escheats, 43 Hen. Ill, No. 12, b. ™ John de Ejton, who died in 1300, and represented another of these shares, is expressly said to have been chargeable with a chief-rent of half a merk, due on a third of Ashley, to the IHilk Fitz Warin of that period. (Inquisition, 28 Edw. I, No. 33). ^ It is not meant by this that these or any Arms were derived from their common Ancestor, Warin de Metz, whose era was far too early to warrant such an assump- tion. The probability is, that when the elder house assumed a certain coat, the younger house assumed the same (with some difference, or mark of cadency), and thereby acknowledged or asserted its claim of relationship. The arms borne by Fitz Warin of Whittington were — " Quarterly, per fesse indented, argent and gules." The same Partition-Lines appear on the shield of Philip de Burwardsley. The colours of the latter cannot be positively determined, but there is every presump- tion ttat they were Gules and Or. The substitution of colour for metal in the first or principal quarter of the shield, would be, I imagine, a mark of cadency quite in keeping with early heraldic usage. 1:2 Ih- l>^ w 1-1 Ul CO P « < ^ M t> M P^ O |2i PS -^ II , ,.. ts II N H P4 h o lii \A O § g i- ■A 1^^ n „ s ;2i gl ^ M 8 OQ \\ fi ^O 3 t£co Ph-" ^O S3 ^ 6 S 60 5 o o 05 '^ ^ H tl J1 Sf> rfl . S £ 8 ir t^ 03 ^ u -^ - . 3 o §3 (>i 1-3 M 1^ rH 5j 3'3 „ . Pr H P3 1-1 1-1 Ih- Ih .S-S - ■ ^m33 01 be'"' a « _r EHtSiH •^^ S3 8 e _ i ■" u 00 -tS CO ^6 a o.-Sd S'fq .a r2 ■* to 'O IM N -g iH rH — O O fO P5WO a CO m o 55 <^ © (M "^ CO n a 3 -"s - O O O rO Ih ir \ pi pj ^ T3 I— 1 I— 1 r*^ ^ oo II II m" ffl . (XI a O &I t; o< - n (». ~ f^i ^1 • a"" ^f^S a o [a CD O Testa de Nemll, fo. 210. 4 26 BROSELEY. "This is the final concord &c. between Ralph de Cone and Margery his wife^ Plaintiffs (Querentes), and Margery de Blomen- huUj Defendant (Impedientem), of half a carrucate and two merks rent in Burewardeleg whereof was a plea of warranty of Charter. Margery de Blomenhull acknowledges the right of the Plaintiffs, as of the gift of herself; — to have and to hold, to Ralph and Margery (his wife), and the heirs of the latter. For this the Plaintiffs gave one sore sparrow-hawk. "^^ Margery de BlymhUl's abandonment of her interest here to her daughter, wife of Ralph de Covene, long before her own death will also appear in another way. About January 1250, Geoffrey de Langley and his Fellow Justices were commissioned to visit several Counties for the purpose of fixing an annual rent on all those portions of the King's Forests which had been reduced into culti- vation by private individuals. Whatever the period of their visit to Shropshire, three years such rent had been paid before Michaelmas 1252, by sundry persons assessed in the Arrentation- Roll of these Justices. Thus Ralph de Cove and Robert Beysin are put in charge for Qd. annually, in respect of half an acre in Borewardel, and had paid the said arrears.'^ In 1255, William de Ypstans, Ralph de Covene, Geoffrey de Bromley, and Richard de Pychford appear as joint Lords of Blym- hill,'^ which gives an approximate idea as to the coheirship of John Bagot and of his wife Margery. The latter however was stiU. living, and appears to have survived till 1259. The Inquisition on her death, as a tenant in capite bears date 10th May, 43 Hen. Ill (1259), and reports of her as follows — That " Margeria de BlumenhuU held one third of Ascheleye by payment to the king of half a merk whenever a S outage was levied. She also paid 7s. per annum to Sir Fulk Fitz Warin. The wife of Geoffrey de Bromle, whose name was Phelipe, was Margery's heir in respect of three parts of Ashley, and John son of William de Ipston was heir of the other quarter. Phelipe was thirty years of age and John twenty-six.'"* 9' JPedes Finivm, 33 Hen. Ill, Salop. Ealphi de Cove accomited 2 merks for his fine for license to accord. (Rot. Pip. 34 Hen. Ill, Salop). " Rot. Pip. 38 Hen. III. The lands thus charged were thenceforward to be free of " waste and regard " for ever, i.e. they were exempted from view of the Foresters, and from any charge of waste or damage done to the Forest. 93 Rot. Stmd. ii, 144. '■* Inquisitions, 43 Hen. Ill, No. 12 b. BROSELEY. 27 On the 12th of June following " the King received the homage of Geoffrey de Bromle, who married Philippa, daughter and one (alteram) of the heirs of Margery de BlymenhuU, and of John de IpstoneSj grandson (nepotis) and other heir of the same Margery, for all lands and tenements which said Margery had held of the king in capite." Philip de Legh was to take security from said Geoffrey, Philippa, and John for their Relief and give them seizin. " And because the said Margery had long before her death enfeoffed PhUippa and John in the said lands, and they asserted themselves to have been already ten years in possession, Philip de Legh, if he finds that to be the case, shall restore to them all receipts which he had had off the said lands since they had been seized into the King's hands " (on the death of Margery).'^ from what has now been said it would appear that Margery de Blymhill divided her estates both at Ashley and Broseley at least ten years before her own death, and in that division she excluded one if not two of her coheirs from all share in Ashley. Were this point not particularized, the terms of the Inquisition and Precept just recited might lead to the erroneous inference that she had only been Mother of two daughters. We now return to Ralph de Covene and his wife Margery, one of the daughters and coheirs thus mentioned. Ralph had his name from Coven (near ShareshiU, Staffordshire), a Manor which he held under the Barons Stafford. In the year following that in which he and his wife secured by fine their interest in Broseley, i. e. in the year 1249, he was appointed Justice for gaol-delivery at Brug.^^ > In the year 1255, he appears not only as Lord of Covene and a Coparcner in Blymhill, but as Seneschall of the King's Forests in Staffordshire.^'' In August 1256, he occurs as holding the same ofiice in the Royal Forest of Feckenham (Worcestershire) ?^ His concern in Broseley, in 1259, has already been set forth, and this is the latest notice which I have of him, except that between that year and 1262 he concurred with his wife Margery in demising their joint interests in Broseley to Geoffrey de Picheford The age of Philippa de Bromley is cer- tainly understated, and probably Tery much understated, in this Inquest. Her Father had been dead thirty years, and she was the eldest of three if not four of his daughters. Moreover if her younger Sister's son was twenty-six, she herself cannot have been much less than fifty. 95 Mot. Fin. 43 Hen. Ill, memb. 6. 9" Supra, Vol. I, p. 278. « Eot. Sutid. n, 114, 115. 98 Bot. Fin. 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 7. 28 BROSELEY. for a term of years,^" and that before that term expired Ralph him- self was dead. He left Margery his widow surviving, who soon after remarried to William de Drayton. He also left two or more daughters, of whom Alice the eldest was wife of Robert de Pende- ford at the time of her Father's death. From this Robert and Alice, Geoffrey de Picheford obtained a grant in fee of the whole of what had been Ralph de Covene's interest in Broseley, but whereas Margery Ralph's widow was surviving, this feoffment and the 40s. annual rent which it reserved to the Feoffors were obviously more than they could grant or receive, with any show of justice. i"" Shortly after this transaction Robert de Pendeford died, when his widow Alice renewed the bargain with Geoffrey de Picheford in form following, — " Know all men that I, Alice eldest daughter of Sir Ralph de Covene, in my liege widowhood, of my certain knowledge, and by the advice of my friends, and not under constraint, have given, &c. to Geoffrey de Picheford and his heirs all my land of Borewardeslee which my Lord Robert de Pendeford and I formerly made over to him, with the third part of the Advowson'of the Church, and the third of the Dower of the Lady (Emma widow of Philip de Burwardsley) when she shall chance to die. — Rendering to me and my heirs 40s. annually under the same distraint as is more fully contained in the Charter which passed between my Lord Robert de Pendeford and me and the same Geoffrey on the subject. — Witnesses: Hugh de Bolingale, William de Perton, Philip de Beckebur, John de Greuehul, William de Umfreston, Ralph de Kachylee, Philip de Swyneye, John de Bispeston Clerk, &c."i°i The next event in this somewhat complex story was the re- marriage of Alice, widow of Robert de Pendeford, to Thomas Sany: and now the question seems first to have arisen whether Alice '' At the Forest Assizes of Feb. 1262, Ealph de Cove appears subject to an amereement of 12 merksfor haTing hounds within Kmits of the Forest without war- rant {Forest Fleas, No. 4, niemb. 5 recto) : and the debt was still unpaid at Miehaehnas 1267 {Rot. Fip. 51 Hen. Ill, Salop). That Geoffrey de Pichford ac- quired an interest in Broseley before 1262 is proved by his being amerced at the same Forest Assizes for some default levied by the Justices on Edulvesoot (Arlscott) {Forest Pleas, Salop, No. 4, memb. 5 dorso). As a coincidence with this I should observe that one Roger de Pych- ford sat as a Juror on the Wenlock In- quisition of Jan. 1256 {Assize Uoll, memb. 12 recto). 100 These particulars are from the pleadings in a subsequent law-suit. '" Charter at Willey. The date of this deed is sufficiently pointed out by the context, viz. as between 1259 and 1271. BROSELEY. 29 had any right to deal exclusively with a third of this Manor during the lifetime of her Mother Margery. Accordingly William de Drayton and the said Margery sued Geoffrey de Pichford, the tenant, under a writ of dower in the County Court. Geoffrey called to warranty his Feoffor Alice and her then husband Thomas Sany. — They, not venturing to vouch such warranty (timentes war- rantiam), treated at once with William de Drayton and Margery, and came to an agreement whereby the latter were to withdraw their writ against Geoffrey de Pichford and receive 30s. out of the said 40s. rent during the life of Margery, Geoffrey de Pichford being authorized so to pay the same. — But this concord did not endure; for in Hilary Term 1272, at Westminster, Thomas Sany ("Sayne") and Alice his wife are found suing Geoffrey de Pichford and Mary his wife for performance of customs, rents, and services due in Burwardele.^"^ The cause was adjourned to the morrow of Ascension, but did not come on lor actual trial till the County Assizes in September, and then in a different form : for " Thomas and Alice sued WiUiam de Drayton and Margery for 20s. rent in Burwardsle, which Alice used to receive from Geoffrey de Picheford, with other 20s., from one-third of a carrucate of laud there." ^"^ William and Margery replied that " they had the said 20s. as of the dower of Margery and by gift of Ralph de Covene her former husband, one of whose heirs Alice was." The Plaintiffs here availed themselves of this misappKcation of the term dower, saying that " Ralph de Covene never was tenant (sole), because the tenement was once Margery Pitz Warin's, who in her widowhood gave it to Ralph de Covene, his wife Margery (Margery Fitz Warin's daughter) and their heirs, of their bodies, by a Charter," which they (the Plaintiffs) now produced, "whereby," said the Plaintiffs, "Margery William's wife was joint tenant with her former husband Ralph (habuit quantum Radulphus), and Ralph could not give her dower of such tenement." — The Defendants aciinowledged all this, and in reply recited the previous proceedings, viz. the term granted by Ralph de Covene and Margery his wife to Geoffrey de Pichford, the death of said Ralph, the feoffment granted by Robert de Pendeford and Alice, ^"^ Flacita apud Westm, Hilary Term, I '"^ Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 27 recto. | 5 recto. 30 BROSELEY. the suit of William de Drayton and Margery in the County Courts and the concord in which that suit had ended and which now the Plaintiffs sought to set aside. Here the proceedings of September, 1272, suddenly terminate with a note purporting that the Plaintiffs withdrew their pro- secution. Soon after this Geoffrey de Pichford compounded his obligation to pay 40*. rent to Thomas Sany and his wife Alice ; indeed we may say that he bought up their whole interest in the Manor of Broseley. A fine was levied at Westminster in Michaelmas Term 1274 between Geoffrey de Pychford Plaintiff (querentem), and Thomas Pani (so written) and Alice his wife, Impedients, of 40«. rent, one-third of a carrucate of land, and one-third the Advowson of the Church of Burwardesley, whereby Thomas and Alice surrendered the whole, as the right of Geoffrey, by their own gift : — to hold to Geoffrey and his heirs, of Thomas and Alice, and the heirs of Alice for ever : — rendering therefore to the Vendors one clove^°* yearly, and performing in their stead all services due to the Lords of the Fee. For this Geoffrey paid 30 merks.^"^ This fine was followed by another, levied at Westminster on July 1, 1275, whereby Henry de Parco and Margery his wife, ' Impedients, surrendered to Geoffrey de Pycheford and Mary his wife. Plaintiffs (querentes) , a ninth share of the Manor and Advow- son of Burwardesle, whereof was a plea of warranty : — to hold to Geoffrey and Mary, and the heirs of Geoffrey, of Henry and Margery, and the heirs of Margery, for ever : — rendering a rose yearly and performing all capital services. For this the Plaintiffs paid 60 merks.i"^ I cannot identify the interest thus bought up ; but if it were the contingent one of Margery de Coven she will, after 1272, have married a third husband, and her former claims have received ample recognition. Leaving her, it remains to say that her daughter Alice de Coven, de Pendeford, or Sany, seems to have been succeeded at Coven by the issue of her first husband Robert de Pendeford, who eventually assumed her name " de Covene." I trace nothing further of her seigneural interest in Broseley, repre- sented only by the receipt of a nominal rent. 104 « XTnum clavum gariophili,"' — a no- minal rent as commonly reserved at this period as the weU-tnown -pepper-corn rent of later usage. '»= I'edes Finium, 2 Edw. I, Salop, No. 4. i"« Ibidem, No. 5. BROSELEY. 31 In 1279, Geoffrey de Pyehford appears to be Patron of Broseley Church, as was his Son Richard in 1310. But we should say something of Geoffrey, as of a much more im- portant personage than his purchases in Broseley would indicate. — "When in November 1271, the Justices of the King's Forests visited the County, he appears as " Seneschal of all the Forests of Salop," an office superior to that of John Fitz Hugh of Bowlas, who follows him on the Record as Capital Forester.^'"'' But he was more than this. In 1280, he is charged with the sale of all old oak-trees within and without the King's Park of Windsor. In 1281, he was appointed Sheriff of Surrey and Sussex ; in 1283, he appears as Constable of Windsor Castle ; and in 1299, being dead, the Executors of his will are ordered to give up to another the Castle a.nd Forest of Windsor with all stores, &c. for the King's behoof.ios He was succeeded at Broseley by his son Richard, of whom all that 1 shall say is, that on Nov. 3, 1312, he conveyed to Richard de Harlee and Burgia his wife all his land in Borewardeslee, with the capital messuage, Advowson of the Church, homages, services, suits of free men and natives, and two mills near the Dene, to hold to them and their heirs, rendering to the chief Lords all due services. — Witnesses : Walter de Huggeford, William le Forcer, Hugh le Fitz Ayer, Knights, Thomas de Beysin, Geoffrey de Kinsedeleye, John de Aldenham, Richard de Knyghteleye, and others. Dated at Westminster, on the morrow of All Souls, in the sixth year of Edward, son of King Edward.^"' Having now completed our account of the principal interests in this Manor we should say something of the various Under-tenants. The names and occupancies of many of these will have been inti- mated by the documents already cited. A few more quotations will supply some further evidence of the same kind. Hugh son of Walter de Mancestre grants to Robert de Haya, for his homage and service, all his land in Burwardeleg which Roger le Palmer held of his (Hugh's) Father, viz. that which is called Palmers -Croft and that called The Dune, with a messuage and a culture called The Rudinge, between the land of Adam Fitz 107 Forest Fleas, Salop, No8. 5 and 6, I '"^ Originalia, passim sub annis. memb. 1. I ™ Charter at WiUey. 32 BROSELEY. William of Esleg (Ashley) and land once held by Adam Fitz Eylward and abutting on the wood of the Lord of the vill. — To hold to Robert and his heirs, rendering 1 2d. at Michaelmas. For this Robert pays on entry six merks. — "Witnesses : Ralph de Suhtleg, Henry and Otuel his brothers, Walter de Huggeford, Nicholas de Wylileg, James then Chaplain of Burward', John Teyce, Stephen de Swyneye, Henry de Huggeford, John de Burward% Adam de Esleg, William Carpenter, Lucas de Grane and others-^^" Robert de Hay a, the Grantee here, has already appeared as first witness to one Charter of Philip de Burwardesley and as his Feoffee in another. The dates of all Shropshire deeds in which he is con- cerned will probably be ascertained by stating his general and higher connections with the County. He was Deputy to Peter de Rivallis who entered upon office as Sheriff on July 11, 1232. The latter being removed early in 1 234, Robert de Haya was on March 25, appointed sole Custos or Sheriff, and so continued tUl Nov. 4, 1236.111 In Nov. 1240, he visited Shrewsbury as a Justice Itinerant, in company with Robert de Lexinton, Ralph de SuUeg (the first witness of the above deed), and others. Ten years afterwards he was Fermor under the Crown of Arley (on the borders of Shropshire) ; and nothing further can I say of him. The above deed 1 imagine to have passed in 1240, a date which becomes still more probable from the fact that Ralph Baron Sudley, of Gloucestershire, the first Witness, was lately deceased on March 19, 1242. I think it probable that Robert de Haya's interest in Broseley passed to WiUiam de Haya, who, being also Rector of the Church, eafeoffed a relation, John Fitz Silvester of Souldern (Oxon.), in his lay possessions here. This John Fitz Silvester of Sulthorn (Souldern) grants by deed to Thomas his Son aU the said land, with reliefs escheats, &c. to hold of the Lords of the fee by usual services. — Witnesses : Sir Ranulf de Ardene Knight, Adam de Bray, William de Overthon, "« Charter at "WiUey. ^" Fuller giTes a Robert de Haya as Sheriff or Under- Sheriif of Oxfordshire in 1227, of Berkshire in 1229, and of Ox- fordshire again in 1230, 1231, and 1232 {Fnller's Worthies, p. 102). A William de Hay held the same office in Oxfordshire from 1240 to 1245.- There was also a Robert de Hay Eeetor of Souldern (Oxon.) towards the end of Henry Ill's time, and who is said by Kenuett to have been of the Baronial family whose coheiress, Nichola de Hay, had married Gerard de CamviUe (^Paro- chial Antiquities, pp. 187, 604). BR08ELEY. 83 Richard Brun, Henry Brun, Philip de Fretewell, Roger de Eython, Philip de Suneye (Swiney), Henry le Forcer. ^^^ By another deed which passed between 1262 and 1272, Thomas Silvester of Sulthorn grants to Jurdan de Hay his cousin (con- sanguineo) without reservation all the land which he had in Burwardesle by feoffment of John his Father. — Witnesses : Ranulf de Ardern, Henry Brun, Richard Brun, Alan de Mildenhale, Adam de Toresmer, John White (Albus) of Cotesford, Robert Rikeward, PhOip de Sweneye, Henry le Forcer, John de Prestop.^^^ BEOSELEY CHUECH. I have said something already of the vast parochial Jurisdiction which was in ancient times divided among the few Saxon Churches of this County. The Church of Saint Milburg at Wenlock claimed and exercised the spiritual cure of a district which was bounded along its whole Southern frontier by the almost equal parish of Saint Gregory of Morville. The Manor of Broseley stood within the bounds of Saint Mil- burg's Parish J and the Church or Chapel which was founded at Broseley in the twelfth or fourteenth century was so founded as subject to the Mother Church of Wenlock. Doubtless the work was that of a Layman, and probably of the contemporary Lord of the Fee. In token of its affiliation on the Church of Saint Milburg, and probably as a condition of its origin, the Incumbent of the Church or Chapel of Burwardsley was taxed with an annual pension of 2*., payable at the feast of St. Nicholas to the Mother Church."* "2 Charter at WiUey. This Deed cer- tainly passed between the years 1243 and 1272. The first six witnesses all belong to Souldem (Oxon.), a Manor which Sir Ealph de Brderne (or Ardern) held in 1255 of the Barony of Eichard's Castle. Fritwell is an adjoining Manor. (Mot. Sund. ii, 44). "3 Charter at WUley. Again the first seven witnesses belong to Oxfordshire. The Inquest on Ploughley Hundred taken in 1279 mentions Eandulph de Ardeme, Thomas Silvester, Adam de Overton, and Richard Brun, as tenants in Sulthorn Manor. Also Alan de Tursmere, John II. Albus of Coteford, and Eobert Eikeward, appear in the same Eecord. (Uot.^und. ii, 823, &o.) 1" Eegister at Willey, fo. 37. This pension seems to have been allotted to the Sacristan of the Mother Church, which may account for its not appearing in more general Eolls of the receipts of the Priory. It was recited and confirmed to Wenlock, with other pensions, on May 27, 1331, in a. formal declaration by Thomas Bishop of Hereford, then visiting his diocese and being at MorviUe (Pat. 22 Edw. Ill, p. 3, m. 34). 34 ■^ROSELEY. No cure of souls went with the new foundation, and consequently the Incumbent was usually beneficed elsewhere. In the absence of any Chartulary of Wenlock Priory we must infer the date of foundation from other evidence. In 1291, the Church or Chapel of Burewardsleye in the Deanery of Wenlock was valued at £6. I3s. Ad. per annum, and the Rector was elsewhere beneficed. ^^^ In 1341, this Taxation of 10 merks was made a basis of the current assessment of this Parish to the ninth; but the Assessors allowed a considerable abatement, and exacted only 42s. The reasons were because the growing corn had been destroyed by great tempests, because a large proportion of the Parish lay uncultivated, owing to the poverty of the Tenants, and because the glebe and small tithes of the Chapel contributed to swell the greater sum (10 merks) and were not rateable on the present occasion. ^^^ In 1535, Edmund Michell was Eector of Broseley and Lynley ; the value of his preferment in glebe and tithes averaged £8. 5*. 8c?. per annum, and the only charges thereon were for Archdeacon's Synodals and Procurations, 7s. 2d.^^'' BAELY INCTJMBENTS. William Parson of Burwardesleg has already appeared attesting a deed about a. d. 1230. Ealph Cutuel, Clerk, seems, by deeds already cited, to have suc- ceeded to this preferment very shortly afterwards and to have died before 1242,— the latest date assignable to thatCharter which speaks of him as a former Rector, and makes mention of his heir. Another William is, I find, mentioned as having been Rector of Broseley in 1241. ^^^ If this be correct he will perhaps be the same with that WiUiam de Haya, Parson of Burwardsley, who granted lay possessions here, before 1272, to John Silvester of Souldern. 115 pype McA. Taxation, p. 167. A Taluation of the possessions of Wenlock Priory, dated 6 Sept. 1379, estimates a third of the advowson at four merks per annum, the Prior being then entitled to each third presentation (Mon. v, 78, viii). This would make the Living worth £8. per annum. The Prior was at the same time Lord of a third of the Manor. "^ Inq. Nonarum, p. 187. Capella de Borwasley. ^'^ Valor JEcclesiasticus, iii, 208. ™ Blakeway MSS. apparently quoting a MS. of Mr. G-odolphin Edwards. James, Chaplain of Burward', who attests about 1240, wUl probably have been a Deputy, or a Chantry Priest. BROSELET. 35 We have already seen this Church vacant in October 1258, and January 1359. Another vacancy in 1371 is probably indicated by the proceedings then instituted relative to the right of pre- sentation. Oct. 39j 1379, the Bishop of Hereford collated John de Brug Subdeacon to this Church, exercising a right which had devolved to him under authority of a general Council, but declaring the right of patronage to be vested thereafter in Sir Geoffrey de Pychford.^^^ Robert Turburville was Rector of this Chapel from about 1390 to 1300. He held therewith the Parish Church of Whethulle (Wheat- hill), which involved a cure of souls. This tenure in plurality would not have been legal without a Papal dispensation, had Broseley been a Cure also. As this Incumbent had no such dispensation, that fact was afterwards alleged in proof of Broseley being without Cure of Souls. 120 Richard de Pycheford was the next Incumbent of Broseley. He held the Chapel " a long time" (apparently ten years), and with it the Curative Church of Covelham in Winchester Diocese. Aug 15, 1310, the Bishop instituted to this Chapel Geoffrey de Pychford on the presentation of Richard de Pychford. Geoffrey was Brother of the last Incumbent. In 1314 he had Episcopal license to study for three years. He held together with Broseley, a Curative Church "in Salisbury Diocese, near to Windsor Forest, and the Town of Bray." At his death and previous to 1333, — Sir John Aaron had succeeded to the preferment. He then held together with this Chapel the Church of Madeley, which involved a cure of souls. Aaron was subjected to some proceedings by his Diocesan as a Pluralist. — On Saturday, January 18, 1333, the Bishop's Commissary, Stephen de Salop, Rector of Oldbury, heard the case in the Parish Church of Wenlock. The first Witness— Walter de Caleweton, Literate, a man of more than sixty-eight years of age — proved from his own recoUectious for forty-two years the principal facts above recited.131 -pim issue of the suit does not directly appear, but as Aaron resigned the "Free Chapel of Bourgwardesleye," not tiU 35 Sept. 1359, his tenure as a Pluralist would seem to have i'5 Ibidem, quoting Hereford Register. '-" Robert de TurburvUlc has already occurred as a Prebendary of Brug in 1291 and 1292 (Supra, Vol. I, p. 75). 121 Evidence for Sir John Aaron, &c. (MS. at WiUey). 36 BROSELEY. been recognized^ and the non-curative nature of this Chapelry may he inferred. On October 7, 1359j the admission of^ — Roger de Knightleye to this Free Chapel bears date at Bisliops Castle. The King was Patron by reason of the Priory of Wenlock being in his hands in consequence of the war with France. John de Burton, Gustos of this Chapel, resigned it on June 6, 1381, for the Prebend of Taunton in the Cathedral of Wells, here- tofore held by — James de Byllingford, who was instituted to Broseley April 33, 1383, on a presentation of the Crown similar to the last. Billyng- ford, called " Rector, Custos, or Master of this Free Chapel," resigned in 1385 ; and on May 11 — Robert Calle, Clerk, of the Diocese of York, was instituted on the King's nomination.i^^ — These successive presentations by the Crown do not, I think, indicate that the Advowson was at any time the sole right of "Wenlock Priory. In two out of the three cases the King was per- haps e:^ercising a mediate right, like that which shall be noticed under Badger. ARLSCOT AND BRADLEY. A glance at the Map will show the situation of these vills, the latter of which was occasionally called West Bradley to distinguish it from another Bradley in the same Liberty of Wenlock. That either of these places was involved in the Domesday Manor of Bosle is more than I will undertake to say. Possibly they were Members of the greater Manor of Wenlock, but as their subsequent tenure under the Priory, by the Lords of Broseley, associates them with the latter Manor, I will give some account of them here, though it may be inaccurate thus to class them under the Domesday Hundred of Alnodestreu. We have already seen Mabel de Burwardsley, about the year 1244, enfeoffing her younger son Warin de Beysin in all her interest in Edulvescote and West-Bradeleye at the nominal rent of a pound of pepper.i^^ Warin, thus and otherwise advanced, would seem to have been founder of a second family of Beysins. Between 1244 and 1249, he has been seen to attest the deed of his 122 Hereford Eegisters (Blakeway MSS.) | '== Supra, p. 18. BROSELEY. 37 Aunt Alice, whereby she conferred on her daughter her interests in Arlscot and Broseley. In 1255, Warin de Beyssin sat as a Juror for Stottesden Hun- dred,^-* and again at the assizes of January 1256.^^^ This pro- bably arose from some feoffment in his Nephew's Manors of Wrickton, Walkerslowe or Billingsley. The Hundred Roll of 1355, which describes the tenures of Manors in the Staffordshire Hundred of Cuddleston, writes him as holding " 2 carrucates in Stuston of the Barony of Wenlock." ^^^ At the Forest Assizes of February 1262, I find Warin de Beyssin in company with Ralph de Caughley, Philip de Swiney and William le Masun, as a Regarder of the Forests of Morf and Shirlet, and amerced for a careless return.^^'' And this is a suitable occasion to introduce a deed whereby he grants to Margaret his daughter for her homage, &c. half his land in Edulvescote, to hold of him and his heirs. — Witnesses: Sir Geoffrey de Uv?ton (Overton), Sir Ralph d' Arraz, Hugh de Lega, Ralph de CakeF (Caughley), Philip de Swyney, William de Hemton, &ccP^ I can say nothing more of Warin de Beysin ; but at the Assizes of October 1272, Robert de Edlescote had been entered as a Juror of Wenlock Liberty, and his name, for some cause, erased.^^^ At the Inquest of Nov. 27, 1274, he however was a member of a similar panel.^^" I think it possible that this Robert de Arlscot was the same person who as Robert de Beysin, and somewhat later in the cen- tury, granted to Sir Walter de Beysin and his heirs an annual rent of half a pound of pepper, receivable from certain tenements which Richard Miller and Roger Bobur used to hold of the Grantor in West Bradeleye. — Witnesses : William le Masoun of Moghale, Hugh de Patinton, John de Brocton, John de Presthop, Roger de Weston, Roger de Corfhul, Henry le Hethene de Laverden (Larden), and others .^^^ '2^ Sot. Hund. ii, 81. '2* Placita Corona, 40 Hen. III. 126 Bot. Sund-ii, 315.— Shuston is a vill adjacent to Longnor wMch was a Manor of the Beysina. How Wenlock Priory obtained a footing there I cannot determine. The Beysins con- tinued to hold it in the reign of Edw. II. 1-7 Forest Assizes, 46 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 recto and 6 recto. li^ Coyney Charters in Dugdale's MSS. 129 Placita Coronce, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 21 recto. 130 Bot. Hund. ii, 110. 131 Charter at WiUey. Mr. Blakeway suggests the reign of Edward II (1307- 1327) as the probable date of this deed. I have placed it earlier. It would seem to be a relinquishment of the mesne tenure of the Grantor in the premises. The seal bears the impression of a bird. 38 BROSELEY. THE DEAN. A Tenement thus named^ and which is traceable in more than one modern locality^ seems to have been within the Manor of Broseley, and held by free Tenants, of the Lords of the Fee. Thus we have Alan de la Dene and Warner his Son in attendance at the Manorial Court about 1230 ; Thomas de la Dene a defaulter in due attendance at the Assizes of October 1272 ; and Nicholas de Dene a Surety for the appearance of Roger Fitz Denys at the same Assizes and also a Juror for Wenlock Liberty at the Inquest of Nov. 27, 1274, when he accused Thomas de Middlehope and William Canvile of taking a bribe to remove him from some Assize.^^^ SWINNEY.— Another member of the Manor of Broseley was held by free Tenants taking a name from the locality. Of these Peter de Swinheie occurs Oct. 13, 1199 ; one, whose name is transcribed Memun de Swiney, about 1220 ; Stephen de Swiney at various times between 1230 and 1250 ; and Philip de Swiney, who sat a Juror of the Liberty of Wenlock in 1255 and January 1256, would appear to have been dead in February 1262. Another Philip succeeded, who at the last date was a Eegarder of Morf and Shirlot Forests, and amerced for a faulty return. In Hilary Term 1267, this Philip, in company with Hugh de Bolinghale, Hamo le Botiller, and Roger de Eyton, was being sued at Westminster by Katherine de Lacy for a debt of 4 merks and also for 2 years arrears of an annual rent of 10 merks, alleged to be due from them to her.^^* At the Assizes of September 1272, he was amerced with eleven other Jurors for some concealment, but with Warner de Swyneye attended on the Jury for Wenlock Liberty. The same Philip and Warner served as Jurors on the Wenlock Inquisition of November 1274,^^* and were probably the two witnesses who, as Philip and Wenne de Swyney, attested Matilda Devereux' deed before quoted. A William de Swyneye has already occurred in January 1259, 132 Bot. Sund. ii, 110. '■^ Plac. apud Westm. 51 Hen. Ill, raemb. 6 recto. This alleged debt, which, before the County Assizes of 1272, had increased to 44 merks, was then sued for by the Plaintiff. A Final Concord, not preserved, was the result {Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 6 recto) . ™ Hot. Sund. ii, 110. LINLEY. 39 and one Richard Suygg of Swiney is returned in February 1262 as being then dead, whilst his son, another Richard Suygg, was still in prison for having taken one of the King's deer 8 years before, viz. on Sept. 22; 1253. Within this Township the Abbey of Build was was sometime possessed of a Weir in the River Severn. — Oct. 28, 1227, a fine was levied at Salop between Richard Fitz Nicholas, Plaintiff (petentem), and Stephen Abbot of Build was. Tenant of a Weir (gurgite) in Swineie, whereof was suit of Mort d'ancestre. The Abbot acknowledged Richard's right and surren- dered the Weir, — to have and to hold, to Richard and his heirs, under the Abbot and his Successors, at an annual rent of 15s.i^^ iCinU^. This place is not mentioned in Domesday. It never seems to have been involved with Broseley or Willey, and therefore it is per- haps inaccurate to treat of it under the Hundred of Alnodestreu. It may in 1086 have been an outlying member of Wenlock IManor, or it may have been a then unreclaimed portion of the Norman Earl's Demesne, which we know included Shirlot Forest and other places about which Domesday is equally silent. At all subsequent periods I can speak of Linley only as a Manor held in Socage^ under the Priory of Wenlock, but whether that seigneury existed at Domesday, or whether it was acquired early or late in the following Century, no Record is forthcoming to in- form us. Richard de Linley, whoever held over him, was doubtless pos- sessed of this Manor before the death of Henry I. Being also a Tenant of Hamo Peverel at Sutton or Brockton, he attests about 135 Pedes Mnium, 12 Hen. Ill, Salop. 1 It will be sufficient in this instance to describe the Tenure btf Socage nega- tively. It was not a tenure by Knight's service, and, whatever were the rights of the Seigneural Lords, wardships, reliefs, andmarriages of the Tenants were excluded. 40 LINLEY. that period several of the said Baron's Charters to Shrewsbury Abbey." In one of these he is described as Richard son of Bald- win de Lintlega, but of his Father so named I have seen no other notice.' About 1150, Richard and Ralph de Linlega stand first lay-wit- nesses to a Charter whereby Rainald Prior of Wenlock granted a feoffment in the neighbouring vill of Posenal.* I take it to be a second or possibly a third Richard de Linley who between 1161 and 1172 occurs as last witness to two deeds already quoted, under Broseley, as of that date, and as executed by coheirs of Hamo Peverel. In 1177, we have a Walter de Linley doubtless related to this Richard, and who has been already noticed as a Grantee of Crown Lands in Brug, afterwards enjoyed by Sibil de Linley.^ At the Forest Assize of 1180, Richard de Linley stands next to his neighbour Warner de Wililey as assessed in the sum of 2s. by the Justices. About the same time and in company with the same Warner and Warin de Burwardsley, he attests that invaluable Charter of Corve which I am so often referring to. The close of the Century introduces another Lord of Linley, apparently the last in male succession. This was Philip de Linley, who besides attesting nearly contemporary charters of Isabel de Say to Wenlock and of Griffin de Sutton to Wombridge, appears in the oft-cited Composition of 1196 (concerning Priors Ditton Church), and in May 1200, was Recognizor in a law-suit which William Fitz Alan II had against Gilbert de Lacy about land at Harnage.^ The eventual Successors, perhaps the daughters, of this Philip were two Coheiresses, one of whom seems to have become the wife of William le Forcer, the other (Isolda) of Wido de Fernlawe (Farlow). I shall have other opportunities of following the descent of these Coparcners in Linley. Here I will state only that which relates more immediately to the said Manor. In 1255, Henry le Forcer, son and heir of the above-named William, served on the Inquest as to Tenures in Wenlock Liberty. The Manor of Linley is thus noticed, and as if exclusively his. — " Henry le Forcer is Lord of the vill and holds under the Prior of Wenloc and does due suit to the Prior's Court ; and his Ancestors 2 Salop Chartulary, Nos. 19, 24, 32. 3 Monasticon, iii, 519, No. 2. ■• Begister at Willey, fo. 6. * Supra, Vol. I, pp. 359, 360. ^ Rottdi Cwriai Regis, volume ii, page 252. LINLEY. 41 used to do suit to the Hundred of Munslow till the time of King Richard."^ As a tenant in capite at Brockton an Inquest was summoned on the death of this Henry le Forcer. The King's Writ ordering such Inquest bears date 25th Oct. 1272. As regards Linley, the Jurors returned little more than that the deceased held half the vill under the Prior.* A second Inquest which sat at Newport on July 6th, 1273, in obedience to a writ of certiorari, is more explicit. It states that Henry le Forcer had held a messuage and carrucate of land at Linley under the Prior by Socage, doing homage to the Prior and owing suit of Court every three weeks : that the whole Manor was worth £3. 13s. 6(1. per annum, less a rent-charge of 9s. due annually to the heirs of Philip de Farlowe : and that the Liberty of St Milburg was such as that the Prior had no right of wardship or marriage over the heirs of those his men who held by homage."^ Henry le Forcer left a widow, Burga, and a son, William, who (having been born Sept, 29, 1256) was under age at his Father's death, and was claimed as a ward of the Crown. That claim how- ever was unfounded, for a reason which will be given under Brockton. This William would seem to have been chiefly resident in Shropshire, though he inherited from his Father the Manor of Elstow (Leicestershire),^" — a more extensive property than Linley. Being also a Tenant of Salop Abbey (as I have shown under Nordley), William le Forcer attests two deeds of that House dated respectively May 25, 1298, and March 29, 1303." About 1310, and being then a Knight, he attests two deeds which will be given under Tong and Donington. On Nov. 5, 1313, Sir William le Forcer appears as purchaser of lands at Dudmaston, and again on 9 June, 1326.^^ ' Sot. Hund. ii, 84, 85. s InquisiUons, 56 Hen. Ill, No. 23. 9 Ibidem, 1 Edw. I, No. 47. 1° Elstow (generally written Ayleston) was held under the Harcourta by a curious tenure. The Tenant was to aoeompany his Lord whenever the latter had to serve in the Welsh wars. He was to remain with his Lord forty days at his own cost, and serve him in the capacity of Steward II. of the Table (Pannetarius) and Butler, during the whole period. Ayleston and Tong passed from Harcourt to Pembruge, a circumstance which will explain the attestation of Sir William le Eorcer to certain deeds which shall be cited under Tong and Donnington. 1' Supra, Vol. I, p. 50. '2 Charters at Dudmaston. 6 42 LINLEY. Meanwhile^ that is in March 1316, it is he who should appear as Lord of Linley on the Nomina Villarum Roll of that date.^^ Lastly, iu May 1324, the Sheriff returned him as one of twenty- two Knights of the County who were to attend a great Council then under summons to Westminster.^* A fine was levied in 1330 "between Thomas le Forcer and Maud his wife Complainants, and John le Botiller Defendant, of the Manor of Linley, to the use of Thomas and Maud in taile." ^^ This transaction will indicate the previous death of Sir William le Forcer and the succession of Thomas his heir. LINLEY CHAPEL. This foundation would appear to have belonged to a class not very numerous in early times. It was I suppose a private Chapel attached to the residence of the Lords of Linley. Situated within the Parish of the Holy Trinity of Wenlock, it was without parochial cure, nor can I find that it had any permanent endowment,^^ or that its Incumbents were presented to the Bishops of Hereford for Institution. Neither does it appear to have been liable to any such charge or pension as was usually reserved by the Mother Church of any district, as a condition of these minor foundations. In the absence of all early notice of a Chapel existing here, we find some architectural remains which attest a high degree of antiquity. Its Founder was doubtless one of those Lords of Linley who have been already spoken of as holding the yet un- severed Manor down to the close of the twelfth century. The Wenlock Jurors at the Assizes of October 1203, reported of a Robber who after commission of his crime took sanctuary in the Church of Linley.^'^ From that period till the year 1535, when the Chapel appears as united to Broseley,^^ no mention of its exist- ence has occurred to my notice. " Farliame%tary Writs,Yo\. iv,p. 397, where the printed copy gives, with its usual inaccuracy, William Imfford as Lord. " Ibidem, vol. Ui, p. 648. 1* Dukes's Antiquities, p. 264. •* By a settlement of the endowment of Wenlock Vicarage in 1273, it appears that all the tithes of Linley were assigned by the Priory to the Incumbent of the Mother -Church, except two merts which belonged to the Kitchen of the Priory, and except the tithes of demesne. (Charter at Willey) . It does not however appear whether the Priory reserved these de- mesne tithes itself, or whetlier they were the endowment of the Chaplain of Linley '^ Salop Assizes, 5 John, memb. 2. '' Supra, p. 34. DOOR-WAY, SOUTH SIDE, LINNEV. Mil! ^ J^^ -^-± FONT, LINLEY. Seal of G-riffiiL son of Gervase Godi, rVide page 124.jiota 65) Sea], of ¥ad.oo de Sutton. ("VidepagelLO.rLOtB 42) Seal of Henry le Strange of Brocliton. (TKiepa^el25,iLOt6 68) 43 CauflI)Iep* This place demands a separate notice on mucli the same grounds as Linley, viz. as a distinct Tenure under the Priory of Wenlock, yet without any Domesday type, and without any symptom of its having been involved in Wenlock or any other Domesday Manor. The somewhat disjointed notices which seem to relate to it are as follows. — At the Assizes of November 1331, it was found that Ralph de Sandford (who had lands in Brockton) had unjustly disseized Walter Faber and Agnes his wife of their free tenement in Cacheleg.^ On the dearth of Richard de Sanford (son of this Ralph) about 1349, it appeared that the deceased had been in receipt of a rent of 85. payable by Ralph de Kacheleg on land in Kacheleg.^ At the Inquisition of 1355, Ralph de Kacheleg was on the Jury for Wenlock Liberty. He was returned as holding a carucate of land in the vill of Kakeleg for which he paid a rent of 40s. per annum to the Prior of Wenlock and did suit to the Prior's Court by afforciament; and his Ancestors had done suit to the Hundred of Munslow tiU the time of Richard I.^ Oh the 16th of September 1289, a writ of King Edward I enjoins the Sheriff of Salop to summon a Jury, which should ascertain the circumstances under which the Manor of Cackeleg was held, and whether it would be to the King's damage if he allowed Nicholas Brisebon of Montgomery to grant the said Manor to the Prior of Wenlock, to have and to hold for ever ? The Jury met at Wenlock on Oct. 23 following, and reported that the pro- posed conveyance would not injure the Crown ; — that the Manor was held' of the Priory already, by service oiQs.per annum. That its full value (to the Tenant) was 135. M. per annum, and its contents were a carucate of land.* 1 Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, m. 2. Inquis. inoerti temporis Henrioi III, So. 111. ■i Rot. Sund. ii, 84, 85. * Inguisitions, 17 Edw. I, Wo. 77. The Eoyal Patent allowing the proposed sur- render to Wenlock bears date June 20, 1290 {Fat. 18 Edw. I, m. 21). It pro- Tides that the villains on the Manor shall remain in their existing state. 44 CAUGHLEY. Without attempting to account for this apparent change of value since 1355, I will here only say that this Nicholas Brisebon had two sons, Roger and Hugh, each holding lands in Brockton (near Sutton), and that Roger Brisebon both before and after the date of this Inquest (1289) was engaged in many transactions with Wombridge Priory, to which house he seems finally to have conveyed most of his said property in Brockton,^ In 1291, among the Temporalities of the Priory of Wenlock was a carucate of land at Caughley, apparently held in demesne, and the annual value of which is laid at 12*. This was doubtless the carucate recently redeemed from Nicholas Brisebon ; but besides this, the Prior was in receipt of 20*. rent in Caughley, evidently chargeable on other land.® On the 12th of May 1296, another Inquest of the kind called " ad quod damnum " was ordered in relation to this Manor. The Jury in this case was to report as to a grant which Philip de Caughleye and Margery de Prestehope proposed to make to Wenlock Priory of a messuage, four virgates of land, and ten acres of wood in Caughleye. The Jurors again gave a verdict in favour of the grant ; and added that the land was already in the Prior's Liberty and held of him by service of 40*. rent and two suits per annum at the Prior's Court at Burton, — that the annual value of the premises was 10*. more than the services, — that Philip had never been liable to serve on Juries in regard to his tenure at Caughleye, but that he held a messuage and half-virgate at Shineton which would oblige him so to serve.^ A valuation of the possessions of Wenlock Priory, taken Sept. 6, 1379, explains part of the apparent inconsistencies of the above extracts. The Monks had then two carrucates at Caugheleye, the result I presume of the two transactions of 1289 and 1296, but the whole was valued only at 6«. Sif. per annum? As regards the family which took its name from this place, and of which the above-mentioned Philip was probably the last, a few notices should be added. We have seen Richard de Kayleo- attesting a Broseley deed about 1230, and Ralph de Kayleg ° Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Broc- ton, passim. " Register at Willey, fo. 7. A better copy of Pope Nicholas Taxation than is supplied on page 164 of the printed Re- cord, where this place is spelt Caleuve. ? Inquisitions, 2,4i Edward I, No. 83. The Patent by which the King allowed the proposed grant did not issue till March 27, 1299 {Pat. 27 Edw. I, memb. 33). * Monasticon, v, p. 78, No. 8. WILLEY. 45 attesting later in the century. Besides his occurrence in 1249 and 1255, this Ralph de Kauchelea appears in September 1258, as negotiating a twelve years' lease of lands in Astley Abbots under Sibil daughter of Henry Fitz Tyrric.' In February 1262, he appears as Ralph de Cauweleg and as a Regarder of the King's Forest. For some neglect in that office he was amerced.^" The last that I find of him is his complaint in Nov. 1274, against William de Caverswell, who while Sheriff (1268-9) had received a fine of 2*. Id. from this Ralph, for not producing one for whom he was Surety. The said Sheriff had given the complainant no acquittance, so that he had been again charged with the debt.^^ Philip de Caughley, apparently successor of Ralph, has already been spoken of. setiup. This Manor was, in 1086, a member of the Fief held by Turold tmder the Norman Earl, and is thus noticed in Domesday . — " The same Turold holds Wilit, and Hunnit (holds it) of him. This same (Hunnit) held it (in time of King Edward) and was free. Here is half a hide geldable. There is arable land sufficient for ii ox- teams. Here those ox-teams are, together with ii villains and ii boors. Its value was, and is, v shillings." ^ This mode of writing the place (" Wilit") is probably the result of a scribal inaccuracy, and no safe guide as regards its etymology. The true Sa^on name is more likely to be represented by the usual and very old forms of Wililey or Wilileg. The probable constituents of that name are pdi3, a willow (whence pilie, a basket), and lea}, a district. 9 Salop Chartulary, No. 152 h. A cu- rious condition is attached to this lease. If the Lessor should take to herself a hus- band within the term, she was to satisfy the Lessee for the residue of the term and his previous outlay. 10 Placita Foresta, 46 Hen. Ill, Salop. " Rot. JSund. ii, 111. The name is printed " Ead de Taweleg." Domesday, fo. 258, a 1. 46 WILLEY. Turoldj the Domesday Lord of Willey, held thirteen Manors under the Norman Earl. Among them were Longford, Chetwynd, Draitune (Little-Drayton in Hales), Pichford, and Wigwig. He also held Etone (Little Eton, near Pichford, a vill now destroyed) of the Collegiate Chuxch of St. Chad, Shrewsbury.^ This Turold has been represented as a Saxon, and I suppose on very insufficient grounds.^ The name does not belong to the Saxon language, and if not originally Norman or Angevin, it 2 Domesday, fo. 253, a 1. 3 There is perhaps no subject on which Mr. Blakeway, the greatest of Shropshire Antiquaries, has left lees valuable com- ments than this of Turold, his origin, his descent, and his connection with Toret. I cannot pretend to a single item of docu- mentary information which did not reach Mr. Blateway, and can only attribute our differences to his having lent only a cursory attention to the matter. Parts of the subject may more properly belong to a future section of this "Work ; but it can hardly be divided, and the earliest is perhaps also the best opportunity to deal with a question which has been mis- apprehended by any great authority. Mr. Blakeway tells us substantively (History of Shrewsbury, ii, p. 25) that Turold and Toret, who appear in the Shropshire Domesday, and Tetbald, whose Son Bobert occurs as a Feoffee in that Record, were one person. Domesday gives no hint whatever of such identity, and writes the three names with every appa- rent observance of their orthographical distinction. If Turold and Tetbald were identical, then we have a Father and Son contemporary and considerable Tenants of the Norman Earl, — a circumstance of great inherent improbability. Mr. Blakeway also says that the Drai- tune held by Turold in Domesday was " Little Drayton, now called Deckar-hill, in the Parish of Shifnal." The fact how- ever is, that Turold's Manor of Drayton was in Odenet Hundred, which did not approach Iteshale (the Domesday Shiff- nal) in any direction, whilst the Little Drayton, which was a member of Iteshale, then and afterwards, belonged as such not to Turold, but to Robert Fitz Tetbald. But even adopting for a moment Mr. Blakeway's ideas that the Draitune, which Turold granted to Salop Abbey in time of Henry I, was Dray ton near Shiffual, and that Robert Fitz Tetbald was identical with Robert Fitz Turold, we at once find ourselves beset with anomalies, viz. the Son possessed of the Capital Manor (Ites- hale), while the Father had only the mem- ber (Draitune) ; the Father granting in a generation after his son's advancement; to say nothing of the Abbey being supposed to receive lands in a quarter where they retained no such property, rather than in a quarter where they were afterwards largely interested. Mr. Blakeway further says, that Turold was a Saxon, that he held tliirteen Manors in Domesday, " in which he is sometimes caDed Turold, and at others Toret." However in the thirteen Manors alluded to, and even in a fourteenth, Turold is uniformly so written ; but if Toret were the same person, then there is mention of Toret in four other Domesday Manors, so that their aggregate tenure was eighteen rather than thirteen Manors. , A note by the same Authority also says, that Toret " though favoured by the Nor- mans, was removed from all the estates which he held in time of the Confessor." This again is untrue as regards at least half of Toret's Saxon Manors. It is a wonder that Toreth's attestation of Robert Fitz Turold's Charter to Salop Abbey, did not dissipate this mistake as to his identity with Turold ; but the error is substantively repeated in the " Sheriffs WILLEY. 47 occurs in Normandy before the Conquest, and was borne by several who profited by the Norman invasion of England. With regard to the thirteen Manors held by Turold of the Nor- man Earl, an usual but not quite uniform rule of succession is observable. The general rule is that whatever Turold thus held in 1086j was afterwards held by Turold' s heirs or successors, not immediately of the Crown, as might have been expected, but as an appendage of the Barony of Fitz Alan. The exceptions to this rule are Longford, Little Drayton, and Wig wig. The first of these (Longford) continued indeed a tenure in caplte, that iSj was never subjected to the seigneury of Fitz Alan ; but its Tenants were no longer Turold or his heirs, for Henry I bestowed it in another line of succession. This loss of his principal Manor, as well as the degradation of his Fief in the scale of feudal tenures, are circumstances, which I doubt not were associated with some sym- pathy or partizanship exhibited by Turold in the cause of Earl Eobert de Belesme. Turold evidently survived the fall of his Suzerain, and apparently escaped any more summary forfeiture than that already indicated. It was during the period when King Henry I was holding this County in demesne,* that under the name of Torald de Verleio (another evidence of his Norman extraction) ^ this Turold granted to Shrewsbury Abbey a hide in Lesser Draiton, or in fact all that Domesday says he possessed there. ^ The mode in which King Henry I confirmed this grant, in 1121, would make it probable that it passpd during the Viceroyalty of Eichard Bishop of London.'' The limits of date thus ascertained, viz. 1108-1121, apply apparently to the further event of Turold's death and the succession of his son and heir Robert. Certainly before the latter year this Robert had followed his Father's example by granting to Shrews- bury Abbey the vill of Wigwig (villam nomine Wichewicam). of Shropshire" (p. 43), where again the mention of Toret's Saxon Manor of Eodington, which he retained in 1086, might hare suggested a revision of the whole question. * Monasticon, iii, p. 519, Num. 2, " His- toria Fundationis." 5 Verleium is obriously the name of some French Town Latinized according to a mode very usual with Norman writers, e. g. Irry, Pacy, Creasy, &o., are usually written Ibreium, Paoeium, and Oresseium. The name Verlay which would thus become Verleium, is on the Eoll of Battle Abbey, a further proof of the Norman origin of its bearer. ^ Domesday, fo. 258, a. 1. It is Drayton Parva, a township now involved in Market Drayton. 7 Salop Chartulary, No. 35. 48 WILLEY. There were witnesses of this, besides the said Bishop, Hamo Peverel, John son of Grip, and Toreth.^ Of Turold and his son Robert, I learn nothing further or with certainty.^ — In eleven of the fourteen Manors which Turold held in 1086, I shall hereafter show that a family, which took name from Chetwynd the chief of those residuary Manors, inherited or obtained Turold's interest. This uniformity of succession in so many Manors indicates I doubt not an inheritance by blood ; but I can establish no particular of generic descent from Robert son of Turold de Verley, who lived in the beginning of the twelfth Century, to Adam de Chetwynd who occurs towards its close. The general rule of territorial succession, now alleged, remains however to be established by particulars. Of the eleven Manors in which we are to show De Chetwynd as the successor of Turold, there is no case in which all evidence on the point might more easily have been lost than that of Willey. It was one of the Manors which were absorbed into the Liberty of Wenlock in time of Richard I ; and thus all trace of its original Tenure might well have vanished ; in fact the usual statement about Willey and other Manors so transferred was that they were tlienceforward held of the Prior of Wenlock. Nevertheless it can be shown by a single and fortuitous notice, presently to be cited, that Willey followed the ordinary descent of Turold's Manors, and that in the thirteenth Century it was, in some sort, held of the Fee of Chetwynd, and by Chetwynd under Fitz Alan. We must now speak of Hunnit who was a Saxon, and who having held Willey before the Conquest was permitted to retain it under a Norman Lord, and so had it in 1086. This continuous Saxon interest in the Manor was probably the cause of its non- diminution of value since the time of Edward the Confessor, as well of its being cultivated to its full capability when the Domesday Commissioners took their account of it. Hunnit and his Brother Uluiet had in Saxon times held other ^ Salop Chartulary, No. 35. s That Charter of Shrewsbury Abbey which has just been qvioted as the " His- toria Fundationis," is a statement of the possessions of that house, drawn up apparently in the beginning of Stephen's reign; for it recites that King's Con- firmation, which must have passed about 1136, but does not notice tlie Charter of the Empress Maud, which will have followed in 1141. This "History," speaking of Robert son of Turold adds, " qui et hseres ipsius est," as if he were then living. The Teodary of 1165 contains, under Fitz Alan's Barony, no name and tenure which I can suggest as likely to represent the " Fee of Chetwynd." WILLEY. 49 Shropshire Manors besides Willey. In two of these, viz. Moreton and Preston, Ilunnit was still Turold's tenant in 1086. In a third, Lawley, he also held under Turold, but the Saxon owner of that Manor is not particularized in Domesday, though probably it was he. The usual Norman policy, wheri a Saxon was allowed to retain any land at all, was to assign it elsewhere than in those localities where its possession would be accompanied by the influ- ence of old associations.^" This policy had not as yet been adopted, in 1086, against Ilunnit ; but there is strong presumption that eventually he was thus dealt with. Toret, another Saxon, and Hunnit's contemporary, had held six Shropshire Manors in the time of King Edward. Three of these he retained in 1086, and perhaps had some interest in a fourth. His total loss of other two seems to have been compensated by his feoffment in a seventh Manor, where he had held nothing previously. Toret was succeeded, by at least two generations in the male line. His estates then passed with a female to Corbet of Wattles- borough ; but the extraordinary feature of this succession is, that whatever can be traced to have so passed to Toret's heirs was not Toret's at Domesday, but rather Hunnit's and Uluiet's. Consistently with this fact we observe that Toret, having held nothing under Turold at Domesday, was yet a witness of Robert Fitz Turold's Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey before 1121. We naturally infer that before the same period, Toret had succeeded Hunnit or Uluiet, or both, in certain tenures under Turold or his Son; Willey however was not of the number, and that Manor is no further involved in this ques- tion than that if, according to a recognized policy, Hunnit lost his interest in several of his Domesday Manors, he probably lost it in all. Willey then, not passing from Hunnit or his heirs to Toret or his heirs, nor yet remaining in any succession of Hunnit, would seem to have been transferred to a new Feoffee, the Ancestor of a family which took name from the place. And this same family inherited other estates, held of the " Fee of Chetwynd," and with which neither Hunnit nor Toret had ever been concerned. Hence I conclude that the family of Wililey acquired its feoffments in the " Fee of Chetwynd," not by any right of inheritance, but solely by favour of the Chief Lord. '0 See Sheriffs of Shropshire, p. 43, where this policy is alluded to, though its application to the caae in question is II. mis-stated. See also History of Shrews- hwy, ii, p. 25, n. 1. 50 WILLEY. That which I have further to say of "Willey will best be intro- duced by a Pedigree^ and some account of the successive members of the family which took its name from this acquisition of the Manor.— Among the Laymen who were Assessors to the Viceroy of the County when, about a. d. 1115, he presided over the great Archi- diaconal Chapter, already mentioned^i as having been held at Castle Holgate, was one, evidently of rank, but who, according to a common usage at the time, is described only by his Christian name, — Waeneeius. Him I am inclined to take for the Ancestor of the family of Wililey, though on the slight evidence of name and position. The name Warner was uncommon at the period and by no means identical with Warin. The distinction between the two, though afterwards forgotten, was in the twelfth centuiy carefully observed ; indeed it is so observed in the very document which I am quoting. Neither name was Saxon, and I have found" that of Warner used by no contemporary family of distinction, and likely to have been represented at Castle Holgate on this occasion, except that of De Wililey .^^ If this Warner were indeed Lord of Willey, he will have survived the only occasion on which he occurs but for a short time. A very curious deed, dated a.d. 1120, by which Peter, Prior of Wenlock, grants certain rights in Beckbury to Walter Fitz Warin, is attested inter alios by Hugh de Welileia, Turold, and Warner de Becheberi.i* Besides this recurrent distinction between the names of Warner and Warin, it is singular that Hugh de Welileia, whom I take to have been surely Lord of Willey, and then Feoffee of Robert Fitz Turold, should be followed in his attestation by one named Turold. 1* By no means identifying the latter with Turold de Verley, who, if living, would have preceded his Tenant in any testing- " Vol. I, pp. 217, 223. '2 There was indeed a contemporary Warner de Beckbury, as we shall presently see, but he was not Lord of Beckbury, nor does he appear under any such cir- cumstance as would tally with the pre- BumptiTely high position of an Assessor to the Viceroy. '^ B«gister of Wenlock Priory (at Wil- ley), fo. 6. " A very ancient Charter of Buildwas Abbey (in possession of George Pritohard, Esq. of Broseley), which passed within twenty years of this period (1120), is tested, inter alios, by " Thurold de Main- nio." He may be the Turold who at- tested in 1120, but I can say nothing more of the person indicated under either denomination. Wn.LEY. 51 PEDIGREE OF DE WILILEY. Wamerius. Occurs circa 1H5. Hugo de Wilileia. Occurs 1120. I Juliana de Granted in Kushbury. a.d. I Warner de Wilileia. Occurs 1180. Living 1226. Defunctus 1 231 . ^ Petronilla Fitz-Odo. Superstes 124.0. Nicholas de Wilileg. Occurs 1231, 1241. Defs. 1255. Andrew Pitz Nicholas. '■ Married ante 1250. Infra mtatem 1256. PleniB cBtatis 1262. Occism apud Evesjtam 1265. =Burga (daughter of Ralph dePichford.) Superstes 1259. * * * daughter of Walter de Hugford. Ist husband, Philip = Burga, sole daughter: son of William de and hair. Stapleton. Superstes 1337. Occui-9 1277, 1278. Defunctus 1283. s. p. s. 3 =2d husband, Richard de Harley. Married before December, 1283. OUit 1316. Henry de Malcolumb de Philip de Harley. Harley, Lord Harley, Rec- Occurs of Bold 1316. tor of Willey, 1328. &c. 1323. Robert de Harley. Mar- ried 1296. Lord of Har- ley, &c. 1316. Margaret, daughter and coheir of Brian de Brompton. Born circa 1287-8. Married 1296. 52 WILLEY. clause, we may associate the name with some conjectural relation- ship of these consecutive witnesses and the Lord under whom at least one of them held. Passing over the next sixty years, no extraordinary hiatus in the manorial or genealogical details of the twelfth century, we arrive at the year 1180, when : — Wakneu de Williley, son perhaps or grandson of Hugh, was undoubtedly Lord of Willey. With him all obscurity of descent at once vanishes. In that year he was assessed by the Justices of the Forest, at 2 shillings, for some charge within their jurisdiction, and probably arising from the proximity of Willey to the Koyal Haye of Shirlot.i^ About the same time, for I cannot assign any more probable date to the transaction now to be mentioned, Warner de Wilile stands at the head of the nine witnesses who seem to have been present on behalf of Wenlock Priory when Gervase Paganel " offered on the Altar of St. Mylburg," the Charter by which he endowed the subject Priory of Dudley and ratified its dependence on the Shrop- shire House. ^^ Within nine years of his first appearance, i.e. before the year 1199, Warner de Wililey contracted a marriage which, realizing an immediate and considerable addition to his property, brought, in consequence of the eventual heirship of his wife, still greater benefits to his posterity. The period of his marriage and the family and fortune of his wife will best be indicated by the following Charter : — ^ Forest Soils at Westminster, No. 1, memb. 2. 18 MonasUcon, y, 84, No. 2. This deed apparently contains a double testing- clause. The first consists of the Baron of Dudley's Retainers, the last of persons appearing in other Charters in the Court of the Prior of Wenlock. The date which I assign to the Charter should be accounted for. Pope Lucius III confirmed G-ervase Paganel's Foun- dation in its chief particulars on June 16, 1182, as we learn from another Charter (Ibidem, p. 83, No. 1). Also out of the eight witnesses who, be- sides Warner de Wflile, attest on the part of Wenlock Priory, six are found to attest a feofirnent by Prior Robert, who succeeded about 1176. In thus confidently stating the date of Pope Lucius' Bull I should add that it is itself dated on the 16th of the Calends of July, in the year of the Incarnation 1190, the 15th year of the Indiction, and the first year of the Grrantor's Pontificate." This clause, however inconsistent, esta- blishes the date which I have given above, viz. June 16, 1182, though the Editors of the MonasUcon have been satisfied with 1190, which was the eighth year of the Indiction and the fifth after the death of Pope Lucius. I have before remarked on the preference which in these dating clauses should be given to anything rather than the dominical year (Vol. I, p. 250). In the present instance the Indictional and Papal year being consistent, point conclusively to A. D. 1182. WILLEY. 53 "William, sou of Wniiam Fitz-Alan, certifies that he has conceded to Warner de Wilileia, together with Petronilla daughter of Roger Fitz OdOji'' and to their heirs, the donation, which Thomas Fitz Odo made to them, of Keneleia (Kenley), and one hide in Gro- tintun (Gretton) with the Mill, in frank marriage, as (the said donation) was made at Salop, in full County, and in his (Fitz Alan's) presence. — Witnesses : Hugh Pantulf, Sheriff, Robert Corbet, William de Wudeton, Robert de Giros, Richard de Costen- tin, Adam Salvage, Peter Fitz Toret, Master Walter de Dunstanvill, Master Adam de Bromfeld, and many others, both Knights and Gentlemen (Liberis hominibus)."^^ The Shrievalty of Hugh Pantulf alone determines this deed to have passed in the County-Court between Michaelmas 1179 and Michaelmas 1189. The estate thus settled upon Warner de WUiley and Petronilla his wife was further assured to them by a fine levied at West- minster in June 1194. The Record gives this very early fine as follows. — Thomas Fitz Odo and Roger his Brother, Tenants, and Warner de WUileia and Petronilla his wife, were accorded concerning the land of Keinleia with its appurtenances and concerning 1 hide of land in Grotington and the Mill, so as that the whole land and Mill shall remain to Warner and Petronilla for ever; for 2 merks which the same Warner gave them.^' '' It is a most extraordinary circum- stance that this Petronilla, wife of Warner de Wililey, is stated in an equally authentic document (a fine of 6 Hen. Ill) to hare been daughter and heir of Her- bert de Kushbury. The latter was doubt- less of the family of Fitz Odo, but that does not clear the difficulty. I wiUingly postpone a solution of so perplexing a matter. 13 The original of this Charter is not known to be in existence. The copy from which I make extract is in Vol. xxxix of Dugdale's MSS. in the Ashmolean Li- brary, Oxford. It is accompanied by transcripts of other Charters and Evi- dences, described by Dugdale as having in 1583 been in possession of Eowland Lacon, Esq. of Willey. Of course Dug- dale copied them in the following centiu-y. but in whose custody the originals then were he does not say. Their presumed loss is all but compensated by the un- rivalled exceUenoe of Dugdale's tran- scripts ; for the King of Heralds and Antiquaries condescended to write legibly and to copy fully and carefully. Such are the documents which I shall quote, after this explanation, simply as " Lacon Evidences." 1' Flacita apud Westm., entitled as "incerti temporis Begis Eicardi," memb. 2 dorso. Some extracts from this KoU are printed in the Abbreviatio Flacitorwm (pp. 96, 97) and ascribed to " an un- certain period of King John's reign." The internal and other evidence (part of which is impUed above) proves the Boll to have been of Trinity Term, 5 Richard I (1194). It is one of those which owiug 54 WII.LEY. The sum thus paid by Warner, as well as the fact that Thomas and Roger Fitz Odo are described as Tenants in the preamble of this fine, would induce a supposition that the grant implied by Fitz Alan's Charter had not been, in the first instance, fully conveyed, nor without some litigation. Notwithstanding this fine of June 1194, the supposed dispute was renewed in November of the same year and again settled by Warner's allegation of the previous concord. In subsequent years there were other law proceedings affecting the details rather than the principle of the original grant ; but these particulars belong rather to Kenley where I propose to give them. It is sufficient here to say that Warner de Wililey again in 1204, alleged the fine of Trinity Term 5 Rich. I, and again obtained judgment in a suit then pending. To return to the reign of Richard I. I have already alluded to a composition which about the year 1196 passed between the Dean of Brug and the Prior of Wenlock ; Warner de Wililey was, a witness, and doubtless on the part of the Prior.^** His marriage, above mentioned, involved a considerable tenure under the house of Fitz Alan. William Fitz Alan II, was at this period Sheriff of Shropshire, and from Michaelmas 1198 to Michael- mas 1200, Warner de Wililey acted as his Deputy. For the next ten years he appears variously interested in the concerns of that Baron, attesting his Charters or acting as his Attorney. In 1203, being a Knight, he sat as Juror on several causes of Grand Assize. In 1219, I find him appointed as a Justice to make inquiry con- cerning assarts and purprestures in the Royal Forests of Shrop- shire.^^ Such being his station and trusts, he appears in 1221 as convicted of an act of oppression and treachery which even in that day was marked with some weight of legal animadversion. Coveting another man's land, and that man his own Vassal, whom he was bound to protect, he contrived that his Dependant should appear guilty of a fictitious but capital crime. By information of Petronilla, Warner's wife, the assumed Felon was arrested, and his chattels sold by a King's BaUifif. Should he be finally outlawed his lands must, in course of feudal law, become forfeit to the Lord of the Fee. However such equity as could to this uncertainty of date was unfor- tunately omitted to be printed in vol. i. of the Rotuli Cmia Regit. (Vide Bupra, — Preface, Vol. I, p. 5.) ^ Supra, Vol. I, p. 322. The witness's name is printed Warin, and very possibly by error of the trauBoriber. 21 Pat. 3 Hen. III. AVILI.EY. 55 not be attained in a local court was forthcoming at the hands of the King's Justices. At the Assizes of November 1221, the whole case was gone into, the innocence of the accused established, and Warner de Williley and the King's Bailiff committed to prison. However a fine of five merks released the greater culprit. — No crime at that day was without a fiscal equivalent. A criminal who conld pay could not be punished.^^ Thus ended a case, the motives and moral features of which had been typified in an older story,^' though here the successful crime and the monumental retribution are wanting to complete the parallel. In 1222, Warner de Wililey appears as Surety for John Fitz Alan in a cause then depending at Westminster. In 1326, 1 find him acting with the principal men of the County on an Inquest, which was to decide between the King and the Baron of Cans as to some questions of feudal right. In the same year he was himself questioning the title by which Ralph, then Lord of Pichford, held that Manor.^* Warner de Wililey had now for forty-six years been a prominent person in the County. All that I need further to relate of him is implied in a deed whereby he and his wife Petromlla are said to have granted to William de Harley and Engelard a Chaplain (Feoffees in trust), their Manors of Gretton, Wilderhope, Walle under Heywode, Rushbury, Kenley and Williley, with the Ad- vowsons of such Churches as were attached thereto.^^ ^ The circumstances of this cause shall be given more minutely under Kenley, where the coveted land lay. ^ 1 Kings, chap. xxi. ^ Pichford, be it observed, was like WiHey held under the fee of Turold, i.e. Chetwynd. The Son of Warner de Wihley appears subsequently to have married the daughter of Ralph de Pich- ford. I infer this from a deed in Glover's Collection (A. iii, b.) ^ I speak with some hesitation about this deed, of which there seems to have been two originals, — one seen by Dugdale among the Lacon Evidences, the other extracted by Mr. Blakeway from a set of deeds which he classifies under the title " Jones." The former had had two Seals, but Dugdale gives only the impression of the second or ^raster, viz. — Arms * * on a chief * two cinquefoHs *. Mr. Blake- way describes his deed as sealed with a fret (the bearing of De Williley). There are some other differences between the two copies, but unimportant, except that Dugdale gives a set of witnesses with his deed whose names are as follows : — Wm. de Ercalewe, Walter de Beysin, Will de Hugford, Knights, Walter de Hopton, Ivo de Clinton, Robert Dod- ington. — Now I need not point out to any one conversant with Shropshire genealogies of the thirteenth century, that this combi- nation of witnesses existed only at its close, and therefore is iaconsistent with a deed which must have passed at its beginning. A transcript of Dugdale's is 56 WILLET. The Feoffees, by another deed, regranted the premises (or most of them) to Warner and Petronilla in tail with remainder to the right heirs of Petronilla.^^ All that I shall here say of this Heiress is that she survived her husband many years and was living at least as late as 1240. Nicholas, son and heir of Warner de Wililey, appears first in 1231, as having been amerced for inattention to his duties as a Uegarder of the King's Forests. In 1233 and 1237, he is mentioned as a Juror of Grand Assize and a Knight. On the 10th of April 1241, he was serving the office of Under-Sheriff to John le Strange;^'' and nothing further can I learn of him except that dying within the next fourteen years, he left a Widow Burga and a Son Andrew, then an Infant. Burga would appear to have obtained the wardship of her son from John de Chetwynd (obviously as seignoral Lord of Willey and other lands of Andrew's inheritance). Five years before his Father's death, this young Heir had been married to a daughter of Walter de Hugford. In 1255, we have the following notice of the Manor of Willey as recorded by Jurors of the Liberty of Wenlock. — " Andrew Fitz Nicholas is Lord of the vill of Wilileg, and holds it of the Prior of Wenlock and does due suit at the Court of the Prior, and his Ancestors used to do suit to the Hundred of Munslow till the time of King Richard." "^ This extract is noticeable on two grounds : first, that it makes no mention of Andrew de Wililey's still continued Minority ; next, that it asserts the Prior's Seigneury over Willey as that of any ordinary feudal Lord.— The truth is, that the Jurisdictional or Hundredal Seigneury, originally an adjunct of the Palatine Earldom of Shropshire, had passed by grant of the Crown to Wenlock Priory, so that the Manor was in some sort held of the Prior ; but at the same time the ordinary feudal Seigneuiy, which involved the right of wardship, relief, and marriage, remained with Chetwynd as the representative not to be lightly questioned, neither can I thint the deed which he saw to have been a forgery. My own idea is that Dugdale, copying a number of deeds, inadvertently took a testing-clause for this one from some other document lying before him. His limited acquaintance with Shropshire names might prevent his detection of an inconsistency which would strike a native Antiquary at once. 2« Blateway MSS. sub signo " Jones." Dugdale gives no transcript of this. ^ Sheriffs of Shropshire, Preface, p. 5, quoting Salop Chartulary, Noa. 26, 406. 28 Hot. Mmd. ii, 85. WILLEY. 57 of Turold.^8 Thus the minority of Andrew de Williley in 1255 was no concern of the Prior's, and was not alluded to in an Inquest which related mainly to the Prior's Franchise. This will appear still clearer from the following. — At Salop Assizes, January 1256, Margery de Lacy sued Burga de Wililegh that she should surrender to said Margery, Andrew, son and heir of Nicholas de Wililegh, custody of whom Margery asserted to belong to herself, because Nicholas had held under her at Rushbury by half-a-Knight's-fee ; whereas Burga ever since Nicholas' death kept Andrew from the Plaintiff, who was thereby damaged to the extent of £10. Burga appeared and called John de Chetewind to warranty, who also appeared, vouched the said warranty, and further called to warranty John Fitz Alan (his own Seigneur). Fitz Alan being present acknowledged the responsi- bility, but said that, as regarded marriage of this heir, Margery could claim nothing, because the said heir had, five years before his father's death, been married by his said father to a daughter of Walter de Hugford, which Walter was present in Court and in seizin of the said heir. On this ground Fitz Alan asked the judgment of the Court in his favour, stating at the same time that he had other pleas to offer if this were not enough.^" Here the case was broken off, apparently for ulterior consideration ; but no result appears on the Rolls. Andrew de Wililey, when at length he came of age, associated himself with the malcontent party of that troubled period. His career was short and tragical. He fell on the field of Evesham on August 4, 1265, leaving an infant daughter, the inheritress of a forfeited estate. This estate, or rather the redemption money which under the Dictum de Kenilivorth must be paid for the same before it could return to its lineal claimant, was granted by the Crown to Robert le Strange, a younger son of John third Baron Strange of Nesse and Cheswardine. Robert le Strange was one of those who in 1270 accompanied ^ In process of time the service ren- dered by tlie Lord of Willey to the Prior of Wenlock became much extended. On June 26, 1338, " Sir Robert de Harley came to Wenlock and before many wit- nesses did his homage and fealty to Sir Gruychard, Prior of Wenlock, and ac- knowledged himself to hold the Manor TI. of Williley of the said lord Prior by service of carrying the frock of the same Prior to Parliament, and of doing suit every three weeks to the Hundred Court of Burton, and suit also to the two great Annual Hundred Courts of Burton. (Re- gister at WUley, fo. 26). ^ Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 6 dorso. 8 58 WILLEY. Prince Edward to the Holy Land. From that expedition he returned, but survived not long. He was dead Sept. 10, 1276,^^ and being in debt to the Crown, Willey, with other estates of which he was something more than a Trustee, was again seized into the King's hands. Meanwhile Burga, the heiress of these unredeemed lands, had married Philip de Stapelton ; and in 1377, King Edward issued his precept to the Sheriff of Shropshire commanding him to take extent (valuation) of Willey, and when extended to deliver it to William de Stapleton, whose son Philip had married the said heiress; and William de Stapleton was to cultivate and sow it and render account to the King during the King's j»leasure. A similar precept again issued in 1278, but in behalf of Philip de Stapleton himself.^^ He however lived not long to discharge this trust. Before December 1283, Burga, sole daughter and heir of Andrew de Williley, was wife of Eichard de Harley, and to her posterity by him she transmitted the splendid and at length disencumbered inheritance. As this lady survived the date of her second marriage at least fifty-four years, a presumption arises that Philip de Stapleton had been only the husband of her infancy. As some later particulars which I have to give of Willey will be implied in my account of Harley and other Manors, I will here take leave of this part of the subject. ^^ The only undeu-tenancy which deserves notice in this Manor was that of Walter le Stalhere, who left two daughters and coheirs. On June 18, 1245, a fine wes levied at Westminster, whereby Alice, one of these coheirs, concurred with her husband William Marescall in conveying half a virgate in WyUeleg to Nicholas le Despenser and Christiana his wife, the other coheir. For this the Grantees paid five merks.^* This Nicholas le Despenser was suspected of unlawful interference with the King's venison. Specifically he was accused of having taken a stag in Shirlot Forest on Sunday July 6, 1253, but was not tried till the Forest Assizes of Feb. 1263, when he escaped the charge by a fine of 6s. 8c?., for payment of which Richard le Yreis (Irish) of Dawley and Adam Traynel of Willey were his Sureties. 3' Claus 4, Edw. I, numb. 4. '^ Originalia, i, pp. 27, 30, where the inaccuracy of one printed entry is cor- rected by the other. ^ It is singular that two Manors named Lioley and Willey should have been the property of William Mallet of GrirardvUle, a Norman, and as forfeited to the Crown, should appear together on several Bolls of the reigns of John and Henry III. The entries relating to them have been printed elsewhere in connexion with the same adjoining Shropshire Manors. It may save some confusion to say that they were in Hertfordshire ^' Pedes Finiitm, 39 Hen. Ill, Salop. WILLEY. 59 This Nicholas sat as first Juror of Wenlock Liberty at the Assizes of October 1272, and as second Juror on the Inquest of that Franchise which was taken in November 1274. WILLEY CHUECH. The Advowson of this Church or Chapel was already a matter of litigation in the beginning of the 13th Century. In Hilary Term 1214, the Attorney of the Prior of Wenlock had essoign at Westminster, in a suit of darrein presentment which the Prior was prosecuting against Warner de Wilileg.^^ Again in Michaelmas Term 1333, and probably on occasion of another vacancy here, there were several essoigns in a similar suit, which the same Prior had against Nicholas de Wilileg.®^ The result of this litigation must be gathered from other documents than the Plea Rolls.— In 1291, the Church or Chapel of Wyleleye in the Deanery of Wenlock was valued at £o. Qs. Sd. per annum. The Prior of Wenlock was not the Patron, nor was his receipt of any pension arising from this Church entered on the Record.^'' The Church however is elsewhere stated to have been chargeable with a pension of 7s. payable annually on the day of the Transla- tion of Saint Milburg (May 26) to the Priory Kitchen.^** An Inquisition of the year 1323-4 found this Church to be without cure, and that the person who should see to the performance of divine service here was the Vicar of the Holy Trinity of Wenlock.39 Hence the district which was taxed to the Ninth in 1341, under the title of " The Chapel of Welyley," must not be understood as a distinct Parish, but as that territory (probably coextensive with the Manor) from which the Rector of Willey drew his endowment. On, this occasion the said district was assessed at 40s. only, the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb therein Ijeing so much less than the endowment of the Church because of tempests and murrain, and because the glebe land, small-tithes and offerings, which went to swell the endowment, could not be taken into account in estimating the value of the ninth.*" *' JUssoifftis Hilary Term, 15 John, momb. 11 dorso. ^ Mssoigns Michaelmas Term, 17 Hen. Ill, m. 9 doreo. W Tax. FapcB Mch. p. 167. 33 Kegister at WiUey, fo. 33. 3'J Hereford Register (Blakcway MSS.) ™ Inquis. Nonarum, p. 187. 60 WILLET. A valuation of 1379 puts the annual value of the Chapel of Wilileye at 10 merks (£6. 13s. 4cl.) and states it to belong to the Presentation of the Prior .^^ In 1534, John Podmore being Rector of Wylley, his benefice was put at the old valuation of £5. 6s. 8d. for glebe and tithes. The only charge specified thereon was 6d. per annum for Archdeacon's Synodals.*^ Summarily then, the Church of Willey may be presumed to have been founded and endowed by the Lords of the Manor. It had no Parish, being within the Parish of Wenlock, but it was perhaps chargeable with a pension as an aflSliation of Wenlock Church, and the Vicar of the latter was responsible for its service. The Rectors of Willey being without cure were probably non-resident. They were nominated by the Lords of Willey to the Prior of Wenlock and then presented by the latter to the Bishop of Hereford for institution. This mediate right of the Prior seems to have been in acknowledgment of the ancient ecclesiastical jurisdiction of St. Milburg, though the pension, which doubtless was an original part of the same reserved right, may have fallen into disuse. EAELY INCUMBENTS.^ June 24, 1276. Custody of this Church was committed to Adam de Wetenhale, Acolyte, whom the Official was ordered to induct. Oct. 14, 1304. Henry le Porcer, Subdeacon, was admitted on presentation of Sir Richard de Harley. Jan. 27, 1323-4, Sir Philip de Harley, Priest, was admitted on presentation of the Prior and Convent of Wenlock, on the further presentation or nomination of Dame Burga de Harley, " the true Patron." Aug. 6, 1357. Philip de Harleye was presented by Robert de Harleye. March 23, 1357-8. Robert de Shardelowe, Clerk, was insti- tuted to this " Free Chapel," on presentation of the King, who then had the alien Priory of Wenlock in his hands, by reason of the war with France. March 30, 1359. Adam de Everyngham, late Canon of York, was instituted, having exchanged preferments with Shardelowe. « Monasiicon, v, 78, No, viii. I « Blabeway'a MSS. in Bibl. Bodl. ■•^ Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 209. I BADGEE. 61 March 30, 1360. Sir Hugh le Yonge, late Prebendary of St. Mary's Salop, was instituted, having exchanged with Everyngham. Feb. 22, 1383. Sir William Aumeneye, Chaplain, was insti- tuted on the King's presentation, Wenlock Priory being still in his hands. On Aumeneye's resignation as Gustos — viz. on Aug. 13, 1386, Master William Hertford (or Hereford) was instituted, his presentation by the King bearing date however on Nov. 26 previous. Dec. 16, 1387. Thomas Preston, Clerk, was instituted on a Crown presentation similar to the above. On his resignation, — Aug. 2, 1391. Sir Robert Derby was instituted on presenta- tion of the Crown. Being styled Gustos of the Free Chapel or Chantry here, and also Parson of Falley (in Line. Dioc.) , he gave up both preferments for the Custody of the Chantry of Melton in Wappenham (Line. Dioc), and on Feb. 25, 1393-4, John Caysoho, late Gustos of the said Chantry, was instituted here. He died in 1410. We now proceed to those constituents of the Domesday Hundred of Alnodestreu which went to form, probably in the time of Henry I, the newly created Hundred of Brimstree. One of these Manors was, within a century, again transferred to the Liberty of Wenlock ; and it will properly head this series, as thus following Broseley and Willey, which were similarly separated from their second Hundred of Munslow. This Manor was — Batiaen It is noticed in Domesday thus, — " Osbern holds of Earl Roger Beghesovre and Robert (holds it) of him. Bruniht held it (in time of King Edward) and was a free man. Here is half a hide geldable. There is arable land (sufiB- cient) for ii ox-teams. In demesne is i ox-team, and (there are) III boors with i ox-team. There is a wood which will fatten thirty swine. Its value (in time of King Edward) was Ts. now it is \0s."^ Dugdale remarks that all towns compounded of Over " do stand upon hilly ground, Over importing as much as supra.'' 1 Domesday, fo. B57, b, 2. 62 BADGEE. The word however, which enters into many names (and indeed the very name of which Dugdale was treating, viz. Browns-over), is more probably the Saxon noun-substantive Ofep (a bank, brink, or shore), than the similarly written preposition, which is equivalent to the modern over. The variety of ways in which Badger was written in early times renders its further etymology a matter of some uncertainty. There are two Anglo-Saxon words which have, or may have had, an equal applicability to local circumstances. Beccej-, the possessive case of Becc (a brook), would render the whole name intelligible as "the bank of the brook," while Beccf, the possessive case of Bece (a beech-tree) affords an equally apparent meaning and is perhaps the more genuine Anglo-Saxon word of the two. Osbern, who held the neighbouring Manors of Badger, Brockton, and Ryton, under Earl Roger, in 1085, was no other than Osbern Fitz Richard, Baron of Burford and Richard's Castle, whom we have already seen attesting the Earl's foundation of Quatford Church very shortly after Domesday .^ It will be better to speak of him and his house when we come to treat of his greater Domesday Fief, viz. that which he then held immediately of the Crowm. His Manors in Alnodestreu Hundred will indeed have some time been annexed to his Tenure in capite ; but I find no hint of his successors retaining any such concern in Brockton or Ryton, as might be taken to represent his Domesday interests there. With Badger however it was otherwise, for the Inquisitions which, down to the time of Richard II, detail the possessions of the successive heirs of Osbern Fitz Richard's Barony, imply their continuous claim upon this Manor, though such claim probably amounted to nothing more than the payment of a small quit-rent. It is singidar that except by these Inquisitions and the evidence of one or two private deeds, we should not have been able to identify Earl Roger's Tenant Osbern, with the powerful Baron whose name occupies other folios of the Domesday Record. Of Robert, Sub Tenant here, in 1085, I can say nothing further, nor whether he left descendants to inherit his interests. However, about the time of Henry II's accession, it would seem that one William de Begesour was tenant under Osbern Fitz Hugh, grand- son of Osbern Fitz Richard above mentioned. The tenancy over = Supra, Vol. I, p. 111. BADGER. 63 this William^ who very possibly may have been son or grandson of Robert, was granted by the said Osbern to Guy le Strange. Osbern Fitz Hugh made a return of his Barony in 1165, but it was sent back to him owing to some informality, and thus its contents are lost to posterity. Had this return been preserved, it would probably have contained a statement to the effect that Guy le Strange held something of new feoffment under the said Osbern. ,The loss of the document is in the present instance harmless, for that mixture of secondary evidence and analogy, which must often be our guide in these investigations, has enabled us to indicate the mode in which Guy le Strange and his heirs became Mesne-Lords of Badger. Hereby the history of another great family becomes associated with the place, but I postpone all detailed account of the descent of Guy le Strange to a future occasion. Some facts necessary to such fuller account wUl however be furnished by our present inquiry. The nature of the subinfeudation just alluded, to is so well made out by contemporary documents as to merit particular attention. When Guy le Strange received feoffment here, the reserved rent payable by him to Osbern Fitz Hugh was probably 4s. Thenceforward whatever rent and service had been paid by William de Begesour to the same Osbern became due to Guy le Strange. Within a short period however this William sold his subtenancy to one Philip Fitz Stephen who thereupon became Le Strange's tenant. Of William de Begesom- we shall hear again, inasmuch as he probably carried elsewhere and retained the name which he had derived from his original feoffment. Philip Fitz Stephen and his Successors, as the actual Tenants-in- fee of Badger, will now constitute our proper subject, a subject rendered most clear by a very unusual concurrence of evidences. The Eoyal Forestership of Shirlot, a tenure in capite at Ackleton and Bardeley, Feoffments under the Priory of Wenlock, the Abbey of Shrewsbury, the families of Le Strange and De Haughton, an interest in the Borough of Bridgnorth, and (more than all) the careful preservation of a few early documents, — these are the circumstances which, while they supply facts and illustrations of 3 That is the sum mentioned as receiv- able from Baggesore in the Inqiiisition of 12 Bio. II (1388-9) on the death of Jolin Talbot of Kichards-Oastle, {Calend. Inquis. iii, 105). 64 BADGER. much antiquarian value^ furnish also that rare curiosity — an ancient and at the same time an authentic pedigree. The Grandfather of Philip Fitz Stephen, whose name however does not appear, held Ackleton, a member of the Royal Manor of Worfield in time of Henry I. The father of the said Philip, whose name was of course Stephen, succeeded to Ackleton in the same reign. Some dis- turbance of this tenure very possibly took place in the time of the Usurpation. At all events the following document issued in the first ten years of the reign of Henry II, and was apparently elicited by some claim for restitution urged by, — Philip Fitz Stephen, the heir. The Royal Writ runs thus. — " Henry King of England and Duke of Normandy and Aquitain and Earl of Anjou to his Sheriff and Ministers of Salopescire greeting. I enjoin you that ye cause recognition to be made by oath of lawful men of the vicinage, as to the kind of service by which Stephen father of my Forester Philip, and the grandfather (of the same Philip) held Acclinton, their land, in time of King Henry my grandfather : and that, when such recognition shall have been made, ye shall permit him so to hold it and with such comparative advantage and freedom, both in waters and meadows and pastures, and by the same service. And except ye shall so do, let William de Beauchamp see to the doing hereof. — Witness : Mannasser Biset, Dapifer ; at Wirecestre." * We have seen this Philip Fitz Stephen become (about 1160) tenant to Salop Abbey, of a fishery or weir at Sutton. We have also seen him (each year, from 1169 till 1173 inclusive) discharging the trust of Visor, or Inspector, of the Sheriflis' expenditure on the works of Brug Castle. In the year 1174, Guy le Strange being Sheriff and still con- tinuing an outlay on these works, Philip Fitz Stephen ceases to act ' Charter in posseasion of B. H. Cheney, Esq. of Badger. The date as- signed above to this early document is thus arrived at. William de Beauchamp was ohyiously the contemporary Sheriff of Worcestershire, a man much trusted by Henry II. The King can hardly have been at Worcester at any time of Beau- champ's Shrievalty after 1164. Further, of the numerous attestations of Manasser Biset (he was Lord of Kidderminster) none appear later than 1165. Henry was at Worcester in 1157, and again at Easter 1158, when both Manasser Biset and William de Beauchamp were with him. A precept, of very similar character to this, issued from Bouen to Eichard de luci, and is tested singly by Manasser Biset (Bihl. Cott. Claud, b. vi, p. 174). It certainly passed between 1158 and 1162. BADGER. 65 PEDIGREE OF DB BEaaESOVERE. * * * *, Grandfather of =j= Philip Fitz Stephen. Held Ackleton of King Henry I (1100-35) Stephen, Father of Philip. =p Philip Fitz Stephen. Occurs circa 1160. Living 1196. Reginald de Bagsore. Occurs Jan. 1196. Roger de Bagsore. Occurs ante 1196. Occurs May 9, 1220. Philip de Bagsore. A Crusader, 1227-9. I Thomas de Bagsore. Occurs circa \22ih. Deftmctus 1246. Margery, daughter of Adam de Beysin. Ifupta circa 1225. Swperstes 1255. Richard de Bagsore. =f^ Margery, Occurs ci^ca 1254. Living 1284. Defmctus 1292. 1292. Philip de Bagsore. =f= Avice de ***** Bagsore. de Bagsore. Occurs circa 1254. dau. of * * Occurs Mar. 1246, Dec. 1258. -1^ Vide Ashfield. ■Henry Mauveysin. Occurs circa 1252. Philip de Bagsore. Natus 1247. Deftmcfus Oct. 1291. 1 Philip de Bagsore, Clert. Presentee to Badger Church, January 1291. Thomas de Bagsore. Bom Aug. 10, 1278. Living March 1301. Defunctus Jan. 1316. Philip Mauveysin. Occurs 1292. Anabel, daughter of * * * Swperstes January, 1316. Philip de Bagsore. Occurs March 1316. Oliit 1345. WiUiam de Bagsore. Occurs March 23, 1349. Obiit 1349. II. 66 BADGER. as his Comptroller. This^ as I believe, was because at that very time he became his Tenant, by purchasing William de Begeshoure's interest at Badger : Guy le Strange (in a deed to which I should on other grounds assign the date 1173-1177) informs his lieges, French and English, of the said transfer. He receives the homage of the new Tenant, and concedes the land of Begeshoure in fee and in- heritance to Philip Fitz Stephen, reserving to himself only an annual rent of half a merk. And Osbern Fitz Hugh under whom Guy le Strange holds must, according to feudal law, ratify the act of the Mesne-Lord. The Deed by which he does so is preserved. It informs us of some further facts, viz. that William de Begesour's Wife and Heir both concurred in the sale, and that it took place in the County Court " before Guy le Strange," an expression which I understand to allude rather to Le Strange's presidency as Sheriff than his private interest in the transaction. In other respects Osbern Fitz Hugh's Charter is merely a confirmation of Guy le Strange's previous act.^ At Michaelmas 1176, Philip Fitz Stephen appears as owing the " These deeds, still at Badger, are pecu- liarly illustrative of the law and practice of SubinfeudationB, and supply us with the exact process of a very early Convey- ance. Their date (o. 1174) being prox- imately certain, the names which they contain must make them a subject of repeated refarence in these pages. I therefore transcribe them in extenso. G-uido Extraneus omnibus hominibus Buis et amicis, Francis et Anglicis, salutes. Notum sit vobis Willelmum de Beges- houre vendidisse terram suam dc Beges- houre cum omnibus pertinentiis suis Phi- lippo fiho Stephani et oui voluerit post ipsum in feudo et hereditate et coram Comitatu Ulam in manu mea reddidisse. Unde sciatis quod ego predictam terram supradicto Phihppo et cui voluerit post ipsum pro homagio suo dedi et concessi in feudo ct hereditate de me et de heredi- bus meis tenendam ; Solam et liberain et quietam de scuagiis et tailagiis et wardis et de omnibus querehs et servitiis ; red- dendo annuatim dimidiam marcham argenti ad festivitatem Sancti Michaelis. Hi sunt testes ; Johannes Extraneus, Hugo Extraneus, Willms de Baucis, Bogerius filius G-rent, G-rent filius licyni, Olfridus filius Henrici, Adam filius Ha- monis Extraneii {sic), "Willms filius Wal- teri, Simon de Stantune, Johannes ' frater Hugonis Extranei, Eogerius de Laven- dene, Eadulfus de Laoheia, Walterus de Bidun, Distil, Swinudus, Daniel, Eobertus Camberlangius, Willms de Petra Ponte, WiUms de Bigedune, Eobertus Carpenta- rius, Alexander Forestarius. — The Seal of this Deed is of white wax, coloured superficially with a red varnish. It is very rude and more than two inches in diameter. It represents a Knight on horseback ; his right hand (which pro- bably held a sword, now defaced) is extended. On his left arm hangs a tri- angular shield. The horse is walking. The Legend is broken off. Osbern Fitz Hugh's confirmation is as follows : — OsbertuB Filius Hugonis, omnibus hominibus suis et amicis suis Francis et Anglicis salutem. Sciatis quod ego ven- dicionem illam quam Willehuus de Be- gesoura et uxor sua et heres suus fecerunt BADGER. 67 King ten merks aad a Destrier of Wales, his fine that he might hold Aclinton a member of Worfield at a fee-farm rent of 60s. He now paid five merks of the said fine into the Treasury. The Destrier he had delivered to the King himself. The balance of five merks he paid in the year following.'' His object in paying this fine was probably to get rid of some inconvenient service hitherto exacted from the King's Tenant at Ackleton. At Michaelmas 1185, PhiUp Fitz Stephen having been convicted of some offence by the justices of the Forest paid 40s. fine " that his amercement should be settled before the King."7 l suppose that as a Crown Tenant and Officer he expected his case to be dealt with leniently. About 1196, this Philip, at length called Philip de Beggesour, attests in a prominent position the composition about Ditton Church which I have so often alluded to. The following Fine, illustrative of a very ancient mode of legal procedure, relates, I doubt not, to a title which this Philip de Bagesore had to land in an adjoining Manor. The document runs thus. — " This is the final concord made in the Court of the Lord Kina: at Westminster on Thursday next after the Octaves of St. Hilary in the seventh year of the reign of King Richard {i.e. on Jan. 25, 1196) before H. Archbishop of Canterbury &c. — Between Ralph de Herleton, Plaintiff (petentem), and Philip de Bechesore, Tenant, by Philippo fflio Stephani in Comitatu Salopessirie de terrel de Baggesoura cum omnibus pertinenciis suis coram Widone Extraneo qui terram illam de me tenet, et concessionem et donationem Widonis Extranei quas fecit predicto PhUippo de eadem terra concedo, et quicquid Carta Widonis Extranei super his testatur concedo et cart^ mea confirmo. His testibus : Eretherico Capellano, Eegi- naldo Presbytero, Adame Presbytero Kogero Clerieo de B (Bagesoura I sup- pose) Gralfrido Clerieo, PhiKppo de Cure, Willmo de Muleston, Alexandre de Puclesdou, Willmo de Wicetre, Badulfo de Cuulle, Pagauo de Heches, Willmo Carb (Carbonel) de Hesefordia, Hauci de Stepeltunia, Lofwino iilio Lofwini, Waltero Juvcni de Cliffordia, Uicardo fratrc suo, Koberto Wiart, Eioardo des Bles, W illm n de Loges, G-alfrido de Laiii, Philippo de Colington, Osberto de Cure, Willmo de Cure, Eoberto de Hop, Benett de Hop, Raulfo le BluH (Blund) Samson de Chend, Heliis de Brerlectou, Stephano de Midelton. — Most of these witnesses were Eeoffees of Osbem Fitz Hugh in different counties. The two Cliffords were brothers of his wife, brothers also of Eair Rosamond. The Seal of this Deed is compounded as the last and is of the same size. It re- presents a Knight on horseback, charging at full speed. The Legend is gone. 6 Rot Pip. 22 & 23 Hen. II, Salop. Montgomeryshire was at this time famous for its breed of horses. For the causes, see History of Sfwewsbury, i, 54. '• Mot. Pip. 31 Hen. II. 68 BADGEE. Reginald his son, put in his place, to gain or lose, — of one hide of land in Bechesbire (Beckbury), whereof a duel was guaranteed between the parties, and furnished forth, and actually foughten (unde duellum fuit invadiatum inter eos, et armatum, et percussum) — in the aforesaid Court, — to wit, that Philip hath remitted to the aforesaid Ealph and his heirs half of the aforesaid land, quit of him (Philip) and his heirs, to hold of the Capital Lord. And Ealph hath quit-claimed to Philip the other moiety, to hold of the Capital Lord."8 This technical language requires some explanation. —Philip de Bechesore held a hide of land in Beckbury under the Lord of that Manor. His right to do so was challenged by Ealph de Herleton. The question was adjudged to be settled by duel. Philip (a very old man) acted in this phase of the litigation by his (younger) son Eeginald. The duel was fought and probably without any such decided result as was believed to constitute the "judgment of heaven" ia such matters. So after these solemn appeals to the law and to Eternal justice, the case was settled by the modern, and simple, though seldom honest mode of " splitting the difference." Philip Fitz Stephen of Badger was at this period, as I have intimated, a very old man, indeed there is evidence of Eoger, his eldest son and heir, having sat in the County Court before the date of the final-concord just quoted.* This Eoger de Bechesore, whose succession to his Father PhUip cannot be put much later than 1196, occurs in various relations. As a Tenant of Salop Abbey at Astley he appears twice in Charters of that House, which passed during the time of Abbot Hugh (1190-1218), and related to its affairs in the said Manor .i" He stands first witness to a grant which Haughmond Abbey had at Eudge.i^ As a Knight and accompanied by his heirs he attests a Charter of Ealph de Sanford which concerned land at Brockton, and must have passed between 1205 and 1220.^^ To the Abbey of Lilleshall and the Priory of Wenlock he was himself a Grantor. Of the former benefaction I can say nothing more than that it is expressed to be of 5s. annual rent in the Lye (La Lya).^^ ' Fedes Mnimm, " quorum Comitatua ignoratur." ' He attests with other principal men of the County an agreement between the Abbot of Salop and John le Strange which must have passed before June 1195. (Salop Chartulary, No. 16). 1° Salop Chartulary, Noa. 137, 150 o. " Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 175. 12 Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Broo- ton, H"o. 10. " Patent, 18 Rich. II, p. 1, m. 7. BADGER. 69 His Charter to Wenlock Priory is still in existence. — Calling him- self Roger son of Philip de Beggeshore, he grants to God and to St. Mylburg of Weciel and to the Monks there serving God^ for the health of his soul and the souls of his Ancestors and Suc- cessors, in pure and perpetual almoigne, 10s. of his Mill of BeggeshorCj for the kitchen of the Brethren, to be paid annually at two terms, viz. 5s. at the Feast of St. Andrew and other 5s. at the Feast of St. John Baptist. The deed purports to be sealed with the grantor's seal and is attested singly by Warin de BurwardeU.^* It is here proper to state that Wenlock Priory must have had manorial rights at Badger from time immemorial, and that the "Wenlock fee of Badger was originally distinct from the Richards- Castle fee. Nevertheless, the latter only is mentioned in Domes- day. The tenants of the two seem to have been identical at all recorded periods. ^^ The grant last quoted must have followed immediately on the period when the Prior of Wenlock was enabled much to strengthen his Seigneury at Badger; — a consequence of the Manor being transferred from the Hundred of Brimstree to the Prior's new Franchise of Wenlock. Thus the subsequent Lords of Badger are stated indifferently to hold the Manor of the heirs of Le Strange and of the Prior of Wenlock. And their service to the latter was much the most onerous of the two, being, I suppose, partly in com- position of that attendance at the Prior's lesser Hundred Court of Burton which was exacted, every three weeks, from Manors less remote. To return to Roger de Beggeshore. — In the year 1199 (as I think) the following writ was issued in his favour by Geoffrey Fitz " In possession of R. H. Cheney, Esq. The orthography given for "Wenlock" is peculiar to this document. Neither the Valor Ecclesiasticus of 1534), nor the Ministers' Accotmts of 1541, mention this charge upon Badger-MiU among the receipts of Wenlock Priory. Lord Porester's Register has however (foB. 32, 33) a curious Rent Roll of the Priory-Kitchen, taken apparently in the years 1495-6. Under the Title " De Ter- mino Sti Andrese ApostoU," thisRoU con- tains an item — " De redditu moleudiui de Bagesor — i sol." So Roger do Bagesor's benefaction endured nearly three cen- turies. " The analogy of Linley and Caughley has already suggested that the Domesday Survey of St. Milburg's Manors was some- what superficial. This will appear more evidently in regard to Badger, otherwise I should offer a fuller explanation when thus assuming any inaccuracy of Domes- day. Much of St. Milburg's land was not assessable to Danegeld, and this immiiuity may have withheld some Manors, or parts of Manors, from recognition of the Com- missioners. 70 BADGER. Piers, then Chief Justice of England and acting as Viceroy of King John, who was absent in Touraine. " Geoffrey Fitz Peter Earl of Essex to Philip de Gret, greeting. We enjoin you that without delay you do full right to Roger de Bagesoure concerning two parts of half a hide of land and an eighth part of a Mill in Beckebir, which parts he claims to appertain to his free tenement which he holds of you in the same vill by the free service of 5 shillings j»er annum for all services : which parts Hugh de Beckebir withholds from him. And except you thus do let the Sherifip of Salopesire see to the doing hereof; and let him no more have to complain for want of justice. Witness myself at Brug the 26th day of September." ^^ The premises alluded to in this writ were doubtless part of that half-hide of land which had remained to Roger's Father in 1196. We now see that the said tenure was under Philip de Grete, a great Feoffee of the Barons of Richards-Castle. We shall hear again of this land in Beckbury. At Michaelmas 1200, Roger de Bachesore appears on the Sheriff's Roll as having been amerced half a merk by Justices of the Forest, for faulty custody of his' Bailiwick, — the Forester ship of ^Shirlot I presume, — an office which was hereditary in his family. At the County Assizes of October 1203, being a Knight, he sat as a Juror on some causes tried by Grand Assize. Besides the Custody of Shirlot Forest he held in capita of the Crown a virgate of land at Bardeley in the Royal Manor of Stottes- den, for which he paid a rent of six shillings jser annum at the Ex- chequer. As thus holding he is entered among the King's Tenants by Serjeantry, in a RoU which must have been drawn up about 1211." About this time he obtained the following privilege from his neighbour Walter de Hugeford ;■ — who " grants his bank of Wrhe (Worfe) abutting on the Red Weir, whereunto said Roger may attach his said Weir." The Grantee is to pay a pair of white gloves yearly on the feast of St. Mary Magdalene for this privilege.^^ '* Charter at Badger. The year, as was usual in Greoffrey Pitz Piers' writs, is not mentioned. We can however determine it to hare passed most probably in 1199, and almost certainly, in 1199 or 1200, by evidence which is too long to insert. 17 Testa de Nevill, fo. 254. 1' Charter at Badger. The witnesses are Griffin Gohc, Lord of Sutton ; Eobert de Stoctou ; Hugo de Eolinghale ; Nicho- las, his Brother ; Nicholas, Chaplain of Stocton ; Eiehard, Chaplain of Beehe- beri ; Eoger, Clert of Begesour ; Richard de Estwelle (Astall) ; and Philip de Estwelle. BADGER. 71 At Michaelmas 1212, among oblata lately received by the Sheriff, one of twenty merks from Eoger de Bagesoure is recorded, a heavy fine; hut tlie object of which does not appear.^® He has already been mentioned as living May 20, 1220, and his concern in the Royal Forests is apparent in that instance.^" Within five years of the last date, Roger de Begesoure seems to have deceased. He left two sons, Thomas and PhUip. Thomas the eldest married (about 1225) Margery daughter of Adam de Beysin. Also, on succession, he obtained a Charter of Confirma- tion from the Prior of Wenlock, which illustrates the nature of the seigneury exercised by the latter over Badger, and shows how in- dependent it was of the seigneury of Le Strange's Heirs. By this deed, already printed,^^ "Brother Humbert Prior of Weneloch confirms to Thomas de Begelhovere and his heirs the vill of Begelhovere, of the Fee of Saint MUburg, with all its appur- tenancies ; to hold to him and his heirs, of the Prior and his Suc- cessors, for his homage and for the'same service by which his Father Roger held it, viz. for 20*. payable annually at Michaelmas, and for suit to be done to the Court of St. Milburg by afforciament of Court." The witnesses were, Philip de Burwardel (uncle of the Grantee's wife), Robert de Wodetun, Hugh de Beckebur, Adam de Beising (the Grantee's Father-in-law), Hugh de Lega, &c. PhUip, younger brother of this Thomas, seems to have held under him that land at Beckbury which has already been mentioned twice. Philip surrendered his tenancy under circumstances of some interest. — His deed of surrender runs thus : — " Know all men that I Philip de Beggesoure have rendered and quit-claimed to Thomas de Beggesoure my brother, his heirs and assigns, all my land in Bechebiri which I held of him (that namely which Reginald and William le Sage held under me), — for five merks of silver which the said Thomas hath given me for my journey to Jerusalem. — Witnesses : Sir Walter de Huggeford, Walter de Bealmeis, Adam de Beysin, Roger de Subiri, John de Beckebiri, Walter de Eudinas (Ewdness), Eudo de Rugge (Rudge), Robert de Alditone, Thomas de Aclitone (Ackleton), &c.^^ The witnesses' names alone would enable us to determine the period of this transaction within a few years, but we learn its exact date in another way.— Philip de Beggesoure was undoubtedly one 19 Eot. Pip. 14 John. The Fine or Ob- lata Roll of this year, which probably would be more circiimstaatial, is lost. 2» Supra, ¥ol. I, p. 299. ^1 Monasticon, y, 76, No. ti. ^ Charter at Badger. 72 BADGER. of those who at the preaching of Hubert took the Cross in the Summer of 1237. Matthew Paris tells us that from England alone GOjOOO fighting men set out on that Crusade and that most of them were poor. Their outset was accompanied by a celestial sign on the night of St. John the Baptist (June 24).^* The expedition failed owing to the vacillation of the Emperor Frederick, who however after being excommunicated by Pope Gregory IX, landed at Acre in September 1228. Here he found an army of 90,000 men of all nations, and among them the English Bishops of Winchester and Exeter. Jerusalem surrendered to the Christian arms early in 1229. I can say little more of Thomas de Baggesore. In Michaelmas Term 1228, he was sued with many others who held messuages in the town of Newport (which was Royal Demesne) as to his title to the same ; but the result does not appear.^* He was also possessed of houses and land in the High Street and in the fields of Brug. The former he sold for the large sum of twenty-four merks to Robert son of Philip Eitz Thorold, reserving to himself a chief rent of white gloves payable at Brug at the fair of the vill, viz, at the feast of St. Mary Magdalene.^^ The time of Thomas de Baggesour's death I cannot further determine than that it was before March 1246, when his son Phihp will presently appear as Lord of Badger. Besides the said Philip, Thomas left other issue, and his wife Margery surviving. She having brought Ashfield in frank marriage to her husband, disposed of it some years after his death to her younger children. She was living in 1255. In 1246, Philip Lord of Beggesovere, who will have then lately attained his majority, was involved in a dispute with Alan, Rector of the Parish, who claimed the tithe of hay in all meadows within the same. The matter was settled on March 29, in the Church of Long Stanton before William de Ros, Clerk of the Bishop of Hereford, Roger, Dean of Sypton, and a full Chapter. The young Layman gave up the point, renouncing all future dispute and espe- cially the alternative of an appeal to the " Royal Prohibition."^* 23 Vol. i, p. 338 (Watts' Edition). 2* Pladta, Michaelmas Term, 12 & 13 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 recto. 25 Charter at Apley. Hamo le Palmer and Eoger Fitz WUHam are the attesting Prcetors of Brug. 28 Charter at Badger. The Plea EoUa of this period exhibit constant appeals to the Curia Segis against decisions of the Courts Christian, as they were called. I cannot however make out why any interference of the temporal Courts should be apprehended in a question of Tithes. BADGER. 73 About this time Philip de Baggesour married^ and without license of the Crown^ a step which afterwards caused him some trouble. Matthew Paris speaks of the memorable Iter whereby Geoffrey de Langley and his Fellow Justices of the Forest enriched the King's Exchequer and impoverished his subjects.^''' The Chronicler seems to place their visit to the Northern Counties in the Summer of 1250. They held pleas and made arrentations in Shropshire somewhat earlier. Among other sufferers Philip de Baggesore was deprived of his Forestership of Shirlot on account of his illegal marriage. He fined with the King in a sum of 20 merks " for the same marriage and for having the Bailiwick of the Forest of Shirlot which his Father Thomas had had." A Royal Writ, dated Jan. 21, 1250, allows him to pay the said fine at the rate of 100s. per armum?^ The Inquisitions of Hundreds in 1355 exhibit this Philip in various relations/^ viz. as holding half the Manor of Cleobury- North, under Robert de Haluchton, as holding four virgates in capite at Bardeley, and as Forester of the Fee in the King's free Haye of Schyrlet, where, says the Record, " he has under him two Foresters, viz. William de Bottesfeld and John his Brother, who give said Philip 20s. per annum, for holding their ofiice; and they make a levy on oats (fields sown with oats) in Lent, and on wheat in Autumn : and the aforesaid Philip hath in the said haye, of wind-falls as much as seven trees, and likewise the dead trees which are wind-fallen, the Jurors know not by what warrant except that of ancient tenure." The Wenlock Jurors, of whom Philip himself was one, returned him as Lord of the vill of Bagesover, and that he held it of the Prior of Wenlock and paid SO*, per annum to the Prior, and did suit to the Prior's Court by afforciament, and that his ancestors used to do suit to the Hundred of Brimestre till King Richard's time. These Jurors estimated at four hides the united Manors of Badger, Beckbury, and Madeley.^** The Domesday measure was however greater, viz. half a hide, one hide, and four hides respectively, or five-and-a-half hides collectively. The Inquisition on the death of this Philip de Baggesore is preserved. The King's Writ ordering the Inquest bears date ^ The penalties inflicted in Shropshire amounted to the great smn of £526. 0*. Gd. {Pipe Soil). 28 Fines, ii, 69. 29 Sot. Hund. ii, pp. 81, 82, 83. 3» Ibidem, pp. 84, 85. The rent of ZOs. is obviously incluaiye of the rent-charge of 10s. on Badger Mill. II. 10 74 BADGER. 2d Dec. 1258. The Verdict of the Jurors sets forth most clearly that co-ordinate seigneury which existed over the Lords of Badger. The deceased^ they said, had held the vill of the Prior of Wenlock at an annual rent of 20*., and land therein of Henry de Harecourt (a de- scendant of Le Strange), at an annual rent of half a merk. The tenure under Harcourt is measured at two virgates of land and five acres of wood, probahly the exact Domesday estimate. He also heldAclinton of Sir Henry de Hastings (then Lord of Worfield), by service of 60*. per annum. Badger was worth £3. 5s. 9ld. per annum. Ackleton was worth £2. 10s. G^d. PhiHp^s tenancies at Bardeley and Cleobury-North are further particularized. The Inquest concludes with finding that Philip was his son and next heir, and was eleven years of age, and that aU his lands were in the King's hand.^^ It does not appear that the Crown asserted any right of wardship over this heir, whose fealty for Bardeley was accepted shortly after as a tenure in socage. — The Escheator had the King's precept, dated 5th Feb. 1259, to give Philip, son of Philip de Bagesouere, livery thereof after taking security for his relief of 6*.^^ Payment of that sum is acknowledged by the Sheriff in his account of Michaelmas 1260.^^ This was that Philip Lord of Baggesovere who, about the year 1267-8, in other words as soon as he was of age, sold his tenure at Astley to Salop Abbey. The particulars have been already given except that at the time of the grant he appears to have been married-'* It will appear hereafter, under Alveley, how Ralph Noel, a descend- ant of Guy le Strange, became entitled to halfthe chief-rent origin- ally reserved by the same Guy when he enfeoffed Philip Fitz Stephen in Badger. It is also supposable that Ralph Noel, thus receiving 3s. 4GER. 75 which he bought of Ralph Noel ; — to have and to hold to said Philip and his heirs with all escheats and homages, rendering therefore yearly due service to the chief Lords of the Pee, viz. 25. at Richards- Castle, at the feast of St. Laurence, for all services. For this, Philip gave £1. 16s. 8d.^^ Thus did this Philip, ,as far as regarded a Moiety of the Tenure, buy up the mesne Seigneury, once Guy le Strange's, and become himself immediate tenant of the Barons of Richards- Castle. He doubtless bought up the other moiety also, as will appear by the Inquisition on his death. Having, in January 1291, presented Philip his younger Son (who could not have been more than twelve years' old) to Badger Church, he died within a few months. On the 26th of October following King Edward's Writ of diem clausit extremum, issued from Aber- gavenny to Malcolumb de Harley (then Escheatdr citra Trent) commanding him to hold Inquest on the death of Philip de Brachesovere. The Jurors met at Brug on Nov. 19, 1291, and found as follows, viz. — That besides his Tenures at Bardeley, North Cleobury, and Cold-Weston, the Deceased had held a certain Baili- wick of Shirlot Forest, not of the Crown (that is not of ancient demesne) but of the King's Escheat through (forfeiture of) Robert de Belesme ; — that the office was worth 13*^ 4d. per annum, and that neither Philip nor his Ancestors had done other service for the same than fealty to the Chief Forester of Shropshire.^^ " He had also held of the Prior of Wenlock one messuage and four-and-a-half virgates of land in Baggesore, at a rent of SOs.^'' and the tenure was altogether worth 70s." " He had also held of the heir of Robert de Mortimer of Richards- ^ Charter at Badger, — attested by Sir WLlliam de Huggeford, John le Poer, Alan de Glazeley, Bichard de Bagesore (Uncle of the Q-rantor I think), 'William de Pilarditon, Eobert de Dodinton, and others. The Peers were Lords of Eoms- ley, which they held by service of one Knight's Fee under the Barons of Bichards-Castle. Badger is sometimes included in this Knight's Fee. If properly so, then Le Poer will have been mediate between the Baron of Richard's Castle and Le Strange's coheirs. But I never find Le Peer's interest operating at Badger, in fact it wiH have been at any time little more than nominal, *"' These specifications were obviously to bar any claim which the Crown might as- sert to wardship of the heir. ^ The contemporary Taxation, of Pope Nicholas (page 164) gives among the Temporalities of Wenlock a rent of only £1. as receivable from Baggesoure, but the above estimate includes 10s. rent- charge on the Mill. Lord Forester's Re- gister contains two memoranda of the fealty acknowledged, in 1502 and 1507, by Thomas and Henry Petyt, then re- spectively succeeding to Badger. A quit- rent of 20*. per annum and two suits at the Great Hundred Court of Burton were the annual services recognized by each. A Heriot on tlie death of any tenant was also acknowledged. — It was tliree quarters 76 BADGER. Castle (then a minor) in Baggesore, one carucate of land in de- mesne, eight acres of wood, and four acres of meadow, worth 20s. 10s. and 13s. respectively, jser arawwrn. He had also held at Acliton twelve virgates of Sir John de Hastings, of the fee of Worfield, by service of 60s., and this was'worth £6. 19s. 6cl. per annum ; also six acres of meadow which he held there were worth 16s. per annum, and he owed suit to the Manor Court of Worfield." The Jurors concluded by stating his son Thomas to be his next heir, and that he entered his fourteenth year on the feast of St. Laurence last past (i. e. Aug. 10th, 1291) .^^ Thomas de Baggesovere (with whom I must conclude these extracts) consequently came of age Aug. 10, 1299, and on June 6, 1300, I find him exercising his office, as Forester of the Fee, with others of the same rank, and contributing to the great Perambu- lation or settlement which then defined the rights of the Crown in regard to the Forests of Shropshire.^^ On March 15, 1301, this Thomas occurs as holding over Roger de Bagesore, his relation and Tenant at Cleobury-North, who was then deceased.'*" Before 1316, Thomas was himself dead, leaving a widow Anabel, who, in January of that year, presented to Badger Church ; and a son Philip, who, though he can hardly jhave been of age, is yet entered as Lord of Badger in the Feodary which was ordered to be taken in March following.*! BAD&EE CHURCH. Badger and Beckbury evidently formed a detached portion of the great Saxon Parish of St. Milburg, a condition which is repre- sented at this day by their belonging to the Diocese of Hereford, though isolated among Parishes which were formerly in Chester and are now in Lichfield Diocese. The Church here, probably founded in the beginning of the of wheat and three of oats, but had been compounded " from ancient time " by a moneypayment of Imerk (Register, fo. 17). In the Valor of 1534 these outlying assets of Wenlock Priory are estimated in gross under the head of Foreign Bents; but after the Dissolution I find that the Lords of Badger paid a quit-rent of £1. 14s. annually to the Crown, which I doubt not represented, though not quite exactly, their older obligations to the Priory. (Blakeway MSS). ^ Inquisitions, 19Edw. I, No. 10. ^ Salop Chartulary, No. 279. ^o Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I, No. 7. ■" Nomina Villarum (Parliamentary Writs, iv, 397). BADGER. 77 twelfth century, and by the Lords of the Fee, was always in their gift ; but they were bound to present their nominee to the Prior of Wenlock, who further presented him to the Bishop. A pension also (for the due payment of which this mediate right of Presentation enabled the Prior to exact fealty and security from each nominee) was reserved to Wenlock. Such were in this instance the remains of the ancient spiritual jurisdiction of St. Milburg. The Formula by which a Prior of Wenlock presented any nominee of the "Real Patron" of this Church is preserved. It addresses the Bishop of Hereford, or his Vicar General, and recites that the Nomination to the Parochial Church or Curative Chapel of Badger belongs to A. B. (the Lord of Badger) by reason of a concession canonically made thereof by the Prior's predecessors. It further alleges an existent vacancy, and concludes by presenting C. B. (as nominated by A. B. to the Prior) to the Bishop, for admission; " saving to us a pension of 40«?. which in ancient times was wont to be paid to our house."*^ This form seems to have been used in 1524 by Eoland Prior of Wenlock when presenting a Clerk to Charles Booth, then Bishop of Hereford. — It explains not only what follows as regards Badger Church, but gives us the ratio of many similarly mediate rights of presen- tation. In 1291, this Chapel is merely entered as being of less than £4<. annual value. It was therefore not assessable ; nor is the Prior's pension mentioned.*^ On May 23, 1331, Thomas (Charlton) Bishop of Hereford, in course of a Visitation, was at Wenlock. On this occasion the Prior exhibited his titles to a number of spiritual claims, which were duly examined, and pronounced to be satisfactory by a Charter of the same Bishop dated at Morville, on May 27 follovring. Among these recognized rights are, " the Pensions which the Prior and Convent are receiving iu the Churches or Chapels of Glazeleye, Maddeleye, Parva Wenlock, Bechebury, Bagesore, WilUeye, and Borewardesleye." In the Assessment of Parishes (a.d. 1341 **) neither Badger nor « Register at Willey, fo. 25, b. ^ Pope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 167. b. " Ecclesia de Baddesliovere (in Decanatu de Wenlak) non valet £4." « Sot. Fat. 22 Ed. Ill, part iii, numb. 34 (Inspexhnus) . 78 BADGER. Beckbury appear. Their proper place was under the Deanery of Wenlock, but their isolated position perhaps preserved them from the ordinary notice of the Commissioners. An Extent (or Valuation) of the possessions of Wenlock Priory, taken Sept. 6, 1379, gives the Chapel of Bagesore as in the Presen- tation of the Prior and as worth 5 merks {£B. 6s. 8d.) per annum 46 Among the receipts of the Sacristan of Wenlock Priory appa- rently in time of Henry VII, one of 3*. 4c?. payable at the Trans- lation of St. Milburg (May 26) from Bagsor is enumerated. The same due is entered less particularly in the Valor of 1534 and in th& Minister's Accounts of 1.541.*^ The' Valor states the Rectory of Bagesdre, of which George Barret was then Incumbent, to be worth in glebe and tithes £4. lis. 2d.; the charges whereon were the above Pension and 4rf. per annum for Synodals. EAELT INCIJMBENTS, RoGEE, Clerk of Baggesour, has already occurred in two deeds which we have dated about 1174 and 1211 respectively. I suppose Roger in each case to have been Incumbent of the Church whether there were two of the same name or not. Alan was Rector here in 1246 as stated above. Jan. 28, 1291, the Prior and Convent of Wenlock presented by their letter patent, Philip de Baggesore, Clerk, to the vacant Church ; which letter Philip, Father of the Presentee, exhibited to the Bishop, requesting him to show favour to his son in the premises. To whom the Bishop replied, that he would commend the Church to some good Priest till he should see fit to order otherwise ; to which arrangement Philip (whose right it was to present a fit Parson to the Prior and Convent that they again should present the salne to the Bishop, whenever the Church were vacant) fully acceded.*'' June 19, 1308. Martin db Wistanestowe, Priest, was admitted on Presentation of the Prior and Convent of Wenlock. Jan. 27, 1316. Philip de Striethay, Clerk, was admitted on presentation of Anabel Lady of "Badger, "the true Patron," trans- mitted through the Prior and Convent. Philip's death took place *'' Monasilcon, v, 78, No. viii. ^^ Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 209, 216. Monasticoti, v, 80, xii. ■•7 Blabeway MSS. from Hereford Ee- gisters. The youth of this nominee has been pointed out above. ' BADGER. 79 June 22, 1344, and on July 28, 1344, it was found by Inquisition that Philip Lord of Bagsore, was the true Patron, exercising his right through the Prior of Wenlock ; that Anabella, Philip's Mother, last presented ; and that the " Cure of souls at Badger remained with the Vicar of the Holy Trinity of Wenlock." — John, son of John Lord op Beckbury, aged twenty-five years and more, was accordingly presented by the said Philip, and admitted by the Bishop. — There was an informality in this. Wenlock Priory being at this time in the King's hands, in consequence of the war with France, its mediate right of Patronage should have been exercised by the Crown. The King however, being ignorant of any presentation having been made, and conceiving the right to belong ordinarily to Wenlock, presented John Wotenhull in the following year (1845). « Wotenhull immediately attempted to oust Beckbury, and at this juncture Philip de Bagsore the Patron died. The matter con- sequently remained in dispute two years, when " William de Bagesore, Lord of the Manor of Bagesore, petitioned the King, showing that nomination to the Chapel belonged to the Lordship, and that all his Ancestors had immemorially presented a Clerk to the Prior and Convent of Wenlock, who had nominated the same Clerk to the Bishop, and that Philip, the Petitioner's father, not aware that the right of the Priory was in the Crown because of the war, had on a late vacancy presented John de Beckbury to the Prior, who presented to the Bishop, who instituted the said John." The King hereupon issued a Patent revoking his presentation of WotenhuU.*» After the death of John de Beckbury, and on — March 23, 1349, the King, addressing J. Bishop of Hereford, presents Hugh Carles, Clerk, to the " Chapel of Baggesovere, as being nominated to us by William de Baggesore, to whom it appertains so to nominate to us, seeing that the Priory of Wenlock is in our hands by reason of the war." ^° The Bishop's Admission of Hugh Carles, date April 7, 1349, recites the above Patent. Oct. 8, 1368. Roger de Hondeslowe was presented by Richard Clodeshele and Alice his wife, through medium of the Prior, &c. He was admitted by the Bishop on Oct. 18 following, and, for some « Pat. 19 Ed. Ill, p. 1, memb. 23. I ™ Pat- 23 Ed. Ill, p. 1, m. 23. « Pat. 21 Ed. Ill, p. 1, m. 10. I 80 RYTON. cause of doubt again occurring, was confirmed in his possession by a Royal Patent dated Feb. 24, 1376. March 14, 1409. William Newton, Chaplain, was instituted on nomination of Thomas Smythe, and on presentation of the Prior of Wenlock." 3^^ton. DuGDALE, speaking of places thus named in Warwickshire, assigns to them an etymology " obvious enough, forasmuch as the soyl there is of a light sandy disposition, and beareth Rye best of any Grain." i Domesday notices the Shropshire Manor as follows ; — "The same Osbern (Fitz Richard) holds Ruitone (under Earl Roger) Wiuar and Brictstual held it (in time of King Edward) for two Manors. Here are v hides geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for viii ox-teams. In demesne there are ii ox-teams and III serfs, with iii boors. Here is a mUl rendering viii horse- loads of fine wheat (siliginis). In time of King Edward (the Con- fessor) the Manor was worth x xx shUlings (per annum) . Now it is worth XX shillings. He (Osbern) found it waste." ^ I have already said that of the three Alnodestreu Manors held by Osbern Fitz Richard under Earl Roger in 1086, no interest in two seems to have passed to his descendants. We have scanty means of judging how this disseverance happened, and no hint as to any forfeiture, partial or general, having befallen the early Barons of Richards-Castle. True it is that Osbern Fitz Richard joined in the rebellion of 1188, when Wulstan Bishop of Worcester so ably maintaiaed the cause of William Rufus in the West ; but then the chiefest '^ Hereford Eegisters (BlakewayMSS). 1 Denizen by Bichard II inl395. Hencethe The Priory of Wenlock was declared | reBtitution of all its rights of Patronage. ' Dugdale's Warwickshire (Thomas's I ^ Domesday, fo. 257, b. 2. Edition, i, 46). I EYTON. . 81 if not the most open of the Revolutionists was the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury himself, and he was freely pardoned. His less politic Vassal may however have suffered a partial forfeiture even in a dis- trict where his interests were associated with those of so influential a Suzerain. Another hypothesis^ as to this and some similar and early dismemberments of great Fiefs, remains to be offered. There can be no question that the original Norman settlement of this County involved all the ordinary feudal tenures, as well those by Knight's service as by Castle-Guard and Petit Serjeantry of other kinds. The Shropshire Domesday however takes no notice of such lia- bilities, as attaching to particular Manors ; and indeed these details hardly seem appropriate to a Census which had for its object the ascertainment of gross rather than net value and extent. The silence of Domesday as to conditions of tenure does not, in short, imply the non-existence of such conditions at the time when the Survey was taken. It is therefore very possible that to Osbern Fitz Richard's tenure of Ryton and Brockton services were attached, in 1086, identical or similar with those which were afterwards exacted from the Tenants of those Manors. It is fm^ther very possible that a Baron, the bulk of whose Fief lay in distant parts of this, or in other Counties, might find some outlying Manors a mere incum- brance ; in other words, that the services with which they happened to be charged were more than they were worth to him. In such cases a direct surrender or a neglect to comply with the terms of tenure would lead to the same result, viz. a reversion of the Manor or Manors in question to the Suzerain. Thus, as I appre- hend, did Osbern Fitz Richard's tenure of Ryton and Brockton cease, and those Manors become subject to the re-disposal of the Norman Earl or of the Crown. That which I have next to offer about Ryton amounts to little more than a choice between two possible alternatives, one of which seems however to be recommended by some external evidence. Before the death of King Henry I, and probably by that Monarch, it was granted as the whole or part of a Knight's Fee either to one whom I shall presently notice as Engelard de Stretton, or else to some one from whom the said Engelard inherited. If the former, then Engelard must have survived his feoffment at least forty-three years (a thing not impossible in itself, but which implies either an unusually early advancement or an extraordinary longevity of the Feoffee) : if the latter, then the descent from the first Feoffee to II. 11 83 RYTON. Engelard will have been through a female, for Engelard (being a younger son of his Father) can have inherited nothing except through his Mother, she not being the Mother of his elder Brother. And the latter theory will become more probable from a fact, which will presently appear, viz. that Engelard's successors at Ryton were the descendants of his Sister and not those of his elder Brother. It is obvious therefore, according to all ordinary rules of succession, that the said Sister was his uterine Sister, and that the fact which excluded their elder Brother from this inheritance must have been his non-participation in the whole blood of his Father's younger children. This Engelard de Stretton was a man of great importance in his day ; and as Ryton was his only, or principal, tenure in cupite, it is fitting here to relate all that I can learn of him. Some scattered evidences, which when brought together will explain each other, should suffice also to show that what I have above advanced without references is not therefore mere theory. Engelard de Stretton was, as I suppose, younger Son of that Ralph de Pichford of whom we have already heard as a Tenant in capite, and as having distin- guished himself by essential services to King Henry I during the siege of Brug Castle in 1102. His elder Brother, Richard de Pichford, succeeded their presumed Father, Ralph, not only in several Manors which had formed the Domesday Fief of Norman Venator, but also in that addition at Little Brug with which King Henry rewarded the zeal of his Follower. Before the year 1157, Richard de Pichford and Engelard his Brother are witnesses to a deed whereby William Fitz Alan (I) and certain of his Vassals concurred in granting Sundorn to Haghmon Abbey.^ Also before 1157, when Richard de Pichford gave to the same house a hide of land in Brome (near Ellesmere), Engelard his Brother was present and (being I suppose Tenant thereof) con- sented. Again, after the said Richard's death, and before 1172, " Engelard de Stretton" makes an independent grant of this hide of land, adding thereto the site of a Mill.* Richard de Pichford dying I suppose in 1157, and leaving his son, another Richard, under age, the latter, as a Tenant in capite, became a ward of the Crown. At Michaelmas 1157, the following -■' Hauglmiond Chartulary, fo. 213. I * lb. fo. 4,0, and Harl. MSS. 38G8, fo. 11. RYTON. 83 entry occurs on the Shropshire Pipe Roll:— "Engelard renders account of 20 merks for custody of the land of his Nephew." He had in fact bought the wardship from King Henry II ; and he paid the said fine in this and the following year." Thus much for the family and relations of Engelard ; and next for the reason of his being called " de Stretton" rather than " de Pichford." This will appear most satisfactorily. Within a few months of the accession of Henry II, he (Engelard) was made Castellan of Stretton, then a Royal Fortress and Manor. The Manor, fiscally reputed to be worth £4i. per annum, furnished his Salary. Hen'ce the following charge made by the Sheriff of Shropshii-e on the King's Revenue in 1156, viz. " To Engelard, Gustos of the Castle, £4. in Stratton." And each Sheriff till the year 1177 repeats this annual charge as of £4. bestowed " in custody of Stratton Castle." In the Summer of the latter year, this Salary was augmented to one of £20. per annum chargeable on Wellington, Edgmond, and Stretton, and at the same time another Castellan than Engelard is named. The probable reason of this will appear presently. To show Engelard de Stretton's connexion with Ryton, I must now refer back to the witnesses of that deed, whereby before 1172, Richard de Picheford granted Picheford Mill to Haghmon. Three of those witnesses are Nicholas, Brother of the Grantor, Engelard (whom I suppose to be Engelard de Stretton and Uncle of the Grantor), and Richard Fitz Odo de Ruttune (whom I take to be Engelard's Tenant at Ryton). I will make these assumptions very plausible. In the year 1 165-6, the return of the Tenants in capite of the Kingdom, known as the Liber Niger, was made.' Engelard de Stratton was one of the King's Vassals of Salopescire, whose Carta or Return is preserved. He gives the King greeting, and his faithful service, recites the Royal Mandate, and in compliance therewith, informs the King that he (Engelard) " has only one Knight, viz. Richard Fitz Odo, and that he has no Knight of the New Feoffment."^ The meaning of this is that Engelard de Stretton only held one Knight's Fee in capite, that the Feoffment creating it was of date anterior to the death of Henry I (1135), and that the Knight then holding it under Engelard was Richard Fitz Odo. = Mot. Pip. 3 and 4 Hen. II, Salop. I ^ Supra, Vol. I, p. 3. « Supra, Vol. I, p. 358. I « Liber Niger, vol. i, pp. I'i7, 14,8. 84 KYTON. Beyond his attestation of several local Deeds^ which will appear in their proper connexion^ I have little more to say of Engelard de Stretton. At Michaelmas 1173 and 1174^ he appears as having acted as Visor over Guy le Strange's repairs of Shrewsbury Castle. At Michaelmas 1177, he had been amerced by the King himself for trespass on the Eoyal Forests, a circumstance which tallies so nearly with his ceasing to be Castellan of Stretton, that I cannot but associate the two events. His amercement was 10 merks and a Destrier. He paid 5 merks in 1177, and the balance before Michaelmas 1178.^ Presuming him not to have long survived the latter year, I will merely say of his succession that he had a daughter Felicia, but that his eventual heirship was in his Sister Alice and her issue by her husband Philip de Burgo j that the son of the said Philip and Alice was Bertram de Burgo,^" and that Bertram as well as his Son and perhaps Grandson of the same name, successively in- herited a kind of seigneury in Ryton. They had other interests also, both in Staffordshire and Shropshire, and, as regards the latter, these De Burghs usually appear to have been Tenants of the Pich- fords, that is of the male descendants of that Ralph who was Father of their maternal Ancestress, Alice. But there was a long interval during which the seigneury of De Burgh at Ryton is unrecorded. The apparent reason of this is that the tenure from being simply by service of a Knight's-Fee came to be commuted for a tenure by service of doing ward at the King's Castle of Shrawardine, and that so, he who held Ryton under De Burgh and performed the latter service was reputed to be and often registered as the actual tenant i?i Capite. Of him and his succession we will now speak : — We have already seen him as Richard Fitz Odo in 1165, and as Richard Fitz Odo of Ruttune before 1172. He or his Son, called simply Richard de Ruiton, appears as a witness to various deeds ' Rot. Fip. 23 and 24 Hen. II, Salop. '" Liber Ruber Scaccarii, fo. ccxiij- This IB a memorandum by some Officer of the Exchequer as to the descent of the Knight's Fee once held by Engelard de Stretton. It merely traces the descent to Alice, Engelard's Sister, wife of Phihp de Burgo, and to her Successor, Bertram de Burgo. Mr. Hunter's Index of the Ziber Ruber attributes this portion of its con- tents to transactions of the time of Henry II and Bichard I. I tnow from other evidence that Bertram thus mentioned was dead before 1219. The other parti- culars of this family shall form a future subject. RTTON. 85 affecting land in the neighbourhood, the dates of which may be summarily taken as between 1190 and 1230. In October 1203, Richard de Ruton occurs as a Juror in causes of Grand Assize tried at Salop ; he was himself amerced half a merk for some transgression, and was Surety for the fine of a neighbour- ing landholder, Henry de Hugford.^^ At Michaelmas 1204, when King John's fifth Scutage had been Assessed, as well as upon Tenants by Knight's service as Tenants by Seijeantry, Richard de Ruiton had been charged and had paid half a merk to the same, as if he were a tenant of one-fifth of a Knight's fee.^^ In the year 1211, he is entered as one of the King's Tenants by Seqeantry in the County of Salop, his service being to find one serving foot-soldier with a lance, for the ward of the King's Castle of Shrawardine.^^ His trust in 1220, has before been noticed.^* At the Assizes of November 1221, he appears both as a Knight and Juror of Grand Assize, but beyond his attestations of some later deeds I can say nothing further of him. His successor seiems to have been John de Ruton, who in two lists of Fitz Alan's Shropshire Barony is said, about 1240, to hold half a Knight's fee in Ruton of John Fitz Alan.^^ A third and nearly contemporary list omits this entry ,^^ and indeed Ryton could only be said to be held of Fitz Alan because it owed service to Shrawardine, a Castle of which John Fitz Alan was then seized. This John de Ruton appears on several Juries, and as witness of many local deeds. At the Assizes of January 1256, he was one of the two principal Jurors of Brimstree Hundred whose office was to choose their ten fellows. I do not find him attesting deeds to which I can assign a later date than 1263. His successor, William de Ruton, I find similarly engaged as a Juror and a Witness from about 1270 to 1303. Early in that period, he gave two acres to Wombridge Priory, — the said two acres lying intermixed with lands in Grindle which " Salop Assizes, 5 John, m. 4 recto, 6 dorso, 4 dorso. 12 Hot. Fip, 6 John, Salop. ^ Testa de Nevill, to. 254. Ziher Ruber Soacoarii, fo. cxxxvij. » Supra, Vol. I, p. 300. >s Testa de Nevill, pp. 48, 49. 1^ Ibidem, p. 44. At the same time Kalph de Pichford is said to hold a Knight's Fee in Albrighton and Euton in capite (Ibidem, p. 45). Tliis again is not absolutely correct. Balph de Pichford had nothing at Eyton, except perhaps the Advowson of the Church. 86 RYTON. had previously been given to the same Canons by Richard de Grenhull.i7 But Buildwas Abbey profited to a much greater extent by the grants and alienations of this William. He had sold Ryton Mill to Hugh de Weston who, calling himself Hugh Lord of Weston, releases all his right therein to the said Abbey, his charter being attested by Sir Robert de Knigteleg, Sir Hugh de Beaumes, Sir John Giffard, Knights, Michael de Morton, Master Thomas de Blumenhull (Blymhill), Ranulph de GrenhuU, and Thomas de Beckebur.^^ This deed, whose date may be placed between 1279 and 1284^' was followed immediately by a confirmation from the Lord of the Fee which shall be given more fully. — " I William Lord of Ritton have granted and confirmed to God and Saint Mary and the Monks of Bildewas a certain Mill in the vill of Ritton which the Monks have of the gift of Sir Hugh de Weston. I have granted it free from all earthly service, with ease- ments and free pasturage for their horses and beasts of burden coming to the Mill, in places nearest thereunto, except corn-fields and meadows under crop ; also I grant that the Miller, for the time being, may have around the same Mill, Cocks, Hens, Capons, Geese, Ganders, Chickens, and Ducks ; also I quit the whole bylet at the back of the said Mill as on all sides the water bounds it ; also a certain meadow in the viU of Ritton, which the Monks have of the gift of Thomas de Marham near the meadow called the Moremede which they have of my gift. — Witnesses : Sirs Hugh de Weston, Hugh de Beaumeys, John Giffard, Knights ; John de Styvynton, John de Frees, Hugh de Halegtou, Robert le Fremon de Albrichton." " Wombi'idge Chartulary. Tit. Gren- Tiul, No. 3. The land is further expressed to be bounded by Kuhamstrete and the water- course of Hadinton (Hamngton) . — "Witnesses : Phillip de Bekebur, John de . Grenhull, and John de Stiventon. 18 Boll of Buildwas Charters (in pos- session of Thomas Langley, Esq. of (fold- ing, 1736), — as copied by Wm. Mitton, and extracted from the collection of the latter by the Ker. J. B. Blakeway. The Document or rather Chartulary from which these deeds are taken divides the various Charters of Buildwas into two classes, viz. those which passed " before the Statute, and those which did not." In the latter class are arranged the four deeds now under notice. They therefore passed after 1279, when the first Mort- main Statute, entitled "De Eeligiosis," became Law. So great a check did this enactment give to the Monastic acquisition of lands that it was thus known among Monks simply as " The Statute." •'■' The grounds for the later limit of date (1284) will appear presently. The names of all attesting witnesses fully bear out the date thus ascertained. R.YTON. 87 By a further deed very similarly attested^ the same William, Lord of Ryton, grants to Buildwas " a certain plat of ground in the territory of Ruton thus bounded, viz. from a certain Cross which stands on the boundary between Cospeford (Cosford) and Archesleg (Atchley) along a road to Crassitismere (Crasset'sMere), and thence along a made fence to a certain white-thorn, and thence to the headland of a certain culture which extends to Trendelleswallemerch, and thence to a place called Munebehatch, and thence along the high road as far as the first-named Cross." He also grants the Monks " common pasture for all their animals lying at their Grange of Cospeford, in a certain plot of his enclosure, viz. from the road which is above the two Stews, going down between the said Stews to the bank of Woth" (Worfe) . Another Charter of the same William conveys yet more extensive privileges to the Monks. — He grants them common pasture for all their animals in their Granges of Gospesford and of Hatton, without number, taxation, or count, through his whole Fee of Ruton, except in a tract of land fenced by a foot-path which passes from his greater Stew to the high-road outside his Court-house at Atchley, towards Ryton, and so along the said road to Calvercroft and thence to Cecilies Meadow. — If the Monks' Cattle happen to stray within this boundary they shall not be impounded but restored without trouble ; but if they be found there with a Keeper, surety shall be taken from said Keeper for reasonable damages, to be settled by two Umpires within eight days after the trespass. The Monks may also make a bridge across the water of Wergh (Worfe), over which they can drive their cattle to said pasture from Hatton. — Witnesses : Sirs Hugh de Beaumeys, Peter de Eyton, and John Gifford, Knights ; Philip Lord of Baggesovere, Ranulph de Greuhull, John de Bispeston (Bishton), John de Styvynton, Hugh de Haleghton (Haughton), Roger Hod, and others. These and possibly some still further grants of the same William de Ruton, having been made subsequent to the Mortmain Statute of 1279, required a Royal License, which was not usually issued till an Inquisition had been held as to the damage which the Crown might sustain by allowing the transfer. Such an Inquisition was held in 14 Edw. I (1285-6), and appears to have reported in favour both of these grants at Ryton and of some contemporary acquisition made by the Monks at Bikedon (Bicton near Shrewsbury) .^^ ^ The Inquisition is lost from the proper I .Inquisitions was first made, but not when Custody. It existed when the Calendar of | that Eecord was printed (1806). All 88 RYTON. In the meantime, that is about 1284, a Record of Tenures in the Hundred of Brimstree was made. It points out the seigneury of Engelard de Stretton's heirs as stiU existing at Ryton. " William de Ruton," it says,'^" holds the vill of Ruton of Bartholomew de Burgo in chief, by one fourth of a Knight's Fee, but there is no mention of whom the said Bartholomew holds in chief."^^ The latest that I find of William de Ruton is his occurrence as second Juror on an Inquest which sat at Donington, June 15j 1303, and which was to report upon the prescriptive Manorial rights of the Lords of Albrighton. Before the year 1316 his own interests at Ryton had passed, either by purchase or descent, to Roger Carles, who is then entered as Lord.^^ This Roger Carles (whom I take to have been Son of Nicholas Carles of Albrighton) had been for some time a prominent person in this neighbourhood, and so continued for at least sixteen years longer. All that I shall further say of him here is, that on Jan. 11, 1318, he obtained the King's Charter of Free Warren in Ryton, Whiston, Bonigale, and Albrighton, in each of which localities he will therefore have had a considerable interest.^' EYTON CHUECH. The parochial district now attached to this Church would seem originally to have been within the Saxon Parish of Idshall.^ The separation probably took place in the twelfth century, and the Founder of the district Church was still more evidently the Lord of the Fee. About the year 1186, the Priests of Ryton, Albrighton, and we can gather from the Ahstract is that it was an inquiry a3 to the tenure of William de Routon and in behalf of the Abbot of BUdwas ; and that it concerned or named the following places, viz. Cob- pesford, Hatton, Routon, and Bikedon {Calendar, vol. i, p. 92). In 1291, the Monks of Buildwas were seized of a Mill at Eitton, which was of 10*. annuaWalue (Pope iVJcA. Taxafion,^. 260). ^^ Kirly's Quest, a Record of extreme value as regards this Hundred inasmuch as the Brimstree Inquests of 1255 and- 1274 are both lost. ^ Parliamentary "Writs, vol. iv, p. 399. The place is printed in this very inaccu- rate Record as Ruyx. 23 Charter, 11 Edw. II, No. 43. The line of Roger Carles ended in a female who carried the Manor and Advowson of Ryton to the Corbetts of Habberley, after- wards of Longnor. ^* In token of the original subjection of Ryton Church to that of IdshaU, the Vicar of Shififnal is stUl entitled to an annual pension of is. from the Rector of Ryton. RYTON. 89 Dawlevj attest a charter relating to Sutton Advowson, a circum- stance which indicates the previous existence of a Church in each locality.^ The name of the Ryton Incumbent was Bernard. At the Assizes of September 1272, the Jurors of Brimstree Hundred reported that "William de Cheney, whilst Constable of Brug, took away the key of the Rector of Eyton's grange {i. e. barn), saying that he would have corn for the Castle of Brug, and that this was since the war (1265) and the proclamation of peace, and that said William took half-a-merk from the said Rector for re- storation of the key.^^ In 1291, the Church of Ryton, in the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry, the Archdeaconry of Salop, and Deanery of Newport, was valued at £2. per annum?' In 1341, the Assessors of the ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, charged only 10s. on this Parish. The reasons for so small an assessment were because the small tithes, offerings, hay-tithe, and glebe, which went to make up the greater taxation (£2.), were not to be reckoned in the ninth, and because the Rector had a carucate of land besides, and several Tenants, and because much land lay untilled by reason of the poverty and quitting of the occupiers.^^ In 1534, Richard Rowley being Rector here, the gross value of his Benefice was ascertained by the King's Commissioners to be &&, on which there was an annual charge of 6*. %d. for Procurations, and Is. 5(/. for Synodals.^' The Advowson of Ryton seems to have been held by the elder branch of the Pichfords rather than by the De Burghs who were representatives of the younger branch. — There is a similar compli- cation of these two interests in nearly every Manor where either was concerned. An Inquest which was held at Albrighton, May 6, 1285, on the death of John de Pichford, found him to have been seized of this Advowson.^" The Lords of Albrighton continued to present to the Church for forty years longer ; then the Advowson and the Manor became united in the Carles family, and both descended to Corbett of Longnor.^i 25 Wombridge Chartularj, Tit. "Broc- ton et Suttone Madoke," No. Ixxxy. 26 Asssize Roll, 56 Hen. Ill, m. 22 dorao. 27 Pope NicTi. Tax. p. 245. II. 2' Ingvisitiones Nona/rum, p. 193. 2' Valor JEcclesiasticus, iii, 187. * Inquisitions, 13 Edw. I, No. 14. ^' Sheriff's of Shropsfdre, p. 126. 12 90 RYTON. EAELY INCUMBENTS. About 1186, Bernard, Priest of Ryton, has occurred above. In 1314, the benefice being vacant by death of Sir Adam de PiCHEFORD, late Rector, and being under sequestration, the Bishop, on June 12, at Frees, gives custody of the Fruits and Profits thereof to John de Stevynton, Acolyte, who need not render any account thereof to the Bishop ; and Nov. 1st, 1314, the same John de Stevynton was admitted to the Church on presentation of Sir John la Warr, Knight. He resigned July 26, 1320 ; and on — Nov. 29, 1320, Roger de Scheffeld, Acolyte, was admitted on presentation of the same.^^ He resigned in 1324, and on June 22 of that year, Sir Richard de Gounston, Chaplain, was admitted to the Church and instituted (in person of Richard de Cressevyle, Clerk, his Proctor) on the presentation of Sir John de la Warre. After the death of Richard de Gonston, viz. on — Aug. 28, 1342, the Bishop conferred this Church on Sib John DE CoTYNGHAM, Pricst, the right of collation having in this instance lapsed to the Bishop. In 1344, Cotyngham exchanged this benefice for the Chantry of Conedovere in the Cathedral Church of Lichfield; and on — June 11, Hugh de Greyby, Clerk, late Incumbent of the said Chantry, was admitted here on presentation of William Carles, the true Patron. Greyby resigned Aug. 1, 1349, and on — Sept. 23 following, William Taylor, Chaplain, was admitted on presentation of William Careles.^^ In Sept. 1365, William Walker was Rector of Ryton.^* He died in 1387. John de Bysschton, Priest, was his Successor.^^ GRINDLE. This Township, not mentioned in Domesday, but which seems subsequently to have constituted a distinct Manor, is entitled to another name than modern usage has bestowed upon it. It was of old called Gren-huUe or Gren-hul, i. e. Green Hill. Though in the Parish of Ryton, I cannot show it to have been held under the same superior Lords, nor yet can I well support a surmise that it might have been a member of Idshal. ^' LicMeld Register A, folios 67, 669 b. »3 Lichfield Register B, folios 204, 218 b, 219, 224 b. ^* Charter at Haughton. ^ Blakewaj's MS3. EYTON. 91 The FeoflPees here took name from the place, and seem, as a family, to have been of nearly equal importance with their neigh- bours at Ryton. The first of whom I find mention is Robert de Grenhul, who about the year 1190, attests Walter de Dunstanville's grant of Aynulfs-Lee to Wombridge Priory .^^ At the Assizes of October 1203, this Robert de Grenhul sued Hugh de Beckbury for unduly raising a stank in Beckbury whereby Robert's freehold in GrenhuU was injured, and his meadows inun- dated. Damages of 8s. were given, and the stank ordered to be lowered to its previous state. At the same Assizes, Robert de Grenhul essoigned his own attendance at the "common summons." He was succeeded by Richard de Grenhul, who in 1220, was a Recognizor in a great trial about the Advowson of Tong. From this time till about 1250, Richard de Grenhul appears a frequent witness to Charters of Wombridge and Buildwas. At the Assizes of November 1221, Richard de Grenehull was Defendant in a trial of Grand Assize, wherein William Coterel sued him for a half-a-virgate in Herthull.^'' Richard gave half-a- merk for license to accord, his Surety being Hugh de Beckbury. The fine which resulted is preserved. — Thereby Richard conceded the premises to William, — to have and to hold of Richard and his heirs at a rent of 12<^. For this William gave two merks.^^ This Richard, calling himself Lord of Grenhtdl, and for the health of the souls of himself, his Ancestors, and Successors, made a considerable grant to Wombridge Priory. The gift comprises two half-virgates ia the vill of Grenhulle with the meadow ap- pertaining thereto, also a meadow called Alan's meadow, also a culture bounded " by the green lane, which goes from Brocton to Ruton and by the rivulet which runs under Hadinton" (Harrington) . He also allows that the Canons shall have pasturage for 200 sheep, and for the working Cattle of themselves, or their tenants, or assignees occupying said land ; the latter right to extend to the Grantor's meadows or cultures when not under crop. He also grants free transit through his land for their carts and other imple- ments, and liberty to get stone in his quarries ; and lastly that the Canons shall be quit of all suit of his Court, and need not attend there unless it be for their own pleasure or profit.^** I cannot determine the situation of the premises in dispute. ^ Pedes Finium, 6 Hen. III. Salop. *" Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, No. 1. The other witnesses appear to be dependants or connections of the Grantor, who was Lord of Idshale. ^' Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, m. 1 recto. Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. G-ren- hul, N"o. xii. The witnesses are Sir 93 RYTON. Richard de Grenhull by another and later deed concedes to Sir Walter de DunstanvHl and his heirs the MiU of Grenhull with the site thereof, and the whole suit of the vill of Grenhull, and right of road to and from said Mill, and right of dam and water-course and fishery, from Ricford down to the same MiU ; rendering therefore yearly a pair of white gloves, or one halfpenny instead.*" Within the next twenty years. Sir Walter de Dunstanville granted to Wombridge Priory the Mill which he had bought of Richard, Lord of Glenhull ; by which transfer, it should be observed, the Canons became Tenants of the Mill, paying a nominal rent of one halfpenny to the Lord of Grindle.*^ Meanwhile, that is about the year 1250 (as far as we can judge from his attestation of undated deeds), John de Grenhull had succeeded Richard in the Lordship of Grindle. At the Assizes of January 1256, this John officiated as a Juror for the Hundred of Brimstree, and he is found continuously as a Juror or Witness in records or deeds down to November 1277. There is a Quit-claim of his in the Wombridge Chartulary, which (being apparently of date October 21, 1270) releases to that house the rent of one halfpenny, due to him on Grindle Mill.*^ This was clearly in consequence of a contemporary agreement whereby the Canons had given him a fee-farm grant of the same Mill at an annual rent of one merk, reserving to themselves the usual seignoral rights whenever any of John's heirs or suc- cessors should happen to be in minority — reserving also a power of distress (in case of the said rent being unpaid) to be levied by the Bailiff of the Hundred on all the Tenant's goods.*^ Between the years 1277 and 1285, John de Grenhull was succeeded by Ranulph de Grenhull. The latter occurs in various documents down to the close of the Century, but under no circum- stance of particular interest. WiUiam de Hedleg (Hadley), Sir Hugh Fitz Kobert (of Bowlas), Sir Odo de Hodeneth (Hodnet), Sir Madoo de Sutton, Herbert then Seneschal of Ideshall, Oliver de KnoU, Eadulf de Stanton, Adam Pollard, Adam Walsh (WallenBis). •"' Ibidem, No. 1. The witnesses are Sir John DunstanyiUe, Sir Walter de Hugeforde, Sir Eichard de Sanford (of Brockton Sanford, &c., who died 1249), the Lord Prior of Wombridge, Sir Walter de Eembricton, Sir Yto de Brootou. The deed passed between 1241 and 1249. This Mill, called in later times the Porge-Mill, is no longer in existence. *' Ibidem, Fos. ii and xi. "2 Ibidem, No. is. "^ Ibidem, No. x. In 27 Hen. VIII (1535-6), the Prior of Wombridge re- turned the receipts of his house as £6. is. lOd. per ammm, from Tenements in Sutton, Brockton, and &rendull ( Valo Modes, iii, 194). 93 Irocton* This place derives its name from the little brook (bpoc) which, flowing hither from Madeley, passes on to join the Worfe at Beck- bury. A great proportion of the lands which are now associated with the village of Brockton were, in 10B5, involved with Sutton, but there was also a small and separate Manor which we find thus noticed in Domesday. — " The same Osbern (Pitz liichard) holds Broctone (of the Earl) Bruniht who occurs above (i. e. under Badger) held it (in time of King Edward) . Here is i virgate of land and viii acres. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for i ox-team. There is i boor with ii oxen. Its former value was viii shillings (per annum); its present is xii pence He (Osbern) found it waste." ^ I think that Osbern Fitz Richard's Domesday Tenant at Badger had also feoffment in Brockton. At all events that William de Begesour who, about 1174, sold his interest in Badger, appears to have retained and transmitted to his heirs a subtenancy in Brockton. The name will occur again in the latter relation. As to Osbern Fitz Richard's Seigneury here, that reverted to the Crown within fifty years after Domesday, and probably at the same time and for the same causes as have been suggested under Ryton. The neighbouring Manors of Stockton and Sutton were con- temporaneously in the King's hands, whereby it came to pass that, on their redistribution in time of Henry II, the Domesday limits of each were not strictly observed. Hence I must speak with some uncertainty of the specific descent of that virgate and eight acres which are entered in Domesday as " Broctone." This land was possibly represented by a tenement of two virgates, held subsequently under the Crown by petit serjeantry. The im- mediate tenants bore the name of Russel, and their service was that of Castle-Guard at Shrawardine. The earliest tenant of whom I find mention was Robert Russel, who in time of Henry II, as I suppose, alienated one half of his ' Domesday, fo. 257, b. 2. II. 13 94 BROCKTON. serjeantry, viz. one virgate, to Iweyn his brother and Agatha his _ sister, reserving to himself an annual rent of 5d.^ Of this alienation I will speak presently. The next whom I find in the position of Robert Eussell was Geoffrey Russell, who attests a deed of Griffin, son of Gervase Goch, in the year 1194. In the fiscal year, ending Michaelmas 1204, King John's fifth Scutage was levied. It was at the rate of two-and-a-half merks {£1. I3s. 4d.) on each Knight's Fee; but the peculiarity of this Scutage was, that it was assessed, not only on Tenants in capite by Knight's service, but on Tenants by Serjeantry. Thus Geoffrey Russell appears upon the Roll as chargeable with half-a-merk.^ The same Geoffrey is found attesting certain Brockton Deeds in 1205, and between that year and 1211. In June 1211, this Geoffrey was deceased, and William Russell was the King's Tenant at Brockton. From two Rolls of that date his obligation is gathered to be " the finding of one serving foot- soldier with a bow, for ward of the King's Castle of Srawrthin.'^* About 1225, this William Russell granted to Ralph de Sanford, for his homage and service, and for 20*. then paid, all the land which said William had in Wunedon ; — rendering T;herefore 25. per annum!' Some time afterwards Henry Ywein granted to Wombridge Priory an acre of land which he had in Bromcroft in the vill of Brocton.® A contemporary Charter by William Russel shows that this acre was held under him by Henry Ywein who was in fact his relation.^ He confirmed the grant and added a further donation of his own, viz. three acres on the hill of HabenhuU (now The Avenals), and another acre in Bromcroft.* 2 Testa de Nevill, fo. 2V5. ^ Mot. Fip. 6 John, Salop. ^ Testa de Nevill, fo. 254, and Liher Ruber Scacearii, fo. cxxxvii. Other Rolls, apparently compiled from less accurate but nearly contemporary originals, give the names of both Geoffrey and WiUiam Russel as Tenants by Serjeantry, and describe the tenure of the former as a hide of land. This I take to be a mere error of compilation, and do not think that any single original can have contained both names. These latter Rolls are to be found Testa de Nevill, fo. 879, and Liher Muter, fo. cxxiii. * Charter at Haughton Hall. The wit- nesses are Sir Hugh de Beckebur, Richard de GrenhuU, William de Beggesouria, Roger his Son, Henry le Strange, Eobert de Trillewordine, Henry Ywein, Elias Cocus. ^ Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. xlvii. Tested by Sir Madoc de Sutton, Eiohard de Sontford (sou and heir of Ralph), Eoger de Begesour, William Russell, William Cocus. ' Ibidem, No. xxxix. Tested by the first, second, third, and fifth witnesses of the last ; also by Henry Ywein and Ehas Cocus. * Ibidem, No. xlix. Tested by Sir Madoc de Sutton, Richard de Sonford, Richard GrenhuU, Roger de Beggeshour, Henry Ywein, and WiUiam Cocus. BROCKTON. 95 Before Michaelmas 1240^ this William Russel was dead, and Thomas, his son and heir^ is entered on the Pipe Roll as owing one merk relief tor the lands which he should hold in capite.^ Thomas Russel underwent sentence of outlawry and forfeiture within twelve years of his succession. An Inquest of Tenures in Brimstree Hundred, which appears to have been taken about 1251, records as follows : — " Thomas Russel, who held of the King in capite two virgates of land in Brocton, by service of being in garrison at Montgomery, with whatever arms he chose for self-defence, slew a man, and his land was seized into the King's hand. Of the said land, Robert Russel his ancestor alienated one virgate to Iweyn his (Robert's) Brother and Agatha his Sister by service of hd. per annum, and it (the alienated land) is now worth one merk " per annum.^" The Brimstree Jurors at the Assizes of January 1256, reported the previous " indictment, flight, malcredit, and outlawry of Thomas Russel, and of his accomplices Adam Mestling and Nicholas Russel of Dunninton ; also that none of the said outlaws had any chattels."!! Thomas Russell's land at Brockton continued an Escheat till the year 1261. It was apparently early in that year that the King ordered an Inquest to be taken by the Sheriff and Coroners as to the circumstance of this Tenure. Of the Jury which sat on this occasion were Ivo de Brocton, Roger Bagh (Baggesore), Thomas de Brocton, Richard le Oyselur, Hugh Pym, William Dunnynger, William Fitz Elyas^ &c. They reported that Thomas Russel' s land was an Escheat of the King, who could give it to whom he chose, but that Dionisia, Thomas's Mother, was still holding one-third thereof in dower. i- The King seems to have acted immediately on this information. His writ dated at St. Paul's^ London, May 18, 1261, runs as follows. — " The King having regard to the long services of Nicholas le Waleys his Messenger hath granted to said Nicholas for life that Messuage, &c. in Broghton which Thomas Russel once held in capite 9 Sot. Fip. 24 Hen. Ill Salop {Nova Oblata). 1" Testa de Nevill, fo. 275. The ser- vices which, while Shrawardine was a Boyal Castle, lay upon many of the King's Tenants in Shropshu-e were attorned before this period to Montgomery. Shra- wardine was, at the same time, probably given up to its hereditary Lords, the Fitz- Alans. 1' Assize Moll, memb. 9 recto. '- Inquis. incerti temporis Hen. Ill, No. 9G. 96 BROCKTON. and which is the King's Escheat, by reason of said Thomas being outlawed for the murder of Thomas Blund of Stocton, and which the King can give to whom he will, as he learns by Inquisition which he has caused to be made by the Sheriff of Salop." The Grantee is to perform all accustomed services. At his death the premises shall revert to the Crown. The Escheator citra Trent is to put the Grantee in possession without delay .^' At the Assizes of September 1273, the Brimstree Jurors reported the non-attendance of Nicholas le Messager, also that " he had for ten years withdrawn from the Hundred-Court all suit for his tenure in Brocton, whereby the King was damaged 2*. yearly; also that the said tenure was a virgate of land in Brockton, for which he was to find for the King one bow (archer) with a bolt (bosone) for fifteen days, at Mungomery, in time of war."i* The Feodary of 1284 exhibits the extent of this tenure, and also the service due 'thereon to the Crown, as again changed ; though I suppose that the Tenant mentioned held under Nicholas le Messager, and not, as stated, in capite. — Alexander le Cold is entered as holding half a virgate in the vill of Brocton in capite, by service of going with the King into Wales in time of war, with one lance, for a week.^^ At the Assizes of October 1292, a thorough investigation of the various rights of the Crown in this County brought this Serjeantry again under notice.^^ The King, by Hugh de Louther (his Attorney), prosecuted Nicholas le Messager for one virgate in Brocton, which he, the King, claimed as his right. The Defendant did not appear, and the Sheriff having been ordered to summon him had not done so, but certified that said Nicholas was dead. Hugh de Louther denied this, and affirmed Nicholas to be alive and well (in plena vit^), and was ready to prove this by Jury. The Sheriff made a similar appeal ; so an Inquest was ordered thereupon, and a formal precept issued to the Coroners. Whatever was the result of this further investigation, I find no " Fines, ii, 351. Oriffinalia, i, 17. ^* Placita CorontB, 56 Hen. Ill, Salop, m. 22 dorso, 23 recto. '' Kirhy's Quest. Alexander le Cold appears on a local Jury in September 1276 ; and, for several years after, his land in Brockton is a subject of mention in contemporary Charters of Wombridge Priory. In most of these his Christian name is written Tandi or Gandi, — abbre- viations of " Alexander '' which would seem to have been then in use. '" Placiia de qtio Warranto, p. 685. BROCKTON. 97 later evidence of this Serjeantry constituting an individual Tenure in capite. I believe that it was afterwards held by the Burnels of Langley, in common with other acquisitions in the neighbourhood which had been secured by their relative, the princely Bishop of Bath and Wells, who died, holding the Great Seal of England, at the very time when these Prosecutions were on foot. We should say something of the descent of that Iweyn whom we have seen to become a Feoffee of Robert Russell in the twelfth cen- tury, and whose heirs were consequently under-tenants of the successive occupants of this Serjeantry. Henry Fitz Ywein is found attesting local deeds early in the thirteenth century. As Henry Ywein he has already been mentioned at a somewhat later date. Robert Ouewyn served on a Stockton Inquest in 1243. Richard Iwen, Iweyn, or Weyn, of Brockton, occurs as a witness before 1249, as a Juror in 1253, and was living in 1272. From the latter date till the beginning of the next century another Henry Iweyn seems to have represented the family j and in 1316, 1318, and 1336 we have Richard Owyn, Heweyn, or Vweyn in a similar position. On May 1, 1341, Sibil, widow of Richard Owyn, occurs as holding dower in Brockton.^'' LINLEY FEB IN BROCKTON. I have already hinted that of several tenures in Brockton it is difficult to distinguish the one which constituted the Domesday Manor from others which, having been involved at Domesday, in Sutton, were afterwards detached therefrom and became inde- pendent. A second tenure (of two and a half virgates) shall have notice here, as possibly representing the Domesday Manor of Broctone. This, in time of King Henry II, was held in capite by Richard de Linley. Of him I have spoken under Linley, and shall here say no more of him than that he appears to have alienated one-and-a-half virgates of his Serjeantry in Brocton to Sibil de Linley,^^ his rela- '7 Wombridge Chartulary passim, and Charters at Haughton. I have not given all the varieties which occur in the spell- ing of this single name " Owen." The Anglo-Saxon law-clerks were in no case very studious of a consistent orthography ; but the spelling of Welsh proper names seems to have been a subject of more than usual caprice. 18 Testa de Nevill, fo. 60. The passage 98 BROCKTON. tion doubtless, but not his heir. Sibil in turn bestowed her land in Brocton on Lilleshall Abbey, as has been before stated. i" We will presently return to the Lilleshall interest thus created here ; but now we will follow the descent of those two Coheiresses who eventually succeeded Philip de Linley in the residuary virgate at Brockton, as well as in the whole Manor of Linley. These were the wives, one of William le Forcer, the other (Isolda) of Wido de Farlow.3" An Inquest of Tenures in Brimstree Hundred taken in 1227} states that William (it should be Wido) de Fernlawe and William le Forcir hold a virgate in Brockton by service of finding one serving foot-soldier at Shewrthin (Shrawardine) for eight days if necessary; and that the annual value (of the said virgate) was 15s.^^ Guy de Fernlawe was Lord of Farlow, and has already occurred to our notice as attesting a Broseley deed about 1230, and a Pickthorn Deed about 1241-2.^^ And soon after that he died, leaving Philip his son and heir, who before the year 1251, calling himself Philip, son of Wido de Farnlowe, grants to Stephen, son of William Keede (elsewhere spelt Cude) of Brockton, for his homage and for 20s. entrance-fee, half a virgate in Brockton which came hereditarily to him (Philip) from Ysonda his mother : — to hold in fee at a rent of 7s. 6d.^^ is inaccurate and ungrammatioal ; but its intended meaning is clearly that which I hare assigned to it. 13 Supra, Tol. I, p. 360. ^^ Before the Brockton virgate settled into this succession, i. e. about the year 1211, the following inconsistent and un- intelligible returns appear to have related thereto : — 1. William Briware holds by serjeantry one virgate in Drayton, and he should find one serving foot-soldier for ward of the Castle of the Lord King of Srawthin (Testa de Nevill, p. 55). 2. William Bruere holds by serjeantry of one serving foot-soldier with a bow, for ward of Sraworthin {Liber Hub. Scace. fo. cxxxvii). 3. WiUiam Briwer holds Bramton by service of finding a serving foot-soldier for ward. (Testa de Nevill, p. 417). That the tcnm-e thus alluded to was in Brockton rather than Bramton or Drayton wfll be clear ; but who William Briwere the Tenant was I cannot sur- mise. He may have been Guardian of the two Coheiresses, or he may have been the first husband of one of them, or again he may have been the heir of Philip de Linley and Father of them both. It will not serve to elucidate the diffi- culty when I state that in 1226, Alice de Draiton was suing William Cude (whose family I know to have been Under-tenants in this Serjeantry) for disseizing her of a tenement in Brockton. Judgment was given for the Defendant because the Plaintiff had never been in seizin of the premises (Abbrev. Flacitorum, p. 103). A confusion of the names Drayton and Brockton is not a singular occurrence. 21 Testa de Nevill, fo. 54. 22 Supra, Vol. I, p. 240. 23 WombridgeChartulary, TU.JBrocion, BROCKTON. 99 I can say nothing farther of this Philip de Farlow than that he was living in 1355^ and dead in 1272 ; and that his inheritance seems to have been divided among Coheiresses, who in the year 1273, were jointly in receipt of 9s. -per annum chargeable on Linley, and Is. Qd. per annum, the rent of their share of Brockton, as re- served in the feoffment of Stephen Keede already quoted. This rent of 7s. 6d. and the Seigneural rights which it implied were afterwards bought up by Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, who was at the time a ready purchaser of any Shrop- shire property. On May 5, 1280, the following Fine was levied at Westminster between said Robert, Complainant (querentem), and Matilda de Farlawe, Defendant (impedientem),of 4s. rent in Brockton whereof was plea. — " Matilda acknowledged the right of Robert thereto as of her own gift. To hold to Robert and his heirs of John de Cleton and his heirs for ever ; — Rendering a red- rose and capital services. The Bishop gave a sore hawk. And this concord was made in presence and by consent of, and under warranty of said rent, by John de Cleton." But Robert de Doditon and Isolda his wife put in a claim to said rent, as we learn from an indorsement on the Fine. At the same time and place another fine was levied between the same Plaintiff and John de Cleton and Alice his wife. Defendants, of 3s.6«f. rent in Brockton, whereof was plea of warranty of Charter. John and Alice acknowledged the right of the Bishop as of their own gift ; — to hold to the Bishop and his heirs at a rent of one rose and by render of capital services. The Bishop gave a sore hawk.^* Having now traced one interest in this Tenure to the Bishop of Bath and Wells, I proceed to show that he acquired another also, viz. that which was held in 1227 by William le Forcer. This William, who has occurred as witness of two Broseley deeds about 1230, was deceased before Dec. 6, 1242, when Henry his Son and Heir fined three merks with the King, to have seizin of his Father's lands, although he (Henry) was yet under age. The King accepted his fealty, and he was to do his homage on the King's return into England. The Sheriff of Salop was to take security for the said three merks, and give Henry full seizin. ^^ No. XV. Tested by Adam de Doditun, Yvo de Brocton, Koger Beeg (Bagsore), Richard Beeg, Thomas Kussel, Richard Pyra. ^ Pedes Finimn, 8 Edw. I, Salop. '^ Fines, i, 391. The King was in Grascony. This writ was expedited by the Archbishop of York. 100 BROCKTON. On Nov. 15j 12-18, Henry le Forcer having enfeoffed an Under- Tenant in his half-virgate at Brockton the following Fine was levied at Salop, viz. " between Henry le Forcer, Plaintiff (petentem) , and Henry de Brocton and Sibil his wife. Tenants, of half-a-virgate in Brocton, whereof was Plea, &c. Henry de Brocton and Sibil acknowledged the right of the Plaintiff, who conceded the premises, — to have and to hold to Henry de Brocton and Sibil, and the heirs of Sibil, rendering therefore to the Plaintiff and his heir 7s. 6d. annually, and performing accustomed services to the Chief Lord of the Fee."26 About the year 1251, an Inquest of Tenures in Brimstree Hundred seems to give the then state of this Serjeantry. " Henry le Forcer and Philip de Franlasche (Parlow)hold two-and-a-half virgates (the original quantity) of the King, in Brocton, by Serjeantry of finding one man at Montgomery in war, for fifteen days. Out of this (two-and-a-half virgates) Richard de Linley alienated one- and-a-half virgates to Sibil de Linley, and it (the alienation) is worth 20s." (per annum) .^'^ Besides what I have said, under Linley, of Henry le Forcer, I find that on March 28, 1256, he and his Brother Roger took one of the King's Deer.-^ Roger escaping from arrest was outlawed, but Henry was still in prison when, in February 1262, the Justices of the Forest visited Shrewsbury. A fine of 20s., for which Andrew de Wileley and John Tece of Tasley were his Sureties, seems then to have procured his release. His attestation of two Charters as a Tenant of Shrewsbury Abbey at Astley must have passed between^ this period and^'his death (Oct. 6, 1272). ^^ The first Inquest as to his estate reported him to "have held half-a-virgate of the vill of Brocthon, which a certain free man (his Feoffee of 1248) then held, by doing service for him (Henry) at Suarthin, also that the said Henry had sold all his right therein to Robert Burnell." A second Inquest, which sat April 16, 1273, purports to be more correct. It says that he had held " half-a-virgate of the King in Brocton, of the Barony of Montgomery, by service of finding one foot-soldier in ward of the Castle there, that he before his death 26 Pedes Mniam, 33 Hen. Ill, Salop. 27 Testa deNemU,-p. 60. The change of service from Shrawardine to Montgomery is again observable. (Vide supra, n. 10.) 2« FlacitaForestcB, Salop, 46 Hen. Ill, memb. 4. '^ Salop Chartulary, Numbers 145, 151. BROCKTON. 101 (had sold) the said land to Sir Eobert Bumel, who has Custody of the said Barony, by some right, to himself or his heirs * * * /'so Though the deceased was thus shown not to have been a Tenant in capite, the King's Escheator, seized upon his heir, claiming for the Crown the right of disposing of him in marriage. Margery da Harcourt, daughter and (as she is on this occasion less accurately called) Coheir of William de Harcourt, claimed this wardship, and petitioned the Crown for the same in 1275. Her claim arose as having the Seigneury of Ayleston (co. Leicester) . She alleged that her ancestors always had custody and marriage of the Heirs of Le Forcer, who were Tenants of that Manor, notwith- standing that Henry Le Forcer had held other lands of the Honour of Montgomery and the Priory of Wenlock (she alluded to Brockton and Linley). The King's writ, dated 18 July 1275, directed the Sheriff of Shropshire to inquire into this matter. A Jury met at Brockton on January 2, 1276, and reported that Richard de Harcourt, Margery's Grandfather, had had the marriage of Henry le Forcer, deceased, the latter having been a Minor at the death of his Father William ; that said Eichard sold the said marriage to Nicholas le Forcer, Henry's Uncle; and that the King and his Ancestors, Lords of the Honour of Montgomery, had never had marriage or custody of the Forcers. ^^ Sir Robert Burnell, above mentioned as purchasing Henry le Forcer's interest at Brockton, was consecrated Bishop of Bath and Wells April 7, 1275. We have already seen how in 1280 he was buying the seigneury (or right to the chief-rent) of the other moiety of this Serjeantry. His object was a title to the whole rent of 15«. per annum {7s. 6d. being the reserved rent on each moiety) ; and it should be remembered that 15s. had been stated in 1227 to be the value of this virgate to its owners. The Bishop seems either to have changed the Under-Tenants here, or to have performed the services due on this Serjeantry by another deputy ; but his transactions at this period were so numerous and complicated that I cannot do more than set down what I suppose to relate to Brockton. The Bishop had a relation, a Nephew I believe, Richard Burnell, to whom he granted Langley, at first for life, and afterwards in fee. — In 1284, Richard Bumel is entered as holding one virgate in 38 Inquisitions, 1 Edw. I, No. 47. This | ^ Inquisitions, 4 Edw. I, No. 77. Keoord is much defaced. I 14 102 BROCKTON. Brocton of the King in capite, but his warrant to do so was not known. ^^ The Bishop however still continued seized of the chief-rent of 15«.; for in 1391, Sir PhUip Burnel (Nephew and heir expectant of the Bishop) gave to Wombridge Priory 15s. rent in the vill of Brocton in exchange for all land and rents which the Priory had at Norton near Condover. The said exchange was attested by the Bishop himself/' who seems, as regards this estate, to have anticipated the succession of his heir. Nevertheless, Richard Burnel continued to hold this land, and to be reputed the Tenant in capite, though the service due thereon appears again to have been changed. — In 1310, when the army of England was under summons to meet at Tweedmouth on Sept. 19th, Richard Burnel proffered service of a fourth part of a Knight's Fee to be performed by one serving man with a barded horse.^* Richard Burnel of Langley seems to have died in 1313,^ and to have been succeeded both at Langley and Brockton by William Burnel. In 1328, when marriage articles were agreed upon between Edward (son of this William) and Margaret Lee, William Burnel enfeoffed the said Edward, &c. " in all his lands in Broc- tone near Kembrygton, except the Tenement which he held of the King in capite, and which he might not alienate without license.^'^^ The virgate-and-half which Richard de Linley had given to Sibil de Linley out of this Serjeantry was before 1199 granted by the latter to Lilleshall Abbey. It would seem that one Agnes de Brocton had some claim to a rent receivable from the Abbey on this or other land in Brockton. A deed wherein she calls herself daughter of William makes over her right, whatever it was, to Ralph de Sanford/'^ who was at this period (1310-1234) purchasing largely in the neighbourhood. 32 Kirhy's Quest. It is obvious that whoever made tliis return was ignorant of the precise circumstances of Richard Burnel's Tenure, which must have been under the Bishop. Richard probably occu- pied the land and performed the miEtary service due thereon. 33 Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. liii. Tested also by Sir Roger Spren- choee, Sir "William de Huggeford, Sir Ralph Sprenchose, Sir Thomas de Rus- sell (Rossall). ^* Fa/rUamentary Writs, vol. iv, page 621. ^ Calendar of Inquisitions, vol. i, page 253. ^^ Blateway's MSS., quotmg Charters of Sir Edward Smythe, Bart. ^ Charter at Haughton — tested by Baldwin de Hodnet, Hugh de Beckenburi, Henry le Strange, Wilham de Baggesoure, William Russel, Robert Cocus, Robert de TriEewardin. SUTTON HADDOCK. 103 By another deed A. (Alan) Abbot of LylleshuU enfeoflFs Ealph de Sanford and his heirs in that half-virgate in Brockton which Alan Vangi held ; — to hold at an annual rent of 45.^ I can trace nothing further of this Lilleshall interest in Brockton except that some later deeds occasionally mention the Abbot's land as bounding other tenements. mttou JHatitioclk. This Manor, though then unmarked by the compound name, which was afterwards employed to distinguish it from other Suttous, is easily identified in Domesday. That Record tells us thus. — "The same Gerard holds Sudtone (of the Earl Roger). Earl Morcar held it. Here are are iiii hides geldable. There is (arable) land (sufficient) for xii ox-teams. In demesne are ii teams and (there are) vi Serfs and xii villains and iiii boors with VII teams ; and a certain Knight has there i team and ii Serfs. In time of King Edward (the Manor) was worth xl shillings (annually) . Its present value is the same." ^ I think that Sudtone must have been originally so called with reference to its position in the Southern quarter of the great Saxon Parish of Iteshale (now ShifFnal). The two places had also been manorially associated from the earliest times. Together with Tong and Donington they had constituted an estate of the Earls of Mercia. When Edwin and Morcar, Brothers and joint Tenants of that Earldom, rebelled against King William in 1071, their outbreak, as is well known, ended in the death of the former, the captivity, or rather disappearance of the latter, and the distribution of Mercia as of a conquered province. Thus did Earl Roger de Montgomery enter Shropshire to rule and to possess. ^ Charter ibidem, — tested by Walter de Iluggeford, Hugh de Beochebur, Philip de Burvvardsleg, Koger de Spepnhose (Spreuchose), Peter de Eytun, Robert de Mukelestun. This deed passed between 1216 and 1224. It had two Seals attached, but both are gone. Domesday, fo. 259, a 1. 104 SUTTON HADDOCK. Among the followers and countrymen of the Norman Lord one Gerard de Tornai received a share of the spoil. He held at Domesday, and for at least a season afterwards^ eighteen Manors, of which Sutton was the largest and most valuable. I can say little more of Gerard de Tornai's career in Shropshire than that it ter- minated in a total and absolute forfeiture, and, whereas such forfeiture must have been very nearly contemporary with the great western Rebellion of 1088, 1 do not see that we can help associating the two events.^ The disinherited Baron had one, or more than one daughter. She (if only one) was Sibil the wife of Hamo Peverel, whose influence in Shropshire, already great in time of Earl Hugh (1093-1098), will have originated in this marriage, and in the accompanying favour of that seigneural Lord, whether King or Earl, who dictated the re-disposal of Gerard's forfeited estates. The bare mention of this name of Peverel will suggest a throng of recollections to every one acquainted with the vicissitudes which befel this County during the first Century after the Norman Conquest. National Records, Monastic Chartularies, Chronicles and Legends, all speak of the Peverels ; but the pervading feature of every account or hint is, that something is kept back which either was not known or was not to be talked of. The only specific statement yet advancea, attributes the various branches of this house to a Saxon Ancestress, who, as we are told, was first the Concubine of Duke William of Normandy, and then the wife of Ranulph Peverel of Hatfield (Essex), and who, after being Mother (by the Duke) of William Peverel of Nottingham, subsequently gave lawful birth to all the other Peverels who figured in the time of Henry I.^ This story, improbable in its simplest form,* and with the fewest 2 Salop Chartalarj-, So. 296. ^ This account is adopted by Dngdale, and appears to have been originally vouched by Eobert Glover, some-time Somerset Herald. G-lover's reputation as a Herald is I believe still high, and in- dependently of that it may seem pre- sumptuous to question an authority which Dugdale accepted. Nevertheless I cannot help doing so. ■* Its improbability arises in two ways. It is inconsistent with the general charac- ter of Duke WiiHam. Moreover, this alleged liaison with a Saxou Lady of rank can have originated in no earlier circum- stance than the event of the Duke's visit to the Court of Edward the Confessor in 1051. However, William Peverel of Not- tingham, whatever his parentage, must have been born before that period, for he was old enough in 1068 to be entrusted with one of the most responsible offices in the kingdom, the custody of the Castle and Province from which he took his name. SUTTON HADDOCK. 105 adjuncts, has farther heen embodied with such a variety of impossible circumstances as to leave its 'Credibility in extreme jeopardy. Mystery there certainly is about the whole subject, and the truth may very possibly be buried with some tale of courtly scandal, though not of the precise character hitherto pointed out. Leaving a curious, but perhaps hopeless investigation, we should here say that Domesday appears to make mention of^only two Peverels, viz. William (of Nottingham) and Eanulph (of Essex), and that the latter had a small territory in Shropshire held under the Norman Earl. This accident is, I believe, the fact which has mainly induced some Genealogists to conclude that Ranulf was Father of those Shrop- shire Peverels who attended the Court and enjoyed the favours of King Henry I. Such a conclusion wants all substantial foundation, and is directly subverted by one chief consideration, viz. that of the many Lordships enjoyed by Ranulf Peverel in four Domesday Counties (Shropshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex), not one can be proved to have descended to those other Peverels of whom I am now to speak. ^ The latter family consisted of several brothers or half-brothers, whose parentage is unknown, and whose very number is uncertain. If they were four, their names were Hamo, William, Pagan, and Eobert, if they were only three, then Pagan and Robert constitute a single person described in different documents by different names. ^ 5 Their estates lay in Shropshire, Not- tinghamshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Yorkshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridge- shire, Bedfordshire, Lincohishire, Kent, and Northamptonshire, and they all came into court-faTOur before the death of Eanulph Peverel whose only son and sue- eessor seems to have been that William Peverel who was afterwards caRed of Essex or of London, to distinguish him from his Contemporaries William of Nottingham and William of Brun, or of Dover. ^ I shall have hereafter to recur to this subject of the Peverels. I should perhaps however state here how tliis doubt about Pagan and Robert arises. — Pagan Peverel had a great Fief in Cam- bridgeshire by grant of Henry I. He was Founder of Barnwell Priory, and the Chartulary of that House printed in the Monasticon, (vol. vi, p. 86) contains a document of very general truthfulness and which professes to give accomit of his descendants. It makes him Father of that William Peverel who died in Pales- tine, and of the four Coheiresses presently to be mentioned in the text. That he was succeeded in Cambridge- shire by the said WilUam Peverel and then by the said Sisters, there can be no question ; and the only doubt as to the Barnwell Chronicler's accuracy arises from his giving a date for Pagan Peverel's death at least ten years too early. So much for Pagan Peverel as Father of William. In a charter of Thorney Abbey (printed 106 SUTTON MAUDOCK. Hamo Peverel, as I have already said, acquired a great position in Shropshire before the death of Earl Hugh de Montgomery, and therefore during the reign of William Rufas. His two Bro- thers, William and Pagan, do not occur to our notice till after the accession of Henry I. Hamo Peverel, with whom alone we are now concerned, acquired his succession to Gerard de Tornai under a title obviously ambi- guous from the very first. He married the heiress or co-heiress of an escheated Barony, but such a marriage cotdd have brought nothing to Hamo Peverel except by special favour of the Suzerain or Suzerains under whom Gerard de Tornai had held. Hence arose, as I conceive, two distinct and afterwards conflicting principles as to this succession. Hamo Peverel, and his wife Sibil, spoke of and treated this Eief as their inheritance, but yet transmitted it in such a mode as is quite irreconcilable with any known principle of hereditary descent. With similar inconsistency Henry II once addressed the heirs of Hamo Peverel as if they were also heirs of Gera,rd de Tornai, and yet on all other occasions seems to have ignored and gradually to have abolished any such pretensions. He in short controlled the Fief of Gerard de Tornai as a simple escheat and as subject to every recurrent interference of himself as the immediate Seigneur. But to return to our proper subject, — Hamo Peverel, first con- spicuous in the Palatine Court of Earl Hugh de Montgomery, and afterwards enjoying the favour of King Henry I, undoubtedly held Sutton during the whole of that Monarch's reign. After Henry I's death and during the short interval of his own survivorship Hamo Peverel made to Salop Abbey that grant of the " fishery and passage of Sutton" which has already been alluded to.'' In the year 1138, Hamo Peverel was dead, and two youths whom he had apparently destined as his heirs, while living, occur to our notice, partly as dealing jointly with his and Gerard de Tornai's estates, but more prominently as linked together in the cause of the daughter of Henry I.^ in the Monasticon vol. ii, 601, viii) this identical William Peverel (the Cru- sader) mentions his Father's Christian name as having been Robert. Dugdale has adopted both statements in different parts of his Baronage without adverting to their apparent inconsistency. ' Supra, Vol. I, p. 44. " It is hardly possible to reconcile the anomalies which are again presented at this stage of the history of the Peverels. Though Hamo Peverel appointed WiUiam Peverel the younger and Walcheline Ma- minoht his heirs, we have not a hint as to his relationship with the latter. More- over Hamo Peverel had a daughter, and SUTTON MADDOCK. 107 The conduct of William Peverel of Dover and Walcheline Manjinoht during the usurpation of Stephen associates their names with a great national struggle, rather than with their territorial interests in Shropshire. The former perished in the Crusade of 1147, leaving four sisters his Co-heirs. On the Accession of Henry II, Walcheline Maminoht was sur- viving, but neither he nor the four Sisters of William Peverel succeeded in establishing any joint and general claim on the fief of Gerard de Tomai. With Sutton in particular they had no further concern, and we have henceforth to treat of this Manor in a new and changed relation. My supposition is, that during the reign of Henry I, and while the Peverels were actively serving that Monarch in Shropshire and the Marches, a policy was first adopted which had for its object the disintegration of the national unity of North Wales. English lands and English marriages were bestowed on any native Chief who might be open to such bribes and worth the bribing. Thus, I conceive, that is either by affinity or interest, was Jorwerth Goch (thfe " Red Edward " of Border traditions) first associated with the English cause and with the Peverels, for I can look upon his claims on the Fief of Gerard de Tomai only as having originated while Hamo Peverel was seized of that Honour. I understand him to have been a younger Son of Meredyth ap Blethyn ap Convyn, the last Priuce who held the Kingdom of Old that daughter did not die issueless. So far from this daughter (Seburga) having been Hamo Peverel's heir, she and her descendants were only Tenants of his col- lateral heirs, and so far from the same Seburga being heir of Sibil de Tornai, that which she and her descendants thus held was no part of Tornai's Fief. Seburga therefore was not Hamo Peverel's daugh- ter by his wife Sibil nor by any other wife. She must in short have been ille- gitimate. As to Walcheliiie Maminoht he would appear to have been more nearly related to William Peverel of Dover, the elder, than to Hamo, — a thing very possible if, as I beUeve, the two latter were not Brothers of the whole blood. Nor is the statement to be passed in silence which says that this elder William Peverel of Dover married another Coheir of G-erard de Tornai. Such a supposition appears at first to offer an elucidation, but still we find this William and Hamo dying without lawful issue themselves and trans- mitting estates not to any alleged heirs of their respective wives but to their own collateral heirs. If such disposal were by permission or under direction of the Crown we may indeed thus account for the here- ditary principle having been afterwards set aside by the same authority. Thus by a series of hypotheses we esta- blish something of a consistent theory, but I have little faith in theories thus established. I have often found a single guess in similar subject-matter to prove erroneous. I have here hazarded two or three. My hope is that this statement of uncertainties may bring to light some document available for a future and neces- sary recurrence of the question. 108 SUTTON HADDOCK. Powis in its integrity. On Meredyth's death, 1133, Madoc and GrufFyth, his two elder sons, became respectively Princes of Lower and Higher Powis. Jorwerth, his younger Son, had Mochnant is Rayader, but rather as a dependency of his Brother Madoc's Fief than as a distinct Principality, Madoc was a firm ally of King Henry II, who had not been three years on the throne when Gerverd Coch (as he is written on the Pipe-Roll) appears to have made and sustained a legal claim to a great part of the escheated Honour of Gerard de Tornai. — William Fitz Alan, then Sheriff of Shropshire, rendered account at Michaelmas 1157, of a sum of £7. &s. 4.4., being the current years ferm of the land of Gerard de Tornai. Of this sum he had paid £3. 6s. into the King's Treasury ; the balance ^64. 0*. ^d. he had handed over to Gerverd Coch by (order or award of) the Chan- cellor and the Earl of Leicester. At the same time he charges £2. 7s. for livery of the King's Archers in the Army, and by order of the King had made presents of £8. 10*. to Maddoch and £2. to Gervase (Gervetto). These entries on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll will become very in- telligible when collated with contemporary Chronicles. — I assume that the order by the Chancellor (Becket) and the Earl of Leicester (then Chief Justice of England) implies a previous judicial decision, for had the gift to Gervase Goch been merely one of Grace it would have been authorised by writ of the King him- self. However, it is probable that the claims of Gervase on Gerard de Tornai's Fief were acknowledged not simply on account of their justice but from ulterior political motives. It was in the summer of the year 1157, that Henry II undertook his first expedition against North Wales. Madoc, Prince of Powis, commanded the fleet which was destined to co-operate with the King's Army along the Northern coast of the Country, and the Welsh Chronicler tells us incidentally that in this same year " Jorwerth Goch ap Meredith got the Castle of Yale and burnt it." ^ We may hence infer the causes which placed Madoc and Gervase (his Brother) on the Shrop- shire Pipe Roll. 5 Powell, sub anno. Tale was part of the territory of Madoc, Henry's Ally ; but the Castle here alluded to was, aa we happen to know by accident, built by Owen Gwyneth in 1149 ; and Owen Gwyneth, Prince of North Wales, being I suppose still in possession was, in 1157, the object of the King's hostility. This undesigned agreement of scattered facts does much to establish the veracity of the Welsh Chronicler from whom Dr. Powell took his statements. SUTTON MADDOCK. 109 The lands which Gervase Goch acquired in Tornai's Fief seem to have been in Sutton, Brockton, and Ellardine. What he had in Sutton was however not quite identical with the Doinesday Manor, a circumstance which has already been accounted for. He further received the Manor of Rowton (near High Ercall) from Henry II, which had not been Gerard de Tornai's at Domesday, though pos- sibly Hamo Peverel had since held it. These lands became of course a Tenure in capite, and the service by which the Tenant was to hold them is not the least remarkable among the Serjeantries of that period. "The Lord of Sutton, &c. was to be the King's Interpreter (Latimarius) between England and Wales." i" The further history of Gervase Goch and his suc- cessors will afford some curious indications of their performing this and cognate services. In 1160, the Sheriff of Shropshire charges his account with several items of expense which he had incurred in the fortification of Border Castles and in subsidizing the native Chieftains of Wales. Amongst others he had paid to " Gerverd Cok" a sum of 10s. King Henry's Welsh campaign of 1165 was a failure, which the pressure of his affairs elsewhere allowed him no personal opportunity of retrieving. The conquest of Wales, though a favorite project, might, as he deemed, be accomplished by trusty agents and a specific policy. This policy, at times actively and openly aggressive, was much more uniformly characterized by its elements of watchful intrigue or lavish bribery. In the Autumn of 1166, the King being then in Normandy, two of his most able Lieutenants, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, and Richard de Luci, were at Chester. Their object was hostile to Wales, but nothing more definite has transpired than that the Earl was seized with sudden sickness and died. In that same year two Welsh Princes had united in an attack on one who was their fellow-countryman and relation, but whose connection with the English King was the probable cause of their animosity. "Jorwerth Goch,'^ says the Chronicler, was "spoiled of his lands in Powys, by Owen Cyvelioc, the son of Gruffyth ap Meredyth, Lord of Powys, and by Owen Vachan, second 1° The word Laiimnrius (whence the proper-name "Latimer") was first applied to one who understood Latin, Then it oame to signify one who had acquired a knowledge of any other than his native language. So the modem application of II. the word Eomance to any imaginary tale, is a result of the poetical narratives or Minstrelsy of a former age having chanced to be embodied in a base Latin Dialect called the lAngna Momana. (See Wright's History of Jyudlow, p. 64, note.) 15 110 SUTTON MADDOCK. Sonne to Madoc ap Meredyth : which lands they divided betwixt them, so that Owen Cyvelioc had Mochnaut above Rayader, and Owen Vachan Mochnant beneath Rayader."ii The accompanying genealogy will show the relationship of these parties. The two Princes were Gervase's Nephews, sons of his elder Brethren, the Coparcners of Powis-land. The Shropshire Pipe-Roll of this year supplies a further item of the King's dealings with his Latimarius. Earl Geoffrey and Richard de Lucy had ordered the Sheriff to purchase for the King's use fifteen horses from the stud of Gerverd Chok. The cost (£14. 16*. 8fi?.) had been paid to the said Gervase, and the horses had been sent, I suppose over sea, to the King ; for Roger Mussun (of whom we shall hear again) had received 20s. for taking them somewhither. At Michaelmas 1167, Gervase's Manor of Sutton (Sutton Ger- verdi Cok) had' been amerced one merk by the Justiciar of the Forest, but before the following Michaelmas the King, still beyond sea, had transmitted his Writ, ordering the debt to be cancelled in favour of Gervase himself. At the latter period (Michaelmas 1168), William de Beau- champ, Sheriff of Worcestershire, obeying an order of Richard de Lucy, had delivered forty horse-loads of com to " Yerverd Coch," wherewith to victual the Castle of Chirk. At this precise period Gervase Goch was taken still more openly and completely into the King of England's service. In respect of his past sacrifices, or in prospect of his future usefulness, the enormous salary of £91. per annum was appointed for his main- tenance ; ^^ and this he regularly received for the years ending Michaelmas 1169 and Michaelmas 1170, and for forty-seven weeks of the year ending Michaelmas 1171. The cause of his salary being discontinued does not appear, but at this period a pacification was effected between the King of England and Rese Prince of South Wales ; — and three years later " Powell, p. 163, sai anno 1166. ^^ This salary was 5j. per diem^ i. e. sixty times as much as the pay of a common soldier. It may be computed as equal to about £4500 of modern currency. At Michaelmas 1170, William the Clerk of Geoffery de Tere, accounting for his de- ceased Employer as Fermor of " The Honor of the Constable," charges 40«. for forty horse-loads of corn given to Gervard Coch and Roger de Powis. (Sot. Pip. 16 Hen. II.) The Pipe-Bolls also supply those other statements in the text of which I have not given specific authority. SUTTON MADDOCK. Ill O PM o o I— ( PM H :^ o 1— 1 > ft CO ^" O H P O ro R O M o as -a a IF- II- J3 o I HiO CD Oti a "^ pqo •i PM ^ O i '3 ciipH 53 s 2 g a o J CI ^ '< afMO §3 3 II O U D '^ t, 3 2 t, aoe-g'-' 03 f* PI am SS TS TJ .'S r-I a i-a S II II .2'S) CO ^5 si O o m r-i [a. ,3 l> 3 -TS OflHllHOO d fl ooo's om a ^ - 5;^ -73 a ^ 1^ S o o ^' iifiHPMOf^ 3 .a -c :g Ph n 03 "^ iSpHt>0 iS CD 3 fe ^ O n — aJ O .|; « O cj ^ ID 04 'O I-H W>3 R. § ^ • — O SI'M J: 'S S asPnO 3 -t1 H 1° g-Pn 53 o 2 ^ ,S -§ :g S« S 03 rO 112 SUTTON MAUDOCK. David, Prince of North Wales, became not only the Ally, but the Brother-in-law of Henry II. Possibly however, the death of Gervase Goch rather than the cessation of his diplomatic functions, was the cause of his disappear- ance at this crisis. I hear nothing further of him, and find little more than the name of his eldest son and successor at Sutton. — About the year 1 186-7, this Madoc, calling himself son of Gervase Ghoc, granted to Wombridge Priory the Advowson of his Church of Sutton as far it belonged to him.^^ He willed also that his body^ wherever he might chance to die, might be buried at that Monastery ; and he promised an annual payment of 2s. during his life in main- tenance of the Fraternity of Saint Leonard, his Patron.^* In 1187, this County was visited by the Justices of the Forest. Among amercements imposed by them, one of two merks for some default is entered against Madoch, son of Jetun de Sutton ; and this debt, though it remained on the Rolls of eight consecutive years, does not appear to have been ever liquidated.^^ Before the year 1194, Madoc, son of Gervase Goch, will have deceased without issue, leaving his Brother Griffith his heir. In or shortly before that year, the latter, calling himself Griffin, son of Gervase Goch, confirms the Charter which his Brother Madoc had given to Wombridge Priory " about the Church of Sutton.'" For his part, he granted to the same house an annuity of 12d., to be chargeable on land held by Fulco the Clerk. He also " would wish by all means to be buried at Wombridge with his aforesaid Brethren the Canons, if he should happen to die in England."^^ '' Alluding apparently to a contempo- rary grant by King Henry II, which treats the Advowson as the exclusive . right of the Crown. (Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. Ixxxxvij.) '■' "Ad fraternitatem Domini mei Sanoti Leonardi manu-tenendam." Wombridge Priory was dedicated to St. Leonard. The witnesses of this Charter are, Kichard, Archdeacon of Salop ; Master Bobert, Dean of the same; Master Walter de Dunstanville, Clerk ; Kobert Dean of Dreiton, William de Ercalew ; Bernard, Nicholas, and WiUiam, Priests of Euton, Albriton, and Dalilea (Dawley) ; Pagan de Hadley with * * * and Eichard his nephews, Peter de Heiton (Eyton), and Eadulf de HorUton (Orleton), and Master Eichard of TdeshaU (Idsall). (Wom- bridge Chartulary, Tit. Sroctom, No. Ixxxv.) 15 Rot. Fip. 33 Hen. II to 6 Kic. I, 1^ Wombridge Chartulary, Ibidem, No. Ixxxvi. The witnesses are, Walter de Dunstanville and his Knights ; Peter Fitz Thoret and his Sons, PhUip and Bartholomew; Eeginald de Davull and Paremus (Pharamus) de Traoi; William de Hadley and Hamo his Brother ; Geof- frey Eussel ; William de Beggesour ; Senry Muffus de Wrocwaryni; Wurgena, Cadugane (both Welsh names); and Helias (probably HeUas Cocus, of whom here- after). The first witness died about Michaehnas 1194', and the Grantor can SUTTON MADDOCK. 113 Soon after the return of King Richard from captivity (March 1194), Griffin, son of Jereverth, appears on the Pipe-Roll as fining for his lands, — in succession, as I presume, to his Brother. The sum of 40 merks was thus paid by him in 1195 and 1196. In the former year died Ralph le Strange, Baron of Knockyn, Alveley, and Weston, in the prime of his life, and leaving a fair inheritance to be divided amongst three Sisters, his Coheirs. One of these, Matilda, became before Michaelmas 1196, the wife of Griffin de Sutton, who then appears, with the husbands of the other Coheiresses, as fining 200 merks for seizin of the said lands.^^ A fine of this amount indicates a succession to no mean estate, and Griffin de Sutton's influence in Shropshire was proportionably extended. Some litigation, in which the Coparcners of Ralph le Strange's Barony came to be involved, shall be reserved till we reach the localities concerned. Here we should briefly mention that the three Coheiresses concurred with their husbands in sur- rendering Knockyn to their Cousin, John le Strange of Nesse and Cheswardine, who claimed it as his right. Some equivalent was however given in each case. Thus Griffin, son of Gervase Gohk, and Matilda his wife, obtained John le Strange's feofi'ment in the whole vills of Dovaneston (Dovaston), and of Kineverdeston (Kinaston), in lieu of their third of Knockyn.^^ In Easter Term 1200, Griffin, son of Selverd Coc (as his name is written), happened to be under summons to appear in the Law- courts at Westminster. The suit then pending had nothing to do with Sutton, but the reason of his non-appearance is curiously illus- trative of the tenure by which he held that Manor. A King's writ had been handed into Court which vouched that Griffin could not attend there on the proper day " by reason of his service."^^ not hare succeeded to Sutton long before. These two facts give the date of the Deed. V Sot. Pip. 8 Rich. I, Salop. '8 Fines, 9 Rich. I, Salop. The general account is that the Shropshire Kynastons are descended from Grifiln, son of Gervase Goch, and took name from the very vill of Kinaston which he thus acquired. All this is, I believe, perfectly true, but the details which have hitherto accompanied this statement are so inaccurate as to run the risk of bringing discredit upon the whole story. John le Strange's original grant of Kinaston and Dovaston expressly limits the succession to the heirs of Griffin, by his wife MatOda, with remainder (in default of such heirs) to the Grantor and his heirs. The Heralds and Genealogists however give us a Pedigree of Kynaston in which no mention whatever is made of Matilda, wife of GriiBn. They assign to Griffin another wife, it is true, and issue by the same. It is however clear that even if he was twice married, he had issue only by one wife, viz. Matilda le Strange, and that, through her, he and his descendants became possessed of Kinaston. '" Eot. Curia Uegis, ii, 185. 114 SUTTON MADDOCK. Griffin de Sutton was rateable to Aids and Scutages in respect of his wife's inheritance, his own tentire by Serjeantry not being ordinardy liable to those imposts. It may be doubted however whether, for some of the Scutages of King John, he was not assessed on both accounts. On the fourth Scutage, for instance, which was levied in the year 1203, at the rate of 2 merks on each Knighfs-Fee, Griffin, son of Yerverd, is charged £5. [7\ merks) on his Serjeantry. In the year 1204, King John's fifth Scutage was assessed at the rate of 2\ merks. Here again Griffin de Sutton was chaged £5. in respect of a Knight's Fee, whilst his share of Le Strange's inheritance can at no time have exceeded half-a-fee. In 1205, Griffin Goch fined, or made composition in respect of King John's sixth Scutage; and in 1206, when the seventh Scutage was levied at the rate of £1. (IJ merks) per Fee, Griffin Goch paid 4 merks thereon.^° I do not find him or his Son assessed to more than one subsequent Scutage, in respect of their tenure at Sutton. A return of the year 1211 gives the first formal statement as to Griffin de Sutton's Serjeantry. He holds, says the Kecord, Euelton (Rowton), Ellewr'thin (Ellerdine), Sutton, and Brocton, of the gift of King Henry II, by Service of being Latimarius between England and Wales.21 On January 24, 1221, the King certifies the Sheriff of Salop that Maddoc, son and heir of Griffin de Suttun, deceased, has done homage and fealty. The SheriflPis to take security from said Maddoc for IOO5., his relief for one Knight's Fee which he holds in capite in Suttun, and give him full and immediate seizin thereof. ^^ Griffin de Sutton, thus dying, left his widow Matilda surviving, and other issue besides Madoc. His sons Griffin and Hoel are however the only ones of his younger children whom we need mention here. Something should be said of the successive grants of Griffin de Sutton to Wombridge Priory. His confirmation of 1194 has already been cited. Within ten years of that time, calling himself GriflSn, son of Jareford Goch, he grants to the same Canons, for the 2» Rot. Fip. 5, 6, V & 8 John, Salop. The feudal Tenants of the Crown in King John's reign do not appear to haTe had the option of excusing their personal ser- vice by a money payment according to the rate of the current Scutage. They had specially to compound for non-attend- ance. Hence the high rates per fee at which we find many of them to have been assessed. 2' Testa de Nevill, p. 56. 22 Rot. Fin. 5 Hen. Ill, memb. 8. SUTTON MADDOCK. 115 souls' health of himself, of M. le Strange his wifCj and of his heirs and ancestors, all his land and wood of Berdelei in his Manor of Sutton, with all the vestures and appurtenances thereof, and free liberty to make assart therein or otherwise dispose thereof to their advantage. ^^ He certifies that the Canons, having regard to his affection for their house, and in acknowledgment of the favour which he had shown them, had given him a dapple (ferrandum) Destrier and a black Palfrey.^* By another and, as I think, later deed, he grants to the Priory a rent of twenty-four cocks and hens which Thomas paid him for an assart in Sutton. ^^ By a still later deed, he grants to the Priory the Curtilage in Sutton which Sibil and Emma, daughters of Fulcoius (Fulco the Clerk of his former Charter), held, and of which he had already given \2d. rent to the Canons. He also gives 12c?. rent (chargeable on the land of Robert Cocus in Brocton) in exchange for that assart on the hiU of Severn which had been Thomas Pistor's, and from which the Canons were already in receipt of a rent of twenty- four cocks and hens.^® Another deed of this Griffin shall be cited when I come to speak of the manv Feoffments or alienations which he made in his tenure. His Widow, Matilda le Strange, survived him twenty-two years. At the Assizes of November 1231, the Jurors of Brim stree Hundred reported her to be in the King's gift and not as yet bestowed in mar- riage. Her land of inheritance in that Hundred (viz. at Alveley) waaworth £4>.per annum; her dower (which must have been in Sutton ^ This is the grant described in an Inquest of 1251 as an " alienation of six acres of wood worth 2s. per animm by Grifiin de Sutton to the Prior of Wom- bridge." (Testa de Nemll, fo. 274.) 2* Wombridge Chavtulary, Tit. Brocton et Suttone MadoJce, No. Ixxxvij. — Wit- nesses : Hugh and Bichard Chaplains of Sutton, Walter de Dunstanville Parson of the Church of Ydeshal, Warin de Burwardesleg, Philip de Linleg, Richard de Euiton, Bobert de Sutton, Boger Cor- bet, William de Hedleg, Bartholomew Fitz Peter, and Walter his Brother, Walter de Grodemoneston (probably Dodemones- ton), Philip deYdeshall,Helyas Cocus, &c. " Ibidem,]Sro.lxxxiT. — Witnesses: Hugh Chaplain of Brocton, and Richard his Brother (probably identical with the two first witnesses of the last deed) ; Robert de Sutton; Nicholas the Chaplain, his Brother; John Chaplain ***** Hugh de Bekebur, Walter de Hugefort, Geoffrey Griffin. ^^ Ibidem, No. xxxr.— Witnesses : Hugh de Bekkebur, Walter de Stirclileg, Balph de Sontford, Henry Le Strange, William Russel. This deed involyes some un- intelligible condition, a part of which mentions the Prior presenting the Grantor with a sextary of wine at Wom- bridge. 116 SUTTON MADDOCK. and Brockton) was worth €2. The Bradford Jurors reported her lands in their Hundred to be worth =£10. per annum.'^l This must have included her share of Weston-under-Red-Castle and probably her dower in Rowton and EUardine. I do not find any account of her second marriage. She died shortly before May 4^ 1242, when the King received the homage of Maddok de Sutton, son and heir of Matilda le Strange, for all lands which she had held in capita in Alvithele and Weston. The relief payable by Maddok was to be three merks.^^ Some previous circumstances in the life of this Madoc require notice. It was from him I imagine, rather than his Uncle, that this Manor of Sutton acquired its distinctive name of Sutton Maddock. He was possessed of it more than forty years, and if his importance may be measured by the frequent mention of his name he was a chief among the Knightly personages who constituted the Court of the County. Soon after his succession, Madoc, son of Griffin, and Ducehis wife are found suing Imbert, Prior of Wenlock, for disseizing them of their free tenement in Dallyle (probably Dawley) . The case was heard by the King himself when, in August 1226, he visited Shrewsbury. The Prior was found to have disseized the Plaintiffs of a quarter-of- an-acre of moor-land.^' — The litigation did not end here. In Michaelmas Term 1228, the Prior of Wenlock was prosecuting a suit at Westminster against Maddoch, son of Griffin, and Cecilia his wife. Tenants of 12 acres of wood in Sutton and 6 acres of land in Daghele. But the King had issued mandate to his Justices in banco, that the case should be postponed till Madoc should be released from prison, he having been arrested by Lewellyn, Prince of North Wales.^" This suit was still on foot in Easter Term 1229, when Cecilia names her husband (now I suppose at large) as her Attorney therein, re- moving at the same time Wymanus de Karleton her former Attorney .^^ I find not how it ended, but it has already supplied us -' Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 8. 2S Bot. Fin. 26 Hen. Ill, memb. 3. ^ Flacita coram Mege, 10 Hen. Ill, memb. 4. ™ Flacita apnd Westm. Michaelmas Term, 12 Hon. Ill, memb. 1. 31 Ibidem, Easter Term, 13 Hen. Ill, memb. 1, 2. I wish to mark for a future object this apparent instance of the same Lady being described under two Christian- names. The names Duloia (abbreviated " Dnce") and Cecilia have no meaning in common. They were not therefore con- vertible, as some names were, in respect of their signification. I have met with many a genealogical problem, which can- not be solved on any other hypothesis than this, viz. that females were occa- sionally known by two distinct Christian- names. SUTTON MA.DDOCK. 117 witli an interesting illusti-ation as to the treatment which the King's Latim,arms might suffer in discharge of his office. In Michaelmas Term 1243, Madoc de Sutton appears with twenty- two others as impleaded in the Courts at Westminster by John de la Lawe for robbery and breach of the King's Peace. The Defendants had repeatedly failed to appear, so the Sheriff was ordered to have them bodily in Court on the Octaves of St. Martin.^^ On that day (Nov. 18), the Sheriff had done nothing. He was ordered to distrain them to appear in Hilary Term following.^' Ere that time the matter was compounded, and Madok de Sutton acknowledged, in Court, that he owed 10 merks to John de la Lawe " for a fine in a certain appeal." ^* At Michaelmas 1347, Madoc de Sutton had been amerced one merk for some default.^' This perhaps arose thus, — In 1248, certain persons, who had been assessable to the auocilium levied in 1335 and 1336 for the marriage of Isabella the King's Sister, and had escaped payment, appear to have been put in charge as Defaulters. Among them Madoc de Sutton pays 3 merks, the sum chargeable on a Knight's Fee.'^ In 1250, when Geoffrey de Langley assessed various persons in this County for lands which they had assarted without license, Madoc de Sutton was put in charge for some land thus reclaimed in Sutton.^'^ Madoc de Sutton was returned in 1353-4, as one of eleven per- sons in the Counties of Salop and Stafford, who being of less than Baronial degree were yet possessed of lands to the extent of £30. annual value. ^^ In 1356, Madoc de Sutton formed the design of alienating his interest at Sutton and Brockton to Wombridge Priory. His in- '■^ Placita apud Westm. 26 Hen. Ill, memb. 11. Among the Defendants were, Eoger Kussel, Henry le Strange, Thelrio the Provost, Richard de la Broke, Henry Pitz Avice, and other names connected with Sutton, Brockton, Bridgnorth, and its neighbourhood. ^ Ibidem, memb. 29 dorso. Thelric the ProTOst is here written Terricus. We have, I think, met with him before as Terricus Fitz Reginald Provost of Brug. (Supra, Vol. I, p. 314). 5" Ibidem, 27 Hen'. Ill, Hilary Term, memb. 11 dorso. Madoc's Sureties for II. payment were Odo de Hodenet and Lucas de Torpell. 35 Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. Ill, Salop. • On the same Roll Madoc son of Griffin stands excused a, sum of ten merks which had been lent him by the King. Unless he were identical with Madoe de Sutton I am tt a loss to say who he was. as Rot. Fip. 32 Hen. Ill, Salop. ^ Mot Pip. 38 Hen. Ill, Salop, when three years of rent are charged. ^ Dukes' Introduction, p. vii, where however the return is dated by mistake 27 Hen. Ill (1242-3). 16 118 SUTTON HADDOCK. ducement I imagine to have been a pecuniary consideration rather than a religious impulse. The Crown however interfered^ threaten- ing forfeiture of the whole if Madoc did more than grant a lease thereof to the Priory for a term of three years.^^ This alternative seems to have been adopted, for on August 7, the King being at Worcester, ratifies by Letters Patent the Concession which Madoc had made of the Manor of Sutton with the rents and escheats of Brocton and Hedinton (Harrington), — to hold to the Prior and Convent of Wombrig for three years. ° T doubt not that at the expiration of this term,' Madoc was repossessed of the Manor, for I not only find Sir Madoc de Sutton standing as first witness to a charter of Wombridge which passed about Easter 1261,*^ but in February 1262, he appears on a list of the Kegarders of the Forests of Wombridge, Mount Gilbert, and Haughmond. Moreover he eventually succeeded in alienat- ing this Manor as well as Rowton and Ellardine to John le Strange, third Baron of Nesse and Cheswardine, who died early in 1269. This sale, as I suppose it to have been, was clearly with sanc- tion of the Crown, but the tenure by which Sutton was held was altered. The Lord thereof was no longer the King's Latimarius, though at first his ofiice was of a cognate kind. Of this however presently, for we have not yet done with Sir Madoc de Sutton. He seems to have left nothing of his possessions in East Shrop- shire to his heirs or to his issue, if we except his share of Alveley, which he gave in frank marriage to his daughter Isabel, wife of Henry de Morf His end is a mystery. At the time when he sold Sutton he must have been an old man, and it was a period when the conflicts between the English and Welsh were incessant. — Something more definite may perhaps be found regarding him and his succession when we come to investigate the history of the Border. I will enumerate here some charters which passed in his name whilst Lord of Sutton, — As Madoc son of Griffin de Sutton he enfeoff's Radulph de San- ford in an acre of land in the fields of Brocton, viz. that which Henry le Strange held in the Hemme. He also releases to said Radulf all right in the Moor of Kerswalle. Eadulf at the same time 39 Rot. Pat. 40 Hen. III. *" Ibidem, sub die. *' Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Vpinton, No. cLxxv. SUTTON HADDOCK. 119 concedes to Madoc a power to enclose part of said Madoc's wood of Sutthon Haye.*2 As Madoc de Sutton he grants to Simon de London, Clerk, all his right in, together with a rent of 2s. issuing from, a virgate in Brocton, formerly held by Elyas Cocus.*^ But this grant will have been surrendered by the Grantee, for, by a later deed, — Madoc Lord of Sutton grants the 2s. rent, which Elyas Cocus used to pay on a virgate, to Wombridge Priory.** Madoc Lord of Sutton grants to the same Priory 2s. which Adam Atte Tuneshende (Townsend) used to pay him for a virgate in the vill of Brocton.*^ He also confirms to the same, several grants of Madoc and Griffin sons of Gervase Goch, before recited, as well as the grant of William Cocus hereafter to be particularized.*^ He confirms the grant of Berdelay-wood made by Griffin son of Yareford Goch to the same Priory.*'' He moreover grants to the same his Mill of Sutton, with suit of his men in the whole Manor of Sutton, and license to take timber, under view of the Forester, throughout his wood of Sutton, and to dig turf for repairs of the said Mill.** - As Sir Madoc de Sutton he grants to John, Clerk of Brocton, common right in his wood for 20 hogs and a boar, without pannage (payment per head), John paying half-a-merk down, and an annual rent of ^c?.*^ « Charter at Haughton HaU.— Wit- nesses: Sir Walter deHugheford, Thomas CorbetjBiichard Walensis,Henry le Strange, Robert de Trilleworthin, William de Bag- gesour, Helyas Cocus, William FitzSeman. The deed passed between 1225 and 1235. The Seal, of white wax, is broken, but the accompanying lithograph re-unites the fragments. ■•' Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Srocton and SuUone MadoTce, No. xxvij. — Wit- nesses : Peter de Weuton, William de Er- calew, Thomas de Constentin, Knights, Master Thomas de Codshall. ■''' Ibidem, No. Ixxxj. — Witnesses : Sir Walter de D unestanvill. Sir Walter de Huggeford, Walter de Kembricton, Philip de Pres, Philip de Beckebur, John de Euton, Ralph Brocton (read " Britten ") Clerk. *^ Ibidem, No. Ixxx. — Witue.sses : Sir Walter de Dunstanvill, Walter de Hugge- ford, Odo de Hodenet, Roger Corbet, Symon de London, Roger de Pyweston (Pivelesdon), Walter de Kembrington, Herbert de Ydeshall. This deed passed between 1247 and 1256. ^ Ibidem, No. Ixxxiij. — Witnesses : Sir Walter de DunstanviU, Sir Walter de Huggeford, Walter de Kembriton, Philip de Pres, Philip de Bekebur, John de Ruton, Ralph Britton Clerk. ■''' Ibidem, No. Ixxxviij. — Samewitnesses exclu'ding the last. ^ Ibidem, No. Ixxxx. — Same witnesses adding Ralph de Ruton (Britton) Clerk. ■•^ Ibidem. No. xiij. — Witnesses : Sir Nicliolas "Vicar of Sutton, Ito de Brocton, Roger Bege (i. e. Begesour), Thomas de Brocton. 120 SUTTON HADDOCK. As Lord of Sutton, lie grants to Wombridge Priory a plot of land adjoining on the south to the cemetery of the Church of St. Mary in the vill of Sutton.^" As Madoc, son of Griffin de Sutton, he granted to the same Priory a rent of 4*. receivable on a half-virgate in the Heamme, and a rent oiGd. receivable on the Meadow of Bwbemere." I have already intimated that between the years 1263 and 1269, Madoc Fitz Griffin sold his Manors of Sutton, EUardine, and Rowton, to John le Strange (in) of Nesse and Cheswardine. I find it positively stated with regard to EUardine and Rowton, that John le Strange enfeoffed his eldest son and heir therein, and that the latter granted both to Robert his younger Brother.^^ Something of the same kind evidently happened in regard to Sutton, for at the Assizes of September 1272, the Brimstree Jurors, reporting the Serjeantries in their Hundred, certify that " Robert le Strange holds the Manor of Sutton by serjeantry of conducting the King in Wales in time of war.^'^^ This Robert le Strange, as I have already said under Willey, was one of the Crusaders then absent from England. Though he lived to return, it would appear that before his departure he had taken the precaution of granting Sutton to Eulk the second of his then infant Sons. Upon Robert le Strange's death (about August 1276), Sir Bogo de Knovile, then Sheriff of Shropshire, seized Sutton into the King's hand. This step, the result of Fulk le Strange's minority, was called in question, and an Inquest was ordered to ascertain and report all particulars to the King. The Jurors, headed by the Sheriff and the King's Escheator, sat at Shrewsbury on September 25, 1 276. They reported the above particulars, and that the Manor of Sutton was of the annual value of £12. 7s. 9^d.^* ^ Ibidem, No. Ixxxij. — Witnesses: OliTer de Stocton, Philip de Pres, John de Euton, John de GreuhuU, Yvo deBx-octon, Thomas de Brocton. '' Monasticon, \i, p. 390. This grant, though included in Edward II's Inspex- imus, is not in the Chartulary. 52 Placita Corona, 20 Edw. I, Salop, memb. 16 dorso. A Wombridge deed whioh passed, I think, between 1260 and 1270 is attested by John Lord of Sutton, whom I take to be John le Strange the younger. (Char- tulary, Tit. Brocton, No. xxxTJ.) «' Flacita Corona, 56 Hen. Ill, m. 23. *■* Inquisitions, 4 Edw. I, No. 37. Bogo de KnoTile afterwards married Alianora the widow of Uobert le Strange. In her right he was seized in 1292 of £5. annual rent in Sutton, being her dower out of the estate of her first husband and " the inheritance of Fulk le Strange.'' Bogo was questioned at the Assizes for his authority in contracting this mar- riage. He called "the Record" (the Patent or Close Roll containing the King's license) " to warranty." Flacita Coronm, 20 Edw. I, memb. 22. SUTTON MADDOCK. 121 We know how this investigation resulted. — Fulk le Strange con- tinued a ward of the Crown^ and Sutton an Escheat till 1289, for at the Assizes of 1292, the Jurors of Brimstree Hundred reported as follows. — " Pulco le Strange holds Sutton, which is worth £10, by Serjeantry, viz. by finding four foot-soldiers to the ward of Montgomery for fifteen days at his own cost, and he owes suit to the Hundred every three weeks." And Fulk (being summoned into Court to give account of his due discharge of these services) came forward and said that the Manor had been in the King's cus- tody till three years since, when the King restored it to him, and that he did the said suit (which the Sheriff certified), and acknow- ledged the said (obligation to do) ward.^^ About the time, when this Fulk le Strange obtained livery of Sutton by reason of his majority, he also became the heir of his elder Brother, John le Strange of Whitchurch, who, dying without issue at the early age of twenty-three, left a considerable inheritance to this his Successor. Thus, and by formal writ of Parliamentary Summons, did Fulk le Strange become first Baron of the House of Blackmere, the originator of that noble succession, which, after twice merging in lines greater than itself, is now no longer repre- sented by a Talbot or a Howard, but is in abeyance between the heirs-general of those illustrious races. ^^ We have now only to notice the sequel of Fulk le Strange's con- nexion with Sutton. About the year 1291, calling himself Lord of Sutton Madoc, he confirmed to Wombridge Priory all its acquisitions in that Manor, particularly some, which the Canons appear to have recently made under grants of John de Brocton, Clerk, and Eoger, son of Nicholas 55 Placita Coronal, 20Edw.I, memb. 23. The Inquest of 1284, called " Kirly's Quest." so misrepresents the status of this Manor as to be hardly worth quoting except to show that implicit reliance on that Kecord would be misplaced. "Fulco le Strange," it says, "holds the Manor of Stocton cum Brocton of the King in cajpite by service of one Knight to go with the King into Wales for fifteen days in time of war at his own cost, Fulco also pays 4*. for purpresture." Fulk le Strange was under age, but Tenant in capite both of Stockton, Brockton, and; Sutton. Whatever is true in the above entry applies chiefly to Stockton, but the Knight's service possibly alludes to the tenure of Sutton. The 4«. rent was due on Stockton, but not for purpresture. Thus Sutton and Brockton remain all but unno- ticed. ^^ The present Lords Petre and Stour- ton represent between them not less than a dozen abeyant Baronies. Among the number are those of Howard, Mowbray, Segrave, Talbot, Strange of Blackmere, Furnival and Giffard of Brimmesfield. 122 SUTTON HADDOCK. Bnisebon. He also grants them common-pasturage throughout the Manor, except for goats.^^ About the same time Fulk le Strange came to an agreement with the Canons, whereby the latter surrendered Madoc de Sutton's grant of Hadiaton (that is Sutton) Mill, in exchange for a messuage, garden, croft, half-a-virgate of land, and other small parcels within and without the vill of Brocton.^''' About June 11, 1300, he further releases to the Canons all his right in land which they held in the Moor of Broeton, in the field of Habenhul, on the day mentioned.^^ On March 11, 1308, styling himself Fulco le Strange, Lord of Sutton Madoks, he grants to Richard de Sanford a parcel of his waste land in Broeton, in his Manor of Sutton, lying between lands of said Richard and of the Prior of Wombridge. The rent reserved is Qd}^ It would be hardly consistent with my design to enumerate the various public offices and honours which distinguished this Fulk le Strange. Suffice it to say that as holding lands and rents to the value of £30. and upwards, he was returned by the Sheriff of Shropshire among those who were to muster at London on July 7, 1297, for foreign service.*" The Feodary of 1316 mentions him as Lord of Whitchurch, Wrockwardine, Corfham, Longnor, and Sutton.^" He died in 1324, seized, either in his own right or in that of Alianore his wife (daughter and Coheir of John Giffard of Brim- '■' Womtridge Chartulary, Tit. Broeton Nos. Ixi, Ixxxix. — The witnesses of these deeds seem to have been nearly identical, tIz. Sir Eobert Corbet (of Moreton), Thomas Corbet (of Hadley), Sir William de Hugford, and Richard Horde, with Yvo de Soultone also in the last. ™ Ibidem, No. Ixij. — -Witnesses : Sir Symon de Leybonrne, Sir Peter de Eyton, Master Adam le Gust Eector of the Church of Ydeshall, Eoger Titz John, John StiTington. ™ Charter at Haughton Hall.— This deed is tested by Sir Roger Corbet, Peter de Eyton, Pagan de Preston, Richard de Mokeleston, John Fitz Thomas of Broe- ton, and others. It is dated at Hadleye (the seat of the first witness), on the rigil of St. Gregory the Pope in the 36th year of King Edward,— an impossible date, which probably purports to be March 11, 1308, (the Clerk who drew the Conveyance not adverting'to the fact,' that]^Edward I had died eight months previously). The Seal of this deed, though mutilated, is a specimen of the tasteful design and neat execution which distinguished the heraldic devices of the period. The lower half of a shield exhibits one of the Lions Passawt of Le Strange. Exterior to the dexter margin of the shield is a Lizard beautifully en- graved. The only remaining part of the Legend is the word STEAVNaE. ^ Parliamentary Writs, vol. i, p. 848, and vol. iv, pp. 1468-70, where also are more than sixty entries of his offices, liabihties, and summonses, both military and parlia- mentary, during a period of thirty years. SUTTON MADDOOK. 123 mesfield), of various Estates in Nottinghamshire, Hampshire, and Shropshire, including this Manor of Sutton, which descended to John his eldest son and heir, then eighteen years of age.^^ We must not leave this Manor without noticing some of those Tenancies or Subinfeudations in which it abounded, l^he principa,! of these were granted by Griffin Goch while Lord of Sutton (1194-1221) ; but his Feoffment of Ralph de Sanford claims first attention, not only by reason of its extent and the importance of the Feoffee, but because it can be illustrated by an unusual and most interesting concurrence of evidences. SANFORD FEE IN SUTTON AND BROCKTON. At Salop Assizes, Oct. 6, 1203, a Fine seems to have been levied between Griffin son of Yorward (Gervase) Plaintiff, and Ralph Wolaston, Tenant, of one hide of land in Brockton, whereof was suit at law.^^ The particulars of the Fine, I cannot declare, but think from what will presently appear, that it must have involved a surrender of the Tenancy. At these same Assizes one Ralph Wallensis should be noticed as standing Surety for Ralph de Sanford in a suit which concerned possessions of the latter in Rothal (Ruthall near Ditton Priors) . Among some Pleas in Banco which appear to belong to Michael- mas Term 1204, the following is entered : — " Ralph de Samford offered himself against Griffin, son of Gervord, and Wilikin, his man, and Robert Cocus (and five others) in a plea of appeal. And they (the Defendants) are not forthcoming, neither have they essoigned themselves, and though they should be under pledges (to appear) the Sheriff has sent the names of none (such Sureties). Therefore the Court decided that they should give sufficient pledges for their appearance in Court, on the Octaves of St. Martin, to answer herein, and that the Sheriff do also attend to show why, &c." (he had neglected the former order of the Court) .^^ On the day named (Oct. 18) " Ralph de Sanford appeared against William, the man of Griffin, and others, in a plea of land " (as the 61 Inquisitions, 17 Edw. II, No. 73. 62 This Fine does not exist in the proper Custody. The extract which I give is all that can be gathered from a Memorandum in Harl. MSS. 1396, fo, 358 b ; where, however, I should notice particularly that it stands at the head of some Sanford Evidences, thus proving that the San- fords were interested in its preservation and that it concerned the very hide of land which they afterwards held. 6' Placita anni incerti Eegis Johannis, No. 75, memb. 2 dovso. 124 SUTTON HADDOCK. Record has it). But both the Defendants and the Sheriff are absent and the latter as remiss as before. So a stringent order is made on all parties to be in Court on the Quinzaine of St. Hilary (Jan. 27, 1206) .6* The Rolls of that Term are lost, but we have Rolls of Easter Term 1206, which say nothing of the continuance of this Suit. We may, therefore, conclude that it had been settled in the interval ; and in extraordinary corroboration of such an idea a Charter happens to be found in a private collection, of which the substance is as follows : — Grifin, son of Gervase Goh, gives and concedes to Ralph de Sanford one hide of land in Brockton for his homage and service, viz. that hide which Ralph Walensis held ; — to hold to him and his heirs, rendering 2s. yearly. — For this, Sanford had given the Grantor twenty-six merks, and had acquieted him in that appeal in which he had drawn him into a Suit in the Court of the Lord the King. He also grants that the said Ralph shall have pannage in his wood of Sutton for all the swine which shall be reared on said hide of land.^° Thus did Ralph de Sanford^ Lord of Sanford and Ruthall, obtain footing in Sutton. The transaction is described with great accuracy in an Inquest nearly fifty years afterwards, which recounted the several alienations from the Serjeantry of Madoc de Sutton. "Griffin, Madoc's Father," says the Record, "alienated four virgates" (equal to a hide) "of land to Ralph de Saumford, out of the Manor of Sutton." The four virgates were at the time of this return worth 40s. per annum.^^ The additions which Ralph de Sanford continued to make to this estate are the subject of an interesting series of documents, three of which have been already cited, one under Brockton, one under Sutton, and one under Broseley. By another Deed, Henry le Strange grants to the said Ralph, for two merks, two acres in Brockton, " called the Parroc, and which are close to Medebroc."''^ — Rent to be 2d. yearly.^^ ^* Ibidem, memb. 12. ^ Charter at Haughton, — attested by Walter de Huggeford, Eichard de Euiton, Hugo de Becheburi, Eichard de Stirgle, Eobert de Say, Reginald de Tirne, Eobert de Espele, Baldwin Wiscard, Eobert de liongeb", Hugh de Wonlock, Q-eoffrey Eusel, and William deBeggesore, — whose names would alone prove the deed to have passed between 1201 and 1211. «" Testa de Nevill, fo. 274. *' The small stream still known as the Mad-brook, and which gave a name both to Madeley and Brockton. *' Charter at Haughton.— Witnesses : William de Beggesoure, William Eussel, SUTTON MADDOCK 125 At the Assizes of November 1231, I find that Ralph de Satiford had a suit concerning 3 virgates of land against William de Bechesaur, which he failed to prosecute.^^ I cannot help asso- ciating this suspended suit with a deed whereby William de Begesoure grants to Ralph de Sanford a virgate in Brocton, half of which was held by Hugh de Beckbury, and half by Adam Ythel, at an annual rent of 5sJ<* By another deed Richard de Beggesoure grants to the same Ralph an acre in the field of Hemme, " which extends to the torrent opposite the croft of Alan Infans." '^'^ William Cocus of Broctun, grants to the same Ralph half-a- virgate in Broctun at a rent of Gd.''^ — This deed passed between the years 1231 and 1235, in the former of which Helias Cocus the predecessor of William was living, and in the latter of which Ralph de Sanford the Grantee was deceased. We have thus altogether a series of 10 deeds, commencing about 1205, and ending within 30 years later, and which exhibit the feoffments of one individual in the same Manor. I now proceed to give the substance of another series of deeds, extending through the same period, and which show the mode in which Ralph de Sanford dealt with these acquisitions. — By the first of these, Radulf de Sanford gives and concedes to Margaret, daughter of Richard the Priest (Sacerdotis) of Brocton, a virgate in Brocton, half of which Roger French (Francigena) Helias Cocus, Eobert Cocus, Richard de Beggesoure, Kobert Dapifer, Henry Fitz Ywein, Adam Fitz Idel, William Beadle of Sutton. The Seal of this deed is well executed and bears a Legend, proring the Grantor to have been son of some Ealph le Strange. — There was also a Roger le Strange of Brockton in 12V6. ^ Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 7. '" Charter at Haughton. The names of the witnesses are in perfect accordance with the date assumed (1221). They are Hugh de Becheberi, Walter de Hugeford, Richard de Euton, Henry le Strange, Walter de Stircheleg, Robert Cocus, Richard de Begesouer, William Russel, Robert de Trillewurthin. 7' Charter ibidem. — Tested by Henry le Strange, WiUiam de Beggesoure, Robert II. TriUeworthin, William Russel, Henry Iweyn, Helias Cocus, Alan Infans, Philip de Frees, Clerk. — The Seal of this deed is rude. The device seems to be four ears of wheat with the stalks conjoined cross-wise. In the Legend the Grantor's name is spelt " BeoesoTre," which gives the exact ori- ginal of the name " Badger." I incline to date this deed at least ten years later than the last. ?^ Charter ibidem. — Tested by Philip de Burewardesleg, Walter de Huggeford, Gerard de Ivelith, Henry le Strange, William Buffus, William de Beggesour, Robert de Trillewurthin. The Seal has the Legend — SlMLLUM WlllElMI Lb Cht. The deed passed between 1231 and 1235. 17 126 SUTTON MADDOCK. held, and Osbert the other half.— She and her heirs are to hold the same in fee, at a rent of 25. payable to the Grantor and his heirs, But if the Grantor should be unable to warrant the land he would give an equivalent within 40 days. Margaret pays 12^ merks for this grant.— If she die without heir of her body, she may make one of her Brethren her heir.'''' This deed (throwing by the way some light on the kind of clerical celibacy practised at the time) was nearly contemporary with another, whereby Eadulf de Sontford, for 30*., enfeofFs Richard Fitz Roger in a virgate of land at Brocton, which his Father held in Wodecrofte, and also in all that land which Richard de Grene held. The rent in this case was to be 14:sJ* By another deed Eadulf de Santford grants to John, son of Sibil de Brocton, 1 virgate in the vill of Brocton, viz. that which Sibil, John's Mother, held.— To have and to hold after Sibil's decease, first to John and Agnes his Wife and their heirs of their bodies, then to the heirs of John by any future wife, or to Agnes if she survive John ; and then to William, son of Alan L'Enfant, for life only. A relief of 12s. is to be paid at Sibil's death, and a further rent of 12*, per annum. The fine, acknowledged as already paid for the grant, is 40*.'''^ Sir Ralph de Sanford was, as I have said, deceased in 1235. He was succeeded at Brockton and elsewhere by Richard his son and heir, who during the next fourteen years is found attesting several '' Charter ibidem. — Tested by Eoger de Beggesour, Warin de Burwardsley, "Warner de WUiley, Walter de Hugford, Richard de Euton, Hugh de Becheburi, G-eoffrey Ruse], William de Beggesour, Helias Coous, Robert Cocus, and many others. Clerks and Laymen. This deed passed between the years 1205 and 1211. It is worth observing that by this sub- infeudation of one fourth of the land which he had obtained from Griffin de Sutton, Ralph de Sanford realized the whole rent and nearly half the purchase money payable or paid to his own Feoffor. '^ Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. X.— Tested by Sir Gryffiu de Sutton and his heirs, Sir Roger de Beggesour and his heirs, ManceU de Petteshull (Patshull) and his heirs, Hugh de Beok- buri and his heirs, Richard deRuton and his heirs, WUliam de Beggesour and his heirs. '* Charter at Haughton. — Tested by tlie Lord Prior of Wombrug, Madoc Fitz Griffin, Griffin his brother, Gilbert Chaplain of Kembrioton, Nicholas Chap- lain of Sutton, Henry le Strange, Robert de Brocton, William Russel, Thomas his son, Henry Fitz Iwein. — This deed is of date about 1231, at least a dated Charter of that year contains nearly the same names. It appears to be in the same hand-writing as that of William Russel (supra, p. 94). The Seal of this deed is of green wax and well preserved. It exhibits a Knight on horseback, charging sword in hand, and this Legend — Sl&ILLTM RaDULM de SaNPORT. SUTTON MADDOCK. 127 deeds in this neighbourhood, and who, I think, occurs as a witness in one instance before his Father's death. He, like his Father, was a Knight. A deed which must have passed between 1341 and 1249, shows Stephen Cude of Broctou, granting to " Sir Richard, Lord of Sonford " for the sum of 4«. &d. half-an-acre of land in Hemme.'''^ This Stephen Cude or Keede has already appeared as holding half- a- vir gate under Philip de Farlow. He, or his Father William, had also, as we shall presently see, been enfeoffed by Ralph de Sanford in a virgate at Brockton. But to return to Richard de Sanford. — He appears to have died in 1249, and being a Tenant in capite at Sanford and Ruthall an Inquest was held shortly after, as to his estate.^'' The Jurors, among whom were Roger de Bagsore and Ivo de Brocton, said that he had held in Brocton under Sir Madoc de Sutton by service of 2s. per annum : that he had there half-a-carucate in demesne, which, with its meadows, was worth 20s. per annum ; that he had a Mill there worth 10s. per annum, and rents from Tenants amount- ing to j62. 6s. St?. ; that Ralph de Sanford his son and next heir was 14 years of age. The deceased, as I find from another Record, left a Widow, Ali- anora, whose lands were in 1255 estimated at 100s. annual value, and who was then remarried to Richard Burnel.'''^ The wardship of the heir, Ralph de Sanford, was granted by the King to Germanus Scissor, who selling the same to Odo de Hodnet, the latter obtained the King's Letters Patent dated Sept. 1, 1249, confirming such transfer.'''' In Easter Term 1250, Felicia, widow of William Kede, is found suing Stephen Kede for dower in a virgate of land. Stephen called Ralph Sanford (the Minor) to warranty.^" A protracted litigation ensued, for in July 1251, I find Simon de Wanton and Robert de Grendon appointed to try the suit which " Felicia, widow of William Code, had against Odo de Hodnet and Stephen Code as to a tene- ment in Brocton. "^^ "> Charter ibidem. — Tested by Robert de Tirlewurthin, Ito de Brocton, Roger Bagesore, Thomas Kussel, Richard Iwen. By the " Henime '' mentioned in this and other Brockton deeds we are not to un- derstand the neighbouring vill, so called, and which is in Shiffnal Parish. One of the large town-fields of Brockton was thus named. 77 InquisitioTies incerti temforis Sen' rid III, No. 111. The date of this In- quest (1219) is found by evidence quite conclusive, but too long to insert. '^ Bot. Sund. ii, 57. 7» Sot. Fat. 33 Henry III. 8" Placita apud Westm. Easter Term 31. Hen. III. 8' Mot. Fat. 35 Henry III. Another 128 SUTTON HADDOCK. It is clear that Odo de Hodnet was a party in consequence of his continued guardianship of Ralph de Sanford. At Salop Assizes, January 1256, " Robert Prudhome challenged Richard Burnel, for that whilst he, Robert (being in the King's- Peace) was in a barn of Odo de Hodenet's at Brocton, on Wednes- day, August 11 (1255) Richard came and took away twelve thraves of corn. He (Robert) also charged William Parvus, Stephen Kede, Yvo de Brocton, and Thomas de Wyke, that they were aiding and abetting said Richard. This challenge was declared to be nuU.^^ At the same Assizes there was (in continuation of the former suit) a prosecution imder writ of mort d'ancestre by Sibil and Mar- gery, daughters of William Kede, against Stephen Kede, to ascer- tain whether the said William died seized of half-a-virgate in Brocton, and whether the said Sibil and Margery were his next heirs. Stephen Kede, the Tenant, " appeared and called to war- ranty Ralph, son and heir of Richard de Saunford, who was under age and in custody of Odo de Odenet, by charter of Ralph de Saun- ford, grandfather of the aforesaid Ralph, which charter of feoffment he (Stephen) produced." The cause was adjourned till Ralph de Saunford should attain his majority .^^ This Ralph must have come of age shortly afterwards, but I post- pone further mention of him to another occasion, inasmuch as I find little to connect him with Sutton and Brockton beyond his attestation of a few local deeds. He thus attests as a Knight, about 1290, and dying in 1307, left a son Richard, thirty years of age, who has already been mentioned as a Grantee of Fulk le Strange in March 1308. BURWARDSLEY FEE IN SUTTON AND BROCKTON. I have already adverted to the fact of Griffin de Sutton having enfeoffed Warin de Burwardsley in two virgates here, and have suggested that the said feoffment was in composition of some claim which Warin had, in 1195, on Griffin's Manors of Rowton and Ellardine. Deeds have also been cited, showing that Warin de Burwardsley's estate in Brockton remained to Philip his son, and that the latter enfeoffed Ralph de Sanford in one-half of the pre- Patent of the same time shows Eiehard Burnell and Alianore his wife, in litiga- tion with Odo de Hodnet about their respective rights at Sandford. This will illustrate the next entry in the text. ® Placita Corona. 40 Hen. Ill, Salop, memb. 9. ^ Assizes at Salop, 40 Henry III, memb. 2. SUTTON MADDOCK. 129 mises, reserving however an annual rent of I2d. to himself and his heirs. I neither find what became of the other virgate nor any subsequent notice of a mesne interest here continuing with the heirs of Burwardsley. In 1251, however, these two virgates are mentioned and recognized as a distinct tenement, of the annual value of two merks, but nothing whatever is said of their occupa- tion at the time.^* COCUS FEE IN BROCKTON. The Record last quoted specifies another alienation made by Griffin de Sutton in this Manor. It was of one virgate to Elyas Cocus at a rent of 2*., and this land was in 1251 worth 15s. per annum. Accordingly we have Elias or Helias Cocus a witness in various deeds ranging in date from the year 1194 to 1231. " Helyas Coquus granted to Wombridge Priory for the health of his soul an acre of land at Brocton in the field called Bedlesdun.-"^^ He also granted to the same, in composition of a certain debt, three acres in the field of Brocton for a term of twenty years, com- mencing Oct. 26, 1231.SS Contemporary with Helias Cocus was Robert Cocus, whose rent of 12c?. payable to Grifiin Goch we have already seen transferred by the latter to Wombridge Priory. The successor of Helias Cocus was William Cocus, whose grant of half his estate (half-a- virgate) to Ralph de Sanford, reserving 6d. rent, has been cited as having passed between 1231 and 1235. The sequel of this name and Tenure will be best shown by a few extracts from the Wombridge Chartulary. — John Ithell de Brocton grants to William Cocus an acre of three ^ Testa de Nevill. fo. 2V4. ^ Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Broc- ton, No. lis. — Tested by Henry le Strange, Nicholas de Kembricton, John Pitz Sibil. ^ Ibidem No. Ix. — Tefted by Sir Madoc de Sutton and Griffin, his Brother, Ni- cholas the Priest (Sacerdote), WUHam de Sutton, Henry le Strange. The way in which the Term of twenty years is fixed by this deed shows how unused were the Country Law-Clerks to express a date and how oddly tliey did it. The Term is to commence " from the year when Castle Matilda was fortified; and Sir E. de NoTaTiEa, the Chancellor, was elected Archbishop ; and E was the Sunday letter." The deed was also written " on the 7th of the kalends of November in that year." It was about July 1231 that Henry III rebuilt Castle Matilda in El- vein : soon after August 2, 1231, Balph de Nevill, Bishop of Chichester and Chan- cellor, was elected Archbishop of Canter- bury ; and E was the Sunday letter of 1231. The deed (it may be added) passed on a Sunday. 130 SUTTON MADDOCK. seilions near Kembrichaismere, for 6*. paid^ and a rent of IdJ^'^ The same John "Idthel" grants the same acre to Womhridge Priory/^ that is I suppose he grants his reserved right therein con- currently with the following grant by his former Feoffee. — William Cocus of Brocton grants to Wombridge Priory half-a- virgate which he held in Brocton with a certain messuage and croft ; also an acre which he bought from John Yethele ; also 6d. annual rent receivable from the heirs of Ralph de Sontford on half- a-virgate which they held of him in Brocton."^ Thus about the year 1250 did this tenure in Brockton become wholly absorbed by Wombridge Priory. TENURE OF BEGESOUR IN SUTTON AND BROCKTON. I have already said that William de Begesour^ who, about 1174, sold his inheritance at Badger, appears to have left successors else- where. That he should have an interest in Brockton becomes the more probable inasmuch as the Fief of his Suzerains, the Lords of Richard's Castle, at one time extended to that quarter. However 1 cannot determine the mode in which his presumed descendants, the Begesours of Brockton, held their lands. Their deeds are unattended by any confirmation or consent of a superior Lord, and yet it is certain that they were not Tenants in capite. Of this family William de Begesour occurs from 1194 to 1232; also Roger son and heir of William occurs during his Father's life- time and subsequently till about 1263. Contemporary with both Father and Son was Richard de Begesour already mentioned. The son and heir of Roger was a second WiUiam, occurring from about 1268 to 1280. A Richard occurs about 1300, a third William in 1316, and Thomas in 1341, aU being distinctly of Brockton and in no way confounded with the family of the same name which held a higher position at Badger. Of the persons thus named I find little more than their names. — William de Beggesoure approves and attests about 1230 a transfer ^ Ibidem, No. xxiv. — Tested by Ma- doc de Sutton, Hugh de Hadinton, Eioh- ard de Grrenhull. ^ Ibidem, No. xxxyij. — Tested by Sir Madoc de Sutton, Nicholas Chaplain of Sutton, Hugh de Hadington, John Lord of Grrenhul. «» Ibidem, No. xlij.— Tested by Sir Wal- ter de DunstauTill, Walter de Huggeford, Madoo de Sutton, Odo de Hodenet, Wal- ler de Kembriton, Herbert de Ydeshalj Hugh de Hediuton, Hugh de Bolinthal, John de Grenhul, Oliver de KnoU, Tvo de Brocton. ' SUTTON HADDOCK. 131 of land by one of his under-tenants at Brockton ; ^° Roger was a Benefactor about 1263 to "Wombridge Priory, and his deed mentions two of his Tenants, viz. Richard Fitz Edith and Thomas de Brocton.^'^ The second William de Begesour had three transactions with "Wombridge Priory, the first a small grant, the other two ex- changes.^- His amercement for some default at the Forest Assizes of Nov. 1271, is all that I find further noticeable, either as regards him or the continuators of his name at Brockton. ^^ HARRINGTON formerly HADDINGTON. This was undoubtedly a member of the Domesday Manor of Sutton and so continued till the death of Hamo Peverel, about 1136. In 1157, part of Harrington (avirgate) went still with Sutton and the other Tornai lands, then obtained by Gervase Goch; but the re- mainder (more than 4 virgates) was not thus involved, probably as having been previously bestowed elsewhere. I will first speak of the virgate obtained by Gervase Goch. — A Record already quoted, informs us that Griffin (son of Gervase), enfeoffed Hugh de Beckbury therein, by service of \2d. (rent), and that its full value was then (1251) 10s. per annmn?'^ This fact is sufficiently illustrated by a number of Sutton and Brockton Deeds which, passing in the first quarter of the 13th century, have the attes- tation of this Hugh de Beckbury. His marriage, presently to be noticed, had given him a footing in Harrington before he obtained the feoffment of Griffin Goch, and at his death, which must have happened about Dec. 1226, he was possessed of other interests in this Manor or Township. He left two sons, necessary to be mentioned here, John and Hugh. Griffin de Sutton's Feoffment having probably been limited to Hugh and his heirs, the virgate under notice will have descended '" Wombridge Chartulaiy. Tit.Broc- ton, No. XXTJ. — The other witnesses being the Prior of Wombridge, Henry le Strange and WiUiam Euasel; the two latter of whom attested this William's grant to Kalph de Sanford, as already noticed. " Ibidem, No. xxxvj. — Tested by Sir Walter de DunstanvUle, Sir John Eitz Hugh, John de Brcalewe, John de Sti- venton, Herbert de Wyke, John Lord of Sutton, John de Q-renhuU, Ivo de Broe- ton, Eichard Burnel, Adam Pollard of Lee, Oliver de Knolle. '2 Ibidem, Nos. xxxij, xxxiij and Ixx. '3 It is curious to observe how this name became gradually contracted after its transplantation to Brockton. The ultimate forms which it assumed were simply Bag or Beg. 9» Testa de Nevill, fo. 274. 132 SUTTON HADDOCK. to Hugh's eldest son John, and again jErom John, who died about 1250, to John's eldest son Philip. Madoc de Sutton's seignoral interest in this parcel of land be- comes again apparent in 1256, when his Concession of Sutton to Wombridge Priory includes " rents and escheats of Hedinton." However a moiety of this virgate seems at some subsequent period to have reverted to the Lord of the Fee. Hence in 1284, it was found of a virgate here that Fulk le Strange held half thereof in capite of the King, whilst Philip de Bechebur held the other half under Fulk.^^ I find no later notice of this virgate in Harrington, and conclude that it became again absorbed in the Parent Manor of Sutton. The other and greater part of Harrington followed a succession liable to be confused vrith, but essentially distinct from, the parcel thus far treated of. At the time of Gervase Goch's acquisition of Sutton (1157), this land had probably been bestowed elsewhere. However about March 1163, it fell into the King's hands, by death or forfeiture of the former Grantee ; consequently at Michaelmas 1163, the Sheriff renders account "of the ferm of Hadinton, escheated land which was Gerard de Turnai's j viz. for half a year 20s."96 About this time, the name of Roger Mussun occurs more than once on the Shropshire Pipe -Rolls among those who were in the service and favour of King Henry II. That King also, when, about the year 1175, he visited Shrews- bury, expedited a charter whereby he gave " to Roger Mussun, his Servant, Uppington under Mount-Gilbert" and, what is more to our present purpose, " 50 solidates of land in Heddinton which had been Hamo Peverell's, and were near to Bruges" (written Burgam) . The service retained by the King on the whole grant, was the payment of one sore Sparrow-hawk yearly, by said Roger and his heirs.^'' I shall here say briefly of Roger Mussun that he was a Benefactor to Wombridge Priory, and that dying about the year 1191, he left a Widow, Galiena, and at least nine daughters and Coheiresses to share his estates. Harrington, whose estimated extent seems to have been four-and-a-half virgates, was accordingly divided into several shares. Galiena, the Widow, had half-a-virgate, two of the ^ Kirby's Quest. The Record ib not very clear on this matter, but I doubt not that such is its intended meaning. «« Rot. Pip. 9 Hen. II, Salop. '? Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Vpin- to», No. CCXTJ . SUTTON MADDOCK. 133 daughters, viz. Juliana, wife of * * * Corbrond, and Sibil, wife of Richard de Bruges, had half-a-virgate each, Alina, wife of Hugh de Beckbury, had a share which, with the other shares (however allotted in the first instance), amounted to three virgates, and eventually centred in Hugh the second son of the said Hugh and AJina, and in Muota, daughter of the same Hugh, junior. Galiena, Widow of Roger Mussun, gave her half-virgate in frank almoigne to Wombridge Priory, for the soul of her Husband and Parents.ss The Priory leased it to Philip the Chaplain, for a term of years, but afterwards (about 1220) granted it to Adam de Cherleton (husband of Alice, another of the aforesaid Coheiresses) in exchange for a parcel of land at Uppinton.^^ All I shall further say of this half-virgate is, that Richard de la Buri, Great-grandson of Adam and Alice, occurs in 1284 as holding it in capite of the King,io« and that in 1392 he was still Tenant thereof, though the King had in the interim granted the seigneury of all that was implied by the payment of the aforesaid Sparrow-hawk to Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells.ioi So also the half-virgate in Harrington, which after her Father's death was allotted to Juliana Corbrond, is found in 1284 and 1292 to be similarly held by Richard Corebrond, her Great-grandson and representative. The half-virgate of Sibil de Bruges did not so long remain with her descendants, though it reached the hands of her Great-grandson also. He, viz. Richard, son of Richard de Bruges, sold it, with the messuage thereon, about 1264, for 40«. and a \d. rent, to Jane, widow of Hugh de Beckbury .^"^ She in turn granted it to Wom- bridge, on condition that at her death her body should be buried at the Priory, her name written in the " Martyrology" of the House, '^ Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Madin- ton, No. V. The deed, passed about 1195. The witnesses are numerous and impor- tant, viz. Master Eobert of Salopesbury (who became Bishop of Bangor, March 1197), Bichard his Brother, Gregory Chaplain of Wroccester, Ernald Chaplain of Opinton (TJppinton), Philip de Welin- ton, Master Richard of Hideshal(Idsall), Will de Hedleg the younger (minor), Guy de Sagebury (Shawbury), Eeinald de Time, Richard de Chesthull, Alexander de NoTO Burgo (both sons-in-law of the Grantress), Ealph de Horleton, Gilbert II. Mussun (Brother of Roger), Ralph de Perrin, Robert Angevin, Adam de Wroo- worthin, &c. '' Ibidem, No. i. Henry is the Prior who grants. The witnesses are Baldwin de Hodnet (dead Jan. 1225), Hugh Fitz Robert, William de Hedlee, Walter de Stirglee (Stirchley), Eobert de Brocton, Rogei" de Besselawe. ""> Ki/rby's Quest. 1" Placita Corona, 20 Edw. I, memb. 23. 102 Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Sadin- ton. No. ij. 18 134 SUTTON MADDOCK. the anniversary of her death be duly keptj and special prayers offered up for her soul.^"^ In 1292j the Prior of Wombridge was questioned as to his tenure of this half-virgate, which he is said however to have " purchased." His reply, showing that the King had in 1286 granted the Sparrow- hawk (i. e. the seigniory) reserved on this serjeantry to Robert Bumell, in exchange for other lands, seems to have stopped the enquiry. The Prior's Tenure was, in fact, no longer in capite nor any concern of the Crown. I NOW COME to the residue of this Tenure, viz. three virgates which went to Hugh de Beckbury and Alina his wife, daughter and coheir of Roger Mussun, or were acquired by their descendants from the other coheirs. This Hugh, who, be it remembered, had a distinct interest here as Feoffee of Griffin de Sutton, was also Lord of Beckbury, and an important personage in many other respects. Confining myself now to his Tenures in Harrington, I shall merely notice some quarrel which he had with a neighbour of equal consequence. Walter, Lord of Higford, claimed a right of common-pasture in Harrington, whereof this Hugh disseized him. Walter laid his complaint before King Henry III, when that Monarch, in Septem- ber 1224, was at Shrewsbury with his Justiciars. Sentence was given in the Plaintiff's favour, and Hugh was moreover amerced two merks for the offence. The King, however, passing to Mont- gomery, despatched a writ dated at that place on October 1, whereby the Sheriff of Shropshire was ordered to discharge Hugh of half this fine, a favour probably shown to Hugh as a sometime Servant of the Crown, and at this very moment Chief Bailiff of the Kino-'s Hundred of Bradford. Hugh paid the balance of the fine, but instead of acquiescing in the judgment given against him, proceeded to plough and sow the common-land in dispute. In August 1226 the King was again at Shrewsbury, and Walter de Hugford made a second complaint. Hugh appeared, and at first denied the charge ; but presently admitting it, he was adjudged to pay 20*. damages, for which Walinger de Sydenhale and Walter de Harpcote stood his Sureties.!"* This Hugh de Beckbury was living in October 1226, but deceased before March 1227. His Wife Alina survived him at least ten years, but both were eventually succeeded at Harrington by their •1™ Ibidem, Nos. iij, iv. | Salop. Mot. Clans. 8 Hen. Ill, memb. ™ Placita coram Rege, 10 Henry III, | 3, and Mot. Pip. 10 Hen. Ill, Salop. SUTTON MADBOCK. 135 second Son, called Hugh de Hadinton as often as Hugh de Beck- bury in respect of this his Tenure. This Hugh became a much more important person than his elder Brother John. In 1229, he was already a Knight and stirring in the affairs of the County. He acquired property at Oldbury, Diddlebury, and Acton Burnell. About 1251, his interests in Harrington are thus described : — " Hugh de Bekebur' is Tenant by gift of his vincestors (who held part of Upton (Uppington) which is holden of the King in capite) of two virgates in Hadinton; by what service is unknown. The Tenure is worth 20s. per annum. Muota, daughter of the same Hugh, holds one virgate in the same vill by gift of her aforesaid Ancestors. However the service i. unknown."!"^ — The service due on Hugh's Tenure in Harrington was involved in the Sore Sparrow-hawk, paid by his Relations, the Coheirs of Uppington, by whom, or some of whom, he, his Father, or his daughter had been thus enfeoffed in Harrington. In 1255, Hugh de Beckbury was farming the Hundred of Bradford under the Sheriff at an annual rent of thirty-three merks.^"^ The extortions of some his Deputies in this, his office of Bailiff, were loudly complained of at the Inquest of 1255 by the Jurors of Hales- Owen. One Roger de Hales having, it appears, been amerced by Roger de Turkelby for some offence, Hugh de Beckbury's Beadles, or Sub-Bailiffs, made four successive seizures in satisfaction of the single debt thus incurred.^"'' At the Assizes of January 1256, Hugh de Beckbury had lost his BaUiwick, or Bailiwicks, for I think he had been Fermor of more than one Shropshire Hundred. He was, however, one of the two principal Jurors of Brimstree Hundred, whose office it was to choose their ten Colleagues. He is here called Hugh de Hadington.i"^ At these same Assizes, he was involved in a double law-suit with Madoc de Sutton. He was sued by the latter for having disseized him (Madoc) of a right of common in Hadinton, and was convicted. Neither was he successful in certain counter-charges which he endeavoured to establish against Madoc, viz. that he (Madoc) "to 1"° Testa de Nevill, fo. 275. i names alternately, bo that a reader, not ™ Rot Sund. ii, 58. W liidem II, 68. This Eecord is curious in one particular, viz. that it de- scribee Hugh de Beckbury by both his aware of the identity, must fail to under- stand the story altogether. 118 Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. III. Placita Coroner, m. 13. 136 SUTTON HADDOCK. the damage of Hugh's Tenement in Hadintonj had stopped the road which led to Sutton Churchj and had disseized Hugh of his common rights in Sutton."!"'* In this year also, as was afterwards alleged, Hugh de Beckhury demised a messuage and virgate in Hadington to Thomas Corbet, for a term of twenty years, commencing June 11. Of this how- ever presently. — In April 1263, this Hugh was deceased, leaving a widow, Johanna, and a son and heir, Thomas. Of his daughter Muota, I learn nothing further than that her interest in Harrington seems to have reverted to her Brother or his Assignees. Johanna, or Jane, Widow of Hugh de Beckbury, has already been mentioned more than once.^^" I can say little more of her than that in 1267 she appears, as Ida, widow of Hugh de Beck- bury, to have fined half-a-merk for license to accord some law-suit : and that again in April 1271, she had proffered a similar sum for some writ of the King. In the last case she is called Johanna.^^^ Thomas de Beckbury, Son and Heir of Hugh, succeeded him at Harrington ; but about September 1270, sold all his interest there to Nicholas de Hugford, and, inter alia, his interest in that messuage and virgate which Thomas Corbet had now held for fourteen-and-a- quarter years. Nicholas de Hugford forthwith ejected Thomas Corbet, whereupon the latter sued the said Nicholas, laying his damages at £100. The cause was tried at Salop Assizes, October 1272, when the Parties pleaded the various circumstances already detailed, Nicholas de Hugford asserting however, that Hugh de Beckbury, Father of Thomas, had died seized of the virgate in question, so that it descended to Thomas his (Nicholas') Feoffor. In reply to this, Corbet offered to produce the deed of lease (dimissionis), adding that Hugh de Beckbury was at his death only so seized of the premises as having been appointed his (Corbet's) Bailiff. On this issue Corbet puts himself on the Country, and Nicholas likewise, appointing however his powerful neighbour (and probably relation) William de Hugford as his Attorney against so weighty an Antagonist as the Baron of Cans. The Jury found in due course that Hugh de Beckbury died seized of the premises, and that " Corbet had nothing therein" under his alleged deed. He was therefore in misericordid}^'^ "" Ibidem, memb. 14 and 13 dorso. "» Supra, Vol. I, pp. 134, 135, 372, Vol. II, p. 133, '" Hot. Pip. 51 Hen. Ill, Salop. Mot. Fin. Tol. ii, 534. '" Salop Assizes, 56 Henry III, memb SUTTON HADDOCK, 187 Nothing is said in the Inquisition of 1 284^ as to the interest thus acquired by Nicholas de Hugford in Harrington. In October 1292 however, it was found as regards the Serjeantry of Roger Mussun in Hadynton that it was worth 45*. per annum ; " that it was held by service of rendering one Bore Sparrow-hawk for Uppinton and Hadynton at the Feast of St. Peter ad Vincla ; that John de Huggeford now (1292) holds thereof three virgates worth 20s. per annum," and that the Prior of Wombrug holds half- a-virgate, &c.^i^ An account of several other uuder-tenancies in Sutton, Brockton, Eyton, and Grrindle, might be extracted from the Wombridge Chartulary alone, but I must leave a matter far too diffuse for my proposed, but already transgressed, limits. This Chartulary, inaccurate as it occasionally is, affords a curious view of the assiduity and method with which a small Priory guarded its own minutest interests. It contains nearly 500 Instruments referring to property which can hardly be estimated to have extended over twice as many acres. An Epitome of various grants to this house by Donniger, Brusebon, John the Clerk, and other Under-Tenants in Brockton, &o., has already been printed. Edward II's InspeximMS, the document alluded to, is to be found in the New Monasticon (vol. vi, p. 388). SUTTON CHUECH. The earliest notice which we have of a Church here has already been stated. — Madoc son of Gervase Goch gave the same, as far as he was concerned, about 1186-7, to Wombridge Priory. An independent and nearly contemporary grant thereof to the same Priory was made by Henry II, who treats the Advowson as the undivided right of the Crown. It appears however, from the King's Charter, that some negotiation on the subject had taken place previously, for he reserves the life-interest of Ralph the Clerk (the Rector I presume) " in conformity with the convention already made between the said Ralph and the Canons."-'^* 4 dorso. Thomas Corbet, Baron of Cans, employed a considerable portion of his long life in quarrels or litigations of this kind. He was generally unsuccessful, and was in short an active and violent oppres- sor. However, to tliese law- suits, I am indebted for a fund of legal, local, and genealogical information, on which I shall often have to draw. "' Plaeita Corona, 20 Ed. I, memb. 23, Salop. — The rest of the return has been already given, except that John de Hugford was summoned to give account of his Tenure on a future day. The Prior of "Wombridge however appeared, as before stated, and his account of the Tenure wiH have apphed to Hugford's interest as well as his own. The heirs of Robert BurneU, Bishop of Bath and Wells, occur more than twenty years afterwards as seized of " 9«. rent in Uppiton," — doubt- less a substitute for the older service. "* Wombridge Chartulary. Tit. Sroc- ton and Sutton, No. xcvij. and Harl. MSS. 138 SUTTON HADDOCK. This Charter of King Henry II received the usual Confirmations. — Pope Urban III, in a Bull dated at Verona, June 23, 1187, confirmed it with a condition as to its being sanctioned by the Diocesan Bishop.^^^ — B. (Baldwin) Archbishop of Canterbury, "and Legate of the Apostolick See " confirmed it.^^^ — Hugh, Bishop of Coventry, confirmed it, first by a Charter which must have passed soon after his Consecration (Jan. 31, 1188),ii''' and again by a Charter which bears date at Lichfield "on the morrow of St. Clement, in the year in which Richard King of England set out for Jerusalem " {i. e. Nov. 24, 1190).ii8 — G. (Geoffrey de Muschamp) Bishop of Coventry, in a Charter which passed at Lichfield about November 1206, not only con- firms the right of the Canons of Wombridge to the Church of St. Mary of Sutton, as granted by King Henry II, and Bishop Hugh, but either authorizes or sanctions an appropriation thereof. " The Canons are to present proper Chaplains who shall receive the Cure of souls from the hand of the Bishop, and shall serve the said Church; the Canons shall assign to such Chaplains fit sustenance, according to the custom of the Country and the faculties of the Church ; the residue they may retain to their own uses and the entertainment of the poor." ^^^ Dec. 28, 1258, Bishop Roger (de Meuland) inspected and con- firmed the Appropriations granted by his Predecessors, Geoffrey and Alexander (de Stavensby), to Wombridge Priory of the Churches of Sutton, and Lopinton, and of the Chapel of Upinton.^^" 3868, fo. 5. The witnesses are, Hugh, Bishop of Durham, and Peter, Bishop of St. David's, H. Dean of York, Kanulf de GlanTill, Brother Roger the Almoner, Hugh de Morwie and Hugh Bardulf, Sewers. The Ciiarter is dated at Claren- don, a circumstance which, with the wit- nesses' names, indicates it, all but cer- tainly, to hare passed in January 1187. 115 "Wombridge Chartulary, Appendix No. iv. At the date of this Bull, Hugh de NoTant, Bishop Elect of Lichfield and CoTciitry, had not been consecrated. •'^ Ibidem, Tit, Brocton and Sutton, No. ciij. This Confirmation must have passed between 1187 and 1190. "' Ibidem, No. cj. This Charter, as transcribed in the Chartulary, purports to be by " Henry" Bishop af Coventry. As no such Prelate sat till the 19th Cen- tury, we have again an instance of the errors committed by Transcribers when they have attempted to identify any name represented in an original deed only by its initial letter. The witnesses of this Charter prove it to have been by Hugh de Novant. ">* Ibidem, No. cij. "' Ibidem, Tit. Lopinton, No. vij. Dated " in the year when a Council was celebrated by John the Cardinal at Reading," for which, as indicated in the text, see M. Paris, suh anno 1206. ™ Ibidem, No. vj. SUTTON MADDOCK. 139 Dec. 29, 1258j Ralph the Dean, and the Chapter of Lichfield inspected and, for their part, confirmed Bishop Roger's Charter.^^^ April 38, 1262, William the Prior and the Convent of Coventry- did the same.^^^ In 1281, some question had arisen as to the Taxation or Or- dination of this Church, i. e. the proportions of its income which should be allotted to the Vicar before the Impropriators received the residue. The Bishop^s Official writes on March 5th to the Official of the Archdeacon of Salop, alluding to an inquiry, which the latter had been previously ordered to make on the subject, and acknowledging the receipt of his report resulting from such inquiry, but at the same time stating that he (the Bishop's Official) is not thereby fully informed. The Archdeacon's Official is therefore to cite the Prior and Canons of Wombridge to appear on a certain Saturday,^^^ at Staffijrd, before himself (the Bishop's Official), and there in the Church of the Canons (St. Thomas the Martyr's) exhibit an instrument, if they have one, as to the last Taxation of Sutton Vicarage. And, not to leave the matter liable to the contingency of the Canons producing such a document, — the Archdeacon's Official is to cite the Rectors, Vicars, and Chaplains, who live nearest to Sutton, and twelve honest Laymen who best know the true value of the said Church, to appear before the Bishop's Official or his Commissaries, on May 31, in the Parish Church of Wombridge, to give information on the point. The Archdeacon's Official is also to attend himself, and to inform the Prior and Canons that they may attend if they think better to do S0.12* The truth is, I suppose, that the Priory had no such Instrument of Taxation, but in default of Episcopal interference had interpreted their right of Appropriation with a view to their own interests. The stringent course proposed by Bishop Roger de Meuland's Official does not seem to have led to any immediate result. However, on March 15, 1285, a Charter of that Prelate settles the matter and embodies the particulars of his " Ordination of the Vicarage of Sutton juxta Bruges." — viz. — " The Vicar for the time being shall have a sufficient House on the Glebe [in solo ecclesiastico) , and half-a-virgate of land : also sfX Mortuaries, the tithe of hay in Sutton and Hadyngton, the tithes ^^ Ibidem, TU. Brocton and Sutton, No. civ,— corrected by Harl. MS8. 3868, fo. 4. '-^ Ibidem, !No. cv. '23 X)ig Sahhati qua cantatur Scitientes, '*■' Ibidem, No. xcviij. 140 SUTTON HADDOCK. of woolj lambsj youug swine, colts, calves, white-honey, geese, apples, and pannage ; also tithes of gardens and crofts under spade culture (pede cultorum), and all oblations and offerings at the Altar however arising ; also all tithes of fisheries, mills, and of wood sold within the Parish ; and the tithes of flax and hemp. — The Vicar shall bear all expenses attaching to the exercise of his office, and the Rectors bear all charges ordinary or extraordinary, which lie upon the Church." ^^^ In 1291, the Church of Sutton Madok is valued at £4. 13s. M}^^ May 8, 1320, Bishop Walter (de Langton) having recently made Visitation of the Archdeaconry of Salop, certifies that he found the Priory of Wombridge, Impropriators of this Church; that the Canons being summoned to exhibit their title thereunto had done so to his complete satisfaction. The Bishop therefore dismisses them as the true and Canonical Rectors of this Church.«7 In the year 1315, the Archdeacoa of Salop visiting Sutton Church, heard that the Canons of Wombridge had withdrawn two processional candles which they were bound to maintain in the Chancel of the said Church. The Parishioners, represented by Roger Brusebon and two others, moved a suit in the Archidiaconal Court against the Canons. A sentence releasing them from the alleged obligation was given in full Chapter at Newport on Nov. 4, 1315, and certified by the Archdeacon's Ofl&cial.^^^ In 1341, though the Taxation of Sutton Church stood at 7 merks (j64. 13«. 4c?.), the Assessors of the ninth, only rated the Parish at j63. because the small tithes, oblations, glebe, and other spiritualities of the Church went to make up the greater sum, and had nothing to do with the ninth; and because the Vicar had balf-a-virgate of land, and because four virgates of land lay unfilled. ^^^ The Canons of Wombridge obtained other confirmations of their Chartered and Impropriate rights at Sutton, viz. from Bishop Robert (de Stretton), dated at Heywode, July 25, 1362, from Bishop John (Bourghill), dated at Eccleshall Castle, Sept. 21, 1400, and from Thomas (Fitz Alan), Archbishop of Canterbury, dated at Lambeth, Feb. 8, 1401.130 '^' Ibidem, No. xoix and o compared. 1-" Taxatio Fapcn Nich. p. 248.— De- canatus Novi Burgi. 127 Wombridge Chartulary , 2Vi. Brocion and SuHoit, No. cvi. Dated at Edgmond, May 8, 1320. '^' Ibidem, No. ex. '-' Inquisitiones Nonarum, p. 184. ™ Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton and Svtton, Nos. cvij, cviij, oix. SUTTON HADDOCK. 141 The Valor Ecdesiasticus of 1534-5, by some extraordinary accident, omits to notice this Church under the Deanery of Newport. The Prior of Wombridge acknowledges however his receipt of the " tithes of the Church of Sutton Madok/' amounting to ^3. 6«. M. per annum }^^ The Minister's Accounts of 1536-7, give the Perm of this Rectory, with the Tithes of Brockton, as together worth £4. per annum?^^ EARLY INCUMBENTS. RADULr THE Clerk, the Incumbent of 1187, was probably the last resident Rector of Sutton. He seems to have been followed by the Deputies of Wombridge Priory, styled at first Chaplains or Priests, and afterwards Vicars. Thus we have between 1194 and 1219 mention of Hugh, Chaplain of Sutton or of Brockton, and also notices of one Richard, called indifferently Chaplain of Sutton or Priest of Brockton. In the next twelve years we hear of Philip the Chaplain as an occupier of land at Harrington, and find him attesting deeds as " Sir Philip, Chaplain of Sutton." From 1231, for thirty years, we find repeated indention of Nicholas, at first called Priest (Sacerdos), then Chaplain of Sutton, and lastly Vicar of the same. Then, between 1265 and 1280, Henry de Ideshale, Chaplain, a benefactor to Wombridge Priory, seems to be identical with Henry, Vicar of Sutton, and with " Sir Henry, Vicar of Brockton." In the last twenty years of the Century, Sir William, Chaplain of Sutton, occurs.^^^ On April 12, 1302, the Bishop sequestered the Vicarage of Sutton in the Archdeaconry of Salop, for some cause which does not appear. The Dean of Newport is ordered, out of the income of the Vicarage, to provide for due service of the Church. Thomas, Vicar of Sutton Madok, having died January 7, 1330, John de Opynton, Chaplain, is admitted to the Vicarage on Feb. 18th following, at presentation of the Prior and Convent of '" Valor EcclesiaHious, iii, 194. 132 Monasticon,\'\,Z9i,^o.n,Priaraiiis de Wombridge. 133 Virombridge Chartulary, passim. Mr. Dukes {Antiquities, p. 195) quotes the Close Rolls of 30 Hen. Ill, for a II. Presentation by the Crown to Sutton Chui'ch. I cannot find the entry on the original Roll ; but, whatever the authority for such a Presentation, I think that some other Sutton must be meant. 19 142 STOCKTON. Wombridge. Sir John de Opynton died Aug. 15, 1345, and on December 23 following : — John de Laweleye, DeacoNj was admitted on the same presen- tation. On his resignation, Dec. 23, 1351, Brother Thomas de Eton, Canon of Wombrugg and Priest, was admitted on presen- tation of his Convent.^^* tOtfetOtt. Stoc (a village, or place of habitation) and tun (a town or inclosure) are the two words hitherto supposed to enter into this compound. '^ The redundancy of signification which thus arises suggests however another etymology, and that more consistent with pro- nunciation. The Saxon word Scoc (with the unaccentuated or short o) means "the stock" or "trunk of a tree" and so "wood" or "fuel" generally. Stockton therefore signifies "the town of thewood," and so involves precisely the same ideas as another and still more common Saxon name, now written Wootton or Wotton, but anciently Wudeton or Wodeton. Domesday thus notices the Manor in question. — "The same Gerard holds Stochetone; and Hugo (holds it) of him; Eduin and Ordui held it (in King Edwaird's time) for two Manors, and were Eree Men. Here is i hide geldable. There is arable land sufficient for iii ox-teams. In demesne there is half-a- team, and (there are) i serf and i villain and i boor with half-a-team. In King Edward's time the Manor was worth xii shillings (per annum) : now it is worth iiii shillings." ^ I have no evidence of Hamo Peverel having had any concern in Stockton as Successor of Gerard de Tornai. Like other Tornai ''* Lichfield Eegister, suh annis. 1 Dugdale's Warwickshire (Thomas), I ' Domesday, fo. 259, a 1. 203, 340. I STOCKTON. 143 Escheats, the Manor next appears as held in capite of the Crown, and by Serjeantry of service at Shrawardine Castle. The earliest Crown-Tenants had name from the place, but the documents in which they occur are so little connected, that I attempt no fuller account of their succession than will be implied by citing those documents in chronological order. About 1196, Adam de Stocton, with Robert and Gilbert his Brothers, attests a Charter of the second William Pitz Alan to Reyner de Lee.^ At Michaelmas 1196, Adam de Stocton and Matilda his wife had fined two merks with the King, that they might have trial against Richard Pechie concerning half a Knight's- fee in Cupton in Warwickshire.* At Michaelmas 1204, Herbert de Stocton had paid half a merk, the sum assessed on 1 hide of land for King John's fifth scut age, which (as I have said before) was levied on Tenants by Serjeantry as well as upon Tenants by Knights' service. At Michaelmas 1207, Herbert de Stocton had been amerced, apparently by Justices of the Forest. The same thing had recurred in 1209.6 Comparing two Rolls of Tenures by Serjeantry, of date about 1211, I find it stated that Matilda de Stocton held land by service of finding one serving foot-soldier with a bow, for ward of Shra- wardine Castle.* About this time Robert de Stocton occurs as second witness of a charter quoted under Badger, and the same Robert sat as a Juror on a Forest Inquisition, of date about June 1220.''' On the 13th of July 1243, a King's Writ ordered an Inquest to be held as to the estate of Walter de Stocton, deceased. The Jury (among whom were Walter de Kenbricton, William de Sutton, and Philip de Stocton) found that Walter had held 4 virgates in the vill of Stocton, by service of one foot-soldier with a bow and arrows for 15 days at Montgomery; — that the tenure was worth » Harl. MSS. 1396, fo. 253. * Hot. Fip. 8 Rio. I, Salop. 5 Mot. Pip. 6, 9, 11 John, Salop. * Testa de Nevill, fo. 254, and lAber Muler Scaccarii, fo. cxxxvij. Other less accurate Eolls give the same redundant evidence as to this Serjeantry, which has already been remarked upon under Brockton (supra, p. 94, note 4), viz. that Herebert de Stoketon holds one hjde by Serjeantry whilst Matilda de Sutton (««c) holds by service of finding a foot- soldier for Castle guard. {Testa de Nevill, fo. 879, IMer Ruber, fo. cxxiij). Two phases of the same Tenure are evidently embodied in one KoU. " Inquisitiones incerti tempoHs Hen. Ill, No. 259. 144 STOCKTON. 20s. per annum ; and that Richard de Stocton was son and heir of the deceased.^ On October 27, 1244, the King received the homage of the said Richard, whose Relief was fixed at 20«.' Soon after this it was found that several persons throughout the kingdom who held lands by Serjeantry, had alienated the same, ■wholly or in part, without license of the Crown. A Commission accordingly issued in 1246 to Henry de Wingeham, who was at the same time appointed Escheator citra Trent, to make inquest into these alienations. He with an associate Knight in each County, and a Jury if he pleased, were to inquire into the state of aU Ser- jeantries. Subsequently, and probably on receipt of Wingeham^s reports, a second Commission issued to Robert Passelewe, Archdeacon of Lewes and Treasurer to Kiag Henry III, in virtue of which he visited very many Counties to "take fines" or "make arreniations" of Serjeantries, that is to provide for the due fulfilment of the ser- vices attached to every such tenure, and also to exact and fix an annual rent in money as a composition for every illegal alienation. Passelewe seems to have taken Shropshire early in his progress, at least the Arreniations which he fixed here accrued from March 1247, while he is found to be in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon- shire in April 1250. The results of Passelewe's visit to Shropshire are preserved in duplicate. It was found that the " Serjeantry of John le Bret (which was formerly Henry de Stockton's, in Stockton, for which he was bound to provide for the Lord King one serving foot-soldier with bow and arrows, for fifteen days, at his own cost, in garrison of Shrawardine Castle in time of war, which, service was afterwards attorned to Montgomery Castle) was alienated altogether from the right heirs.'' It further appeared that Philip de Stocton held three-fourths of a virgate, worth 4s. per annum, of the said aliena- tion and that John le Bret held the residue thereof, being of 10s. annual value. — John le Bret concluded the following Fine for himself and the other Tenant, with the consent of the latter, viz. that they would pay As. annually (to the Crown) and perform the prescribed service.^" ' Inquisitions, 28 Hen. Ill, 'No. 3. » Fines, i, 425. i» Testa de Necill, folios 264, 270. Henry de Stocton I imagine to have been the original Grantee of the Crown, living at a period of which we have no Record likely to name him. STOCKTON. 145 On the Shropshire Pipe- Roll of Michaelmas 1350, John le Bret's obligations as Tenant of Henry de Stocton's Serjeantry are re- peated, and he is put in charge for three-and-a-half years' arrears of the 4*. rent agreed upon. About 1251, an Inquest of Tenures in Brimstree Hundred speaks of this Serjeantry as Richard de Stocton's, values it at 20s. per annum, and notes its total alienation to John le Bret,^^ What became of the Alienator of this Serjeantry I do not find; but as late as 1359 an entry on the Pipe Roll charges Richard Lord of Stockton with an amercement of 3s. 4c?. for some non- attendance. To return to John le Bret. — In 1250, Justices are appointed to try a suit of novel disseizen which he had against Oliver, Parson of Stocton Church, and others concerning a tenement in Stocton.^^ At the Assizes of January 1256, the Brimstree Jurors reported John le Bret as failing in due attendance. A Seigneury over these Tenants by Serjeantry seems to have been granted to the Stranges about the time when the latter established their interest in Sutton and Brockton. At the same time John le Bret disappears as Tenant; for at the Assizes of October 1272, the Brimstree Jurors reported Philip de Say as holding Little Stocton of Robert le Strange (of Sutton), in Serjeantry, for which he paid the King 4s. per annum. And this Philip de Say (probably identical with Philip de Stocton above mentioned) was Foreman of the Jury which sat on Sept. 13, 1276, to inquire as to the estate of Robert le Strange who had previously deceased. Again within a few years the name of the Tenant of Stockton changes; for in 13 Edw. I (1383-4), Robert Body had the King's grant of Free- Warren in Little Stocton, and in Herdwyke within the Hundred of Ellesmere.i^ The Inquisition of 1384 gives a confused account of this Manor, the result probably of Fulk le Strange, then a Minor, holding it in capite together with Sutton and part of Brockton. The Record iirst says that " Fulco Extraneus holds the Manor of Stocton cum Brocton of the King in capite, by service of one Knight for fifteen days, to go with the King into Wales at his own cost ;" and that " the same Fulco pay 4s. per annum for purpresture." It afterwards says that "Robert Body holds Little Stocton (by serjeantry of finding one foot-soldier for forty days at his own cost with a bow and four arrows) of the King in capite."^* " Ibidem, fo. 275. I " Sot Ca/rt. Calendar, p. 113. '2 PaiEenif, 34 Hen. Ill, dorso. I ^^ Kirby's Quest. The alleged Knight's 146 STOCKTON. Nov. 20, 1289, Robert Bodi of Stocton, and Ilawise his wife, purchased for seven marks the messuage and all the land which Richard Fitz Yvo of Brocton had in the vill of Brocton. About the same time Robert Bodi attests a Brockton Deed, whereby John, the Clerk surrenders his Tenancy to Wombridge Priory.'^ The aggregate service and serjeantry reported by the Brimstree Jurors of 1292 as due on Sutton, evidently includes Fulk le Strange's particular liability in respect of Stockton. At these Assizes however Robert Body the Tenant was questioned as to his right of Free- Warren in his demesne lands at Stockton. Not at first appearing, bis alleged right of Warren was ordered to be escheated, but he afterwards came forward and pleaded the King's Charter, and so was dismissed sine die}^ The Feodary of 1316, makes no distinct mention of Stockton, evidently because it was deemed to be involved in Fulk le Strange's Tenure of Sutton. In Edward IIFs time the estates of Strange of Blackmerein this quarter are described as including the Manors of Sutton Madoc, Brokton, Norton, Little Stokton^ and Muchel Stokton;^'' and I have somewhere seen the last place written as Chirche-Stockton. EWDNESS. This vill, probably a member of the Domesday Manor of Stockton, became detached therefrom, whilst (in the twelfth century) both were in the hands of the King. It afterwards constituted a distinct Serjeantry, the service attached to which was that the Tenant should accompany the Sheriff of Shropshire when, twice every year, the latter conveyed the Ferm or revenue of the County to the Exchequer, the King paying the said Tenant's charges. service and the duty of accompanying the King into Wales must have been sug- gested by the older and perhaps thus modified tenure of Sutton. The 4fS. pur- presture was the arrentaiion due on Stockton. Bobert Body did not hold in capita, nor was his service for forty days, but only for fifteen. 1* Wombridge Chartulary, Tit.JBrocton, Nos. ii, li. '" Placita Coroiice, 20 Edw. I, mcmb. 23. 17 Inquisition, 37 Edw. Ill, 2d Nos. 7. Another writ relating to the same matter (a grant of View of Frankpledge) seems to mention in addition to these possessions of Le Strange, tlie Manors of Euyton, Bekkobury, and Huggeford (Calendar, vol. ii, p. 263). These never belonged in any way to Strange of Blackmere, and it is evident that there has been some tam- pering with the Eecord. The words Ruyton and Bekkebury are written on erasures. STOCKTON. 147 Thus in 1211, was Walter d'Eudinas holding the Manor in capite}^ This is the same Walter d'Eudinas who has already appeared attesting a Badger deed in 1327. Before 1255, Ralph d'Eudinas was Tenant of this Serjeantry. He seems to have enfeoffed the Prior of St. John's Hospital at Brug in half-a-virgate thereof. The Jurors of the Liberty of Brug reported this alienation in that year.'^^ 13 Sept. 1276, Nicholas, Clierk of Eudinas, was a Juror on the Inquest concerning the estate of Robert le Strange of Sutton and Stockton. I find no further mention of this Serjeantry or any probable Tenants thereof. I conclude it to have been re-united to Le Strange's Tenure. STOCKTON CHUECH. I have no proof of a Church existing here before the thirteenth Century, but there is a strong probability that the Foundation was much earlier. In 1291, the Church of Stocton with its Chapel (or Chapels) was returned as annually worth £4. 135. 4^d. besides a pension of Qs. Sd. which the Prior of St. Guthlac of Hereford received therefrom.^" The only Chapel which I can suggest to be here indicated is Boningale, which remains to this day a member of the Church of Stockton. Now Boningale, at the time of Domesday and for nearly two centuries afterwards, was manorially a member of Higford, and the latter was in the Parish of Stockton. The Lacis who held Higford under the Norman Earl had, before Domesday, given that Manor to one of their principal Feoffees: but at the same period (1085-6), these Lacis were zealous in the endowment and re-establishment of Hereford Priory. That House, dedicated to St. Guthlac, held pensions afterwards in very many Churches of De Laci's Fief. I doubt not therefore that De Laci, Seigneural Lord of Higford, was Founder or Co-Founder of Stockton Church, at a period very shortly subsequent to Domesday, and that St. Guthlac's pension was '8 Testa de Nevill, folio 254. One whose name is written Walter de Deuines was a juror to try causes of Grand Assize at Salop in 1221. I doubt not that he was the individual under no- tice. " Mot. Sund. ii, 59. 20 Pope NicTi. Taxation, p. 248. 148 STOCKTON. either a composition in lieu of tithes of Higford, previously granted to the Priory^ but afterwards resigned to this Church, or else that it was an acknowledgment reserved by the Prior on his quitting some right of Advowson at Stockton or Boningale, of which he may have had a previous grant. In 1341, the Taxation of Stockton Church stood at seven-and-a- half merks (£5), a sum which included the aforesaid pension. The Parish was however assessed only at five merks to the ninth, the usual deductions in respect of small tithes, glebe, oflerings, and other spiritualities having been allowed in reckoning the assess- ment, as also a murrain which had recently destroyed the sheep of the district. ^^ In 1534, the Rectory of Stoketonwith the Chapel of Bonynghal in the Deanery of Newport, was valued at £14, which sum was chargeable with 6*. %d. for Procurations and 2*. ?>d. for Synodals, but with no pension of the kind before described.^^ BAKLY INCTTMBENTS. Nicholas, Chaplain of Stocton, attests a deed already cited under Badger, and which passed early in the thirteenth Century. He will hardly have been more than a Deputy of the then Incumbent. Oliver, Parson of Stocton, has also been mentioned under date of 1250, and must be identical with that Oliver de Stocton who stands first witness to a nearly contemporary deed of Madoc de Sutton.!25 William de Hugfokd, Cleek, was instituted Rector of this Church by Commission, on May 31, 1321. On Oct. 30 following, he had license to study for a year, and on Nov. 5, had letters dimissory for Junior Orders and the Orders of Subdeacon and Deacon. On March 18, 1323, he had further license for a yearns study and non-residence, and on Feb. 14, he had a still further dispensation for another year, to commence on March 18 following.^ He occurs as Rector about 1343. Walter de Hugford, Rector of Stockton, died in 1369, and on November 12, in that year, Philip de Harley, Priest, late Rector of Stirchley, was presented by Walter de Hugford, Lord of Hugford. He died in 1379 on the 4th of July, in which year Master Thomas DE Kyrkeby, Priest, was presented by William de Hugford.^^ » InquisUiones Nonarum, p. 184. I 2< Lichfield Registers, sub amis. ^ Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 187. '* Blakeway's MSS. ^ Supra, p. 120. I 149 ^lbri5l)ton. The etymology of this word is obvious. — At an unrecorded period, earlier than the days of King Edward the Confessor, the " town" was possessed or founded by some Saxon " Alberic." The latter name, variously written and pronounced as Alberic, Albrecht, Albert, or Aubrey, is fundamentally the same, and has its exact equivalent in the Latia word Prcedarus or in tlie Greek YlepipavviQ. The Manor is thus described in Domesday : — The same Normannus holds Albricstone. Algar and Godhit held it (in time of King Edward) for two Manors. Here is one hide and-a-half geldable. The (arable) land is (sufficient) for iiii ox- teams. In demesne are in such teams ; and (there are) xiii serfs and III villains and in boors with i team. Here is a wood which will fatten 100 swine : but at present it is in the King's hand. In time of King Edward, the Manor was valued at xxi shillings (per annum) . Its present value is xvi shillings. He (Norman) found it waste." 1 I think that the first-named of the two Saxons, who had had an interest inAlbrighton must have been Algar, Earl of Mercia. His possessions in the neighbouring County of Staffordshire were extensive, and included Pattingham, a Manor not far distant from Albrighton. Earl Algar's Staffordshire Fief was generally retained by King William the Conqueror in demesne. Hence perhaps, the Domesday mention of a wood at Albrighton, so singularly excepted from the jurisdiction of the Palatine Earl of Shropshire.^ Norman Venator (for such was the designation of the Domesday Lord of Albrighton) held seven Manors under Earl Roger. His profession, perhaps also the service by which he held his lands, is implied by his name. With his Brother Roger, also called Venator, he has been mentioned as attending the Consecration of Quatford Church in 1086, and he further appears to have been living after the succession of Earl Hugh (1093), and to have been a Benefactor ' Domesday, fo. 259, a. 2. ^ This wood was, I doubt not, retained by the King with a view to the integrity II. or enlargement of the neighbouriiig Porest of Brewood ; of which, as a Royal Forest, I have yet to speak. 20 150 ALBRIGHTON. to Shrewsbury Abbey. The locality of two of his Domesday Manors is somewhat uncertain, but in the five which can be better identified he seems to have been succeeded by the family of Pichford, whom I therefore conclude to have been his heirs. These Pichfords continued for two centuries to hold the Fief of Norman Venator, immediately of the Crown. Albrighton was its reputed Caput, and the whole constituted a tenure held by service of one Knight's-Fee, and was so assessed to the various Scutages and Aids which were levied during that period. Of Ralph de Pichford, who distinguished himself and added to his possessions by services rendered to King Henry I at the siege of Brug in 1102, I have already spoken. All that I can further say of him is, that he attests a very ancient deed, in the time of Henry I or Stephen, which concerns land in this neighbourhood. Mention has also been made, under Eyton, of Richard and Engelard, pre- sumed to have been the two sons of Ralph de Pichford. Richard de Pichford seems to have died before 1157, leaving a son and heir, another Richard, whose wardship (he being a Minor and a Tenant in capite) was then purchased of the Crown by his Uncle Engelard. Though, as will presently appear, this minority must have been very brief, it left Engelard de Stretton possessed of a considerable interest in his Nephew's lands. I shall quote instances of this elsewhere, but here will mention only the following peculiar cir- cumstance.— In the year 1167 (when Richard de Pichford had long attained his majority), the town of Albrictone had been amerced in the sum of one merk for some breach of the Forest-Laws, which had been adjudicated upon in the recent Iter of Alan de Nevill. The fine is however described on the Pipe-Roll as being set upon the town of " Albrictone Engerardi" i. e. Engelard's Albrighton, as though Engelard was then its owner, while it is clear, from other evidence, that if still interested there, he could only have been so interested as a Tenant. This Richard de Pichford, of whom we are principally speaking, was he, who having acquired or inherited an interest in the neigh- bouring Manor of Cospelford (Cosford), granted to the Abbey of Buildwas the whole service of Richard Crasset therein.'* Richard de Pichford's grant to Haghmon Abbey is all that I can further say of him. It has been already set forth, and, at the time ^ MonasiicoH, v, 359 ; ivL ALBRIQHTON. 151 It was at the same rate for each Knight's Fee and was It was assessed upon, and paid of its passing (before 1172), Hugh, the son and heir of llichard, was old enough to be a consenting party.* On Richard's death, in or before 1176, this same Hugh succeeded him, and, whether a Minor or not, obtained his Livery by pay- ment of 100 shillings relief to the Crown.^ In 1185, Hugh de Pikeford had been fined 405. by Justices of the Forest, for not producing those for whom he was Surety. He had paid the fine, and was quit. At Michaelmas 1194 the Scutage for King Richard's redemp- tion having been collected, Hugh de Pichford had paid 20s. on that account, the sum assessed on every Knight's- Fee held in capite. In 1195 he was assessed similarly for King Richard's second Scutage in support of the French wars. This Charge is entered on the Sherifi''s Roll of 1196, and had been paid before Michaelmas 1197. At the latter period King Richard's third Scutage had been put in charge. again for the Army of Normandy, by, Hugh de Pichford. In the years 1199, 1201-2-3-4-5-6, he was successively charged with the seven first scutages of King John; but some of these assessments imply a composition in lieu of personal service, and are in excess of the current assessment on a single Knight's-Fee, e. g. he was charged 40s. in 1199, though the current rate was £1. 6*. Sd. per fee; he was charged five merks (£3. 6s. %d.) in 1203, the rate being again £\. 6s. 2>d. ; he was charged six merks in 1204, the rate being two-and-a-half merks ; and he was charged three merks in 1206, the rate being one-and-a-half merks. Thus much as an instance of the heavy and constant exactions with which King John impoverished and disgusted the Feudatories of his Crown. — Amongst Fines made in the year 1199, with Hugh de Nevill, Justice of the Forest, I find one of twelve merks contracted by Hugh de Pichford. It was, that he might assart forty acres of his own land at Pichford and twenty acres in his wood of Bruwude (Brewood). In 1211, he was returned as a Knight, holding one fee by military service, of the Crown, his lands being worth £8. per annum.^ * Supra, Vol. I, p. 358. succeeding statements of the text. 5 Hot. Pip. 22 Henry II, Salop. The » Testa de Nevill, fo. 252. Pipe EoIIb are also my authority for the 152 ALBRIGHTON. And about this time he died, leaving by his wife Burga, daughter and sole heir of Ralph de Baskerville,''' a son Ralph, who succeeded him. I have already noticed this Ralph, as having succeeded about 1212, to his Tenure by Serjeantry at Little Brug. In 1214, when the Scutage of Poitou was put in charge, at the' rate of three merks on each Knight's-Fee, this Ralph paid his due proportion of £2. on the same.® And thus he continued to be assessed to various Scut ages and Aids in the time of Henry III, and in manner following. In 1218, he is charged two merks on the first Scutage of that King's reign; in 1221, 10s. on the Scutage of Biham. In 1224, he was acquitted of the Scutage of Montgomery, probably in respect of personal service, but assessed at the current rate (two merks), to that of Bedford. In 1229, he was similarly assessed to the Scutage of Keri, and in 1230, at the higher rate of three merks to that of Brittany; but Ralph Fitz Nicholas had obtained the King's acquittance of half this charge in his own favour. In 1231, Ralph de Pichford is assessed three merks to the Scutage of Poitou, and in 1232, £\. to that of Elvein, each being at the current rate for a Knight's Fee. In 1235, he was charged two merks for the Aid levied on marriage of the King's Sister.^ Half of this he paid in September 1235, " by hand of Geofirey, Provost of Pichford," whilst the balance was discharged at Easter 1236, by Adam de Pichford.^" In 1245, he was duly assessed £\. to the Aid, for marriage of the King's Daughter, and in 1246, paid three merks, the sum chargeable on each Knight's-Fee for the Scutage of Gannok.^^ Returning to an earlier period for other incidents in the life of Ralph de Pichford, I find him in November 1221, as a Juror of causes, tried at Shrewsbury by Grand Assize. In 1232, he fined " By this marriage, Hugo de Pichford and his wife became, in 5 John (1203-4), mesne Tenants of a Knight's Fee in Her- herbury and Cliesterton (Warwickshire) held of the Earls Ferrers. See JDugdale's WarwicksMre, under 'Herberbnry' (p. 354, Thomas's Edition) for further par- ticulars. 8 Sot. Pip. 16 John, Salop. The name of Hugo de Pichford had in the first instance been entered on this EoU, but the name " Hug " was crossed out and "Bad" written over apparently by the same Clerk who engrossed the Roll. In the reign of Henry III, such accuracy came to be disregarded. ' Sot. Pip. de eisdem annis, Salop. '» Tesia de Nevill, fos. 279, 277, the proper order of the documents being in- verted on the Eecord. '' Mot. Fip. de eisdem annis. ALBRIGHTON. 153 40s. with the Crown for the privilege of holding a Market and Fair at his Manor of Albrihtton, and obtained the King's Charter thereof.^^ A document of the year 1234, exhibits this Ralph de Picheford as staking largely for some contingent advantage likely to result from an Irish Wardship. He gave the King three hundred merks to have marriage of the heirs, and custody of the lands, late John Fitz Deremot's, in Ireland, until the said heirs should be of age. The King, having taken security for payment of this fine in England, enjoined Maurice Fitz Gerold, Justice of Ireland, to give Ralph the necessary seizin. The King's writ bears date at Reading 22d August 1234 j and on 16th Feb. following, another writ issued to the Barons of the Exchequer, allowing that payment of Ralph de Picheford's fine should be at the rate of twenty-five merks half- yearly.^^ Tenure-Rolls of the years 1240 and 1251, exhibit Ralph de Pichford's Tenancy in Albrighton as immediately under the Crown, ^* but without further particulars, except that the former Roll in- cludes Ryton with Albrighton, a circumstance already remarked upon. On Oct. 5, 1252, Ralph de Pichford was dead, for then did Ralph Fitz Nicholas fine 100 merks with the King for custody of his land and heir, as well as for marriage of the latter .^^ The Inquest on his death does not seem to have been held till the following year, that is, in obedience to the King's writ of diem clausit extremum, dated 20th April, in the 37th year of his reign. Besides Ralph de Pichford's Tenures at Dunethe and Lynne in Ireland, and those at Pichford and Little Brug, the Jurors found him to have held Albricton of the King, by service of one knight for eight days, and that John, his son and next heir, was sixteen years of age. I shall show under other Shropshire localities the incompleteness of this Inquisition, and that Ralph de Pichford was possessed of interests not therein enumerated.^* In 1254, he, or rather his estate, was charged 40*. to the Aid for Knighting the King's eldest son ; and a similar sum in 1260 for the 12 Mot. Pvp. 16 Hen. Ill, Salop ; Mot. Cart. 16 Hen. Ill, memb. 15. 13 Mot. Fin. vol. i, pp. 263, 274 ; and Mot. Fip. 18 Hen. Ill, Salop. " Testa de Nevill, fos. 206, 274. 15 Mot. Fin. ii, 141. 1" Out of Shropshire he was holding in 1252 the Ferrers' Fee at Herberbury above mentioned. {Bugdale's Wa/rwick- sJdre, p. 354.) 154 ALBRIGHTON. Scutage of Wales.^'^ Meanwhile John de Pichford, though occurring as a Minor in 1255^ must have arrived at his full age. I find little to say of him during the troubled period which ensued. When the King's army stood summoned to meet at Worcester, on July 1, 1277, John de Pychford, Knight, acknowledged his service due on a Knight's Fee at Albricton, and was ready to discharge it in person.^** On March 27, 1278, he was among the principal Knights of the County, who made perambulation between the Bishop of Hereford's lands in Esthampton, and those of Peter Corbet in Wentnor.^^ On January 28, 1281, he was one of the four Knights who made Inquest and report as to the ruinous condition of Brug Castle. The King's Army being under summons to meet at Rhuddlan on Aug. 2, 1282, against the Welsh, John de Pichford attended in acknowledgment of his Tenure, but afterwards departed in conse- quence of infirmity.^" In 1284, he is entered as holding the Manor of Albricton with Hunfreyston, Wystan (Whiston), and Bispeston (Bishton), by one Knight's Fee, and by accompanying the King into Wales in time of war, for forty days at his own charges.^i In 1285, the Escheator was ordered to seize into the King's hand, the estate of John de Pichford deceased.^^ The King's writ of diem clausit extremum, dated April 13, 1285, and addressed to the same Officer, resulted in an Inquisition held at Pichford, on the 25th of the same month. The Jurors estimated the vill of Albryton, held in capite by one Knight's fee, as realizing £'6. 14«. ^d. per annum. They also gave account of the tenure of the deceased at Pichford, and reported his son and heir Ralph to be of full age. This Inquisition proved to be unsatisfactory, as well it might. The King, in a writ, dated May 6 following, orders his Escheator to "make more diligent enquiry," and a second Inquest sat at Albrighton on the 24th of the same month. The Manor of Albrighton, with the Advowsons of Albrighton and Ryton, were in this instance estimated at £10. 8«. &d. annual value, and the Jurors gave account also of Tenures at Lee Brockhurst and Cant! op, and "• Hot. Fip. 38 and 44 Hen. Ill, Salop. In each case the assessment is charged to the name of Ealph de Pichford. At this period the Scutage Rolls are no longer a guide as to the Christian name of an individual Tenant in capite. '^ Parliamentary Writs, i, 203. " Hereford Eegiater (Cantilupe), fo. xxij, a. ™ Parliamentary Writs, i, 233, 237. ^' Kirly's Quest. ~ Originalia, 13 Edw. I, memb. 6. ALBRIGHTON. 155 of a rent payable by Philip de Beckbury (one of themselves), all of which had been the property of the deceased. ^^ Margaret, wife of John de Pichford, survived him, and had her dower both in Albrighton and Pichford. In 1292, she was sued for estovers in Pichford Wood, by Richard de Eton,^* and at the same time, under designation of " Margaret de Albrygton," was reported by the Brimstree Jurors to hold £7. of lands in Albrygton of the King in capite, and to be, as to any second marriage, at the King's disposal.^^ In 1304, Margaret de Picheford complained to the King of having suffered a redisseizin at the hands of Roger Carles and William the Beadle of Brimstree, from whom, in the King's Court at Bruges, she had recovered seizin of eleven merks annual rent in Albrighton. The usual writ to the Sheriff issued accordingly, viz. to examine into the truth of the complaint, and if it were well grounded, to arrest the Defendants.^^ I must now speak of Ralph de Pichford, son and heir of John, as of the last of his line who had any interest in Albrighton. In 1292, he was reported by the Brimstree Jurors as holding a Knight's Fee, being of full age, and yet not a Knight, whereupon he was put down as in misericordid. He was also a Defaulter in due atten- dance at the Assizes then held ; but his right of assizing bread and beer, and of holding a Market and Fair at Albrighton being called in question, he came forward and pleaded the Charter of King Henry III, which granted the said market and Fair to Ralph, his Ancestor. He also submitted that the other privileges in question were appurtenant to those thus granted. Both pleas seem to have been admitted by the Court. ^^ On May 31, 1295, styling himself Lord of Albrighton, this Ralph grants to William de Parco de Ettingestal, two Burgages in the town of Albrighton, which he (Ralph) had of the Escheat ofYsabel le Persone of Albrighton. — To hold with right of common pasture, at a rent of one rose, payable on the feast of St. John Baptist's Nativity.28 Pursuant to the King's Writ, dated at Portsmouth May 27, 1297, 28 BlakewayMSS.fromOWeyJE'OTtfeBoes. The deed is tested by John de Beumes, JohnUmfrey, Nicholas Carles, John Clerk of Bishton, John Mtz Henry of Bishton. The Seal has a coat of arms — Semee of oroBs-croBslets, a cinque-foil voided. ^ Inquisitions, 13 Edw. I, No. 14. ^ Dukes's Antiquities, p. 288. ^' Placita Corona, 20 Edw. I, raemb. 22. ^ Originalia, i, 136. ^ Placita Coronce, 20 Edw. I, memb. 22. 156 ALBRIGHTON. Ralph de Picheford was returned by the Sheriff of Shropshire as one of those who held twenty Librates of lands and rents in the County, and who consequently, were under summons to muster at London on July 7 following, with horses and arms, ready to accom- pany the King over sea.^^ This is the latest notice which I have of Ralph de Pichford, ere yet he dissipated his fine inheritance. Within three years of this time he sold his Manor of Albrighton to John, Baron Tregoz of Ewyas Harold (Heref) ; and the latter dying on August 21, 1300, was found by Inquisition to have been fully seized thereof.^" John de Tregoz had had two daughters, Clarice and Sibil. Clarice the elder, having been wife of Roger de la Warre and Mother of John de la Warre, was at this time deceased : Sibil the younger was still living and the wife of Sir William Grandison. John de la Warre and the said Sibil were therefore found to be Coheirs of Sir John Tregoz. A suit arose between them as to partition of Jiis Estates, which was finally settled in 1302, by award of Parliament.^^ Thus did the Manor of Albrighton fall to the estate of John de la Warre. In the year 1303, John de la Warre memorialized King Edward I, as to certain privileges which he claimed by prescription in this Manor, viz. View of Frank-pledge, a market every Tuesday, and a Pair of four days' duration (the vigil, the day of, and the two days succeeding the Feast of the Translation of St. Thomas the Martyr, i. e. July 6, 7, 8, and 9, in each year) . The King issued a writ of Certiorari to the Sherifl^, who, after assembling a Jury at Donington, on June 25, reported that Ralph de Pichford, who sold the jNIanor to Sir John Tregoz, had the said right of Market, and a right of Fair for three days, also View of Frank-pledge twice in the year over his own Burgesses, but not over the other Tenants of the Manor, — that the said Ralph exercised these privileges all the time while he was Lord, and that so his Ancestors had done from time whereof memory was not.^^ In conformity with this report, the King's Charter issued in the same year, limiting the Fair to the 6th, 7th, and 8th days of July, and fixing that two Courts for the View of Frank-pledge should be held in the Quinzaines of Easter and Michaelmas annually .^^ The Feodary of 1316, duly returns John de la Ware as Lord of ^ Parliamentary Writs, i, 291. I 'i Parliamentary Writs, i, 131. ^ Inquisitions, 28 Edward I, No. ^ Inquisiiiom, 31 Edw. I, Wo, 53. 43. I ^' PLot. Cart. 31 Edw. I, Nos. 24, 25. ALBRIGHTON. 157 Albrighton/ ^ but I must refer elsewhere for an account of his career, civil and military, as well as for the annals of the great Baronial house which he represented.^^ I add some extracts relating to the Under-Tbnants of this Manor. — In 1180, Siward son of Siward is assessed 2s. ior purpresture?^ In 1188, Siward de Albrinton and Richard de Albrinton had each paid an amercement of 1*. to the Sheriff of Staffordshire. In 1228, Elyas de Aunbritun and William Russel of Brockton are Sureties for a second William Russel. Jan. 1256, Robert Fitz Agnes de Albritton is a Juror for Brim- stree Hundred at Salop Assizes. Thomas de Albricton is also a Juror in a Donington law-suit. About 1261, William Champeneys of Albriton is on a local Jury. Jan. 1270, Nicholas Kareles and Burgia his wife and Ranulf de Albryton and Alice his wife sold land in Donington to Hugh de Beaumes. Sept. 1272, at Salop Assizes, Nicholas Careles was a Juror for Brimstree Hundred. He occurs also on Juries of April 16, 1273, and April 25, 1285, at Astley-Abbots and Pichford. At the Assizes of October 1292, Nicolas Carles and Adam le Serjant of Albriton were on the Brimstree Jury. May 31, 1295, Nicholas Careless is a witness; and July 11, 1296, June 6, 1300, and June 12, 1305, Adam le Serjant occurs on Juries, accompanied in the last instance by Walter, Clerk of Albriton. Roger Careles, whom I take to have been son of Nicholas, seems to have bettered the fortunes of his family. — As early as November 1293, that is in the lifetime of Nicholas, he was Fermor of the great Manor of Claverley under the Crown. He appears again in that position in 1296. He has already been mentioned under dates of 1304, 1316, and 1318, and his Grant of Free-Warren in the latter year extended to lands in Albrighton, Ryton, Whiston and Boningale. On 30 Dec. 1322, as Custos of certain escheated lands in Wor- cestershire and Shropshire, he is ordered to restore those belonging to Hugh de Mortimer.^^ 3* Parliamerdary Writs, vol. iv, p. 399. preceding name on this Eoll is that of 35 Ibidem, pp. 1582-3, and Bugdale's Morinus, who is assessed Is. for purpres- Baronage, vol. ii, pp. 15, 16. ture in Dunninton (Donington). ^ PlacitaForestm, Salop, No. 1. The '' Parliamentary Writs, iv, 642. II. 21 158 ALBRIGHTON. In 13 Ed. II (1319-20)^ he was a Commissioner for letting waste lands in the King's Manor of EUesmere.'^ His attestations of Charters during this period are frequent. All that I need further say of him shall presently be related in my account of Albrighton Churchy to which he was a great Benefactor. ALBEIG-HTON CHURCH. The earliest notice which I have of a Church here is only inferential, and consists in the mention of Nicholas, Priest of Albriton, about a.d. 1186-7.^^ Some Architectural remains indi- cate quite as early a period for the foundation. In 1291, the Church of Albryhton, in the Deanery of Newport and Archdeaconry of Salop, was taxed at =£5. 6s. 8d.*° About the time when Ealph de Pichford sold his Manor of Albrighton to Sir John de Tregoz, he sold the Advowson of the Church to Walter de Langton, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry. The latter sale had for some cause or other to be confirmed by Pine, and that Pine was levied by special order of the King.*i It bears date at York on the quinzaine of St. Hilary (Jan. 27) 1301, and purports to be between the Bishop as Plaintiff (querentem), and Ralph de Picheford, Defendant (impedientem), of two acres of land in Albrighton, and the Advowson of the Church, whereof was a plea of warranty of charter. Ealph acknowledged the Bishop's right as of his own (Ralph's) gift, — to hold of the Chief Lords of the Pee. Por this the Bishop gave one hundred merks ; but an Indorsement on the Pine states that William de Grandisone with Sibil his wife and John de la Ware put in their claim.'*^ Bishop Langton's object in this and other purchases in Shropshire shall be spoken of elsewhere. — The troubles which beset him about this time were probably 3* Originalia, i, 250. '' Supra, p. 112, note. •» Pope Kick. Tax. p. 248. « Rnes, 29 Edw. I, Salop. This Fine is particularly instructive as to the Con- veyancing Practice of the period. It was not the sale itself nor an accompaniment thereof, but a subsequent assurance of Title. This we learn from the language used in the Bishop's first presentation to the Church which toot place seven months before the Pine was levied. *' Apponnnt clameum swum. — I suppose that they disputed the right of sale, as Joint Lords of the Fee, pending the par- tition of Tregoz' lands, and that they had an interest in the matter. Sl/ramgers to a Fine, deeming themselves to have a right- ful claim on the premises conveyed, were allowed five years after levy of the Fine, wherein they might challenge it. This time was extended in certain cases ; but, in general, a Fine which had stood for five years without question barred all subsequent claim. ALBRIGHTON. 159 subversive of still greater designs than some which he actually accomplished. He retained the Advowson of Albrighton for a very short period, and Sir John de la Warre presented to the Church in 1307. On Dec. 10th, 1326, an Inquest was ordered to ascertain if it would be to the loss of the Crown, should the King allow John de la Warre to grant an acre of land in Albriton and the Advowson of the Church to the Abbot and Convent of Dore, — the said Convent to provide three Monks as Chaplains to do daily service in the Church of Dore Abbey for the soul of said John and his Ancestors. A Jury which sat at Claverley on Jan. 3, 1327, reported that the proposed grant would not injure the Crown; that John de la Warre held the Manor of Albrighton in capite by one Knight's fee ; that the Church was worth £20. per annum, that the said John had various other estates, such as the Castle of Ewias Harald, the Manor of Manchester worth £200. a year, &c. &c., in Lincolnshire, Gloucestershire, and Northamptonshire.*^ On May 2, 1332, a King's Writ orders a Jury to inquire whether it would be to the King's injury if Roger Careles had license to grant a messuage, sixty acres of land, and 20s. annual rent in Albrighton to a Chaplain, who should perform daily service in honour of the Blessed Virgin, and for the souls of said Roger and all the faithful departed, at the Altar of the same Virgin in the Church of St. Mary at Albrighton. The Jury which sat at Shrewsbury on June 10 following, re- ported favourably of the proposed grant ; that the land. Sec, were held of John le Wares, Lord of Albrighton, by annual service of a rose; that the whole was worth 33s. 4c?. per annum; that a messuage, two carucates of land and certain rents would remain to Roger in Albrighton and Ritton (Ryton) after the proposed Conveyance ; that these last premises were held of John de la Ware by service of 6s. annually, and that they were amply sufficient to discharge all customs and services due thereon.^ In 1341, the Church of Albrighton stood at the old Taxation of eight merks (£5. 6s. Sd.), but the Parish was assessed only at five merks, for the Ninth of its Corn, Wool, and Lamb. The reasons of the difference were, because the Abbot of Buildwas had three carucates of land iu the Parish on which he did not pay corn-tithe, but 10s. in lieu thereof; also because the glebe, offerings, small ^ Inquisitions, 20 Edward II, No. I '*'' Inquisitions, 6 Edw. Ill, 2d Noe. 42, No. 115. 160 ALBRIGHTON. tithes, tithes of Mills, and other Spiritualities were very valuable, and did not belong to the Ninth proposed to be collected/^ In 1534, the Vicarage of Albrighton (of which Thomas Wedouse, Clerk, was then Incumbent) was valued at £Q.per annum, chargeable with 8s. for Procurations, and 2s. for Synodals. The Abbot of Dore also, at the same period, returned the Rectory as worth £6. 13s. ^d. gross annual value.*^ EAELY INCUMBENTS. After Nicholas, Priest of Albriton in 1186-7, I find none till William de Pichepord, — collated to the Church by Bishop Walter de Langton on June 4, 1300. The Advowson belonging to the said Bishop by purchase (ex adquisito). The Archdeacon of Salop was to induct. Ingelard de Warlbye, Priest, had possession of the Church committed to him by the Bishop's Vicar, " on Nov. 30, 1307, at presentation of Sir John la Warre Knight." The Presentee Avas to hold it as " commended to him " (sub titulo commendacionis) " according to the Constitution." May 26, 1308, Sir Ingelard de Warle was canonically instituted through Adam de la More his Proctor, who took the oaths in his name. June 10, 1308, the Church of Mukleston was conceded to the same Ingelard, " for lawful cause, according to the constitution of Gregory, to hold sub titulo commendacionis."'^'^ John Merton, Clerk, was presented by King Edward II, by Letters Patent, dated at York 9 Feb. 1319, by reason of the lands &c. of Bishop Walter de Langton having been late in the King's hand.*^ This presentation was evidently on the false assumption ^^ Inquisiiiones Nonarum, p. 184. It does not appear at first why the Abbot's Modus in heu of oom-tithe was an argu- ment in diminution of the Ninth, which was a tax upon corn specifically, and which proposed to consider the tenth of corn usually paid by a Parish to the Church as an equiTalent to the ninth of corn now to be paid to the ii^ing. Con- sequently if the Abbot paid lOs.per annum to the Hectors of Albrighton he should now pay apparently 10s. or (if his moAus were a beneficial one) even a greater sum to the ninth. Perhaps however the truth of the matter is that the Assessors of the ninth meant to except the Abbot's lands and modus altogether. He was not assessed to the Tax in some other instances. The Abbot of Buildwas' land in the Parish was Cosford Grange. ^* Valor JEcclesiasticus, iii, 186, 33. ^' Lichfield Ecgister (Langton), folios 18, 27 b, 28 b, 29. « Fatent, 12 Edw. 11, p. 1, memb. 2. It had been the honour of Bishop Lang- ton to incur the maleTolence of Piers Gavestou, the infamous favourite of Edward II. He had not only been under forfeiture but in prison. (Vide Anglia Sacra, i, 441-2.) ALBRIGHTON. 161 that Langton was still Patron of the Church ; but though I do not find it cancelled, I discover that on July 1, 1319, one Robekt, Rector of this Church, had license of non-residence for purposes of study. This probably was the same with Robert de Ardeinj, Priest, who, on July 12, 1323, exchanged this preferment for that of — Philip de Waule, Deacon, late Rector of Clopton (Lincoln Diocese) . The latter was instituted here on presentation of Sir John le Ware, Knight. On Aug. 17, 1323, he had license for a year's non-residence, and again on July 2, 1325 ; and for two years on Aug. 29, 1328, being in each instance styled Rector of the Church of Albrighton. JoHNDE Aston, Chaplain, was admitted to the Vicarage of the Church of Albrighton " newly founded" *8 on the 18th Dec. 1329, at presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Dore. He, or rather one written as Sir William de Aston, vacated the Vicarage by death on Nov. 9, 1332 ; and on Nov. 23 following — William Anseyn, Priest, was admitted on the same presenta- tion. Reginald de Chetwynd seems to have been the next Vicar, for on January 27, in the 31st year of Bishop Roger de Northburg (i. e. 1353), that Prelate appoints William, Rector of Ryton, to be Coadjutor to the said Reginald who was " worn out with old age and infirmity." Sir Reginald de Chetwynd having however spon- taneously resigned in the same year : — Henry, son of William le Smyth of Albryton, Priest, was admitted on Oct. 17, at presentation of the Cistercian Abbey of St. Mary of Dore.^o ABCHITECTUEAL AND MONUMENTAL EBMAINS. Albrighton Church has a Western Tower, the lower part of which belongs to the twelfth century ; the upper part, from its similarity to ShifiPnal, I should attribute to the fourteenth. The East Window of the Chancel is a curious specimen of the ^ The Vicarage was newly founded, not the Church, i. e. theAbbey of Dore had ob- tained an appropriation of the Rectory. '" Lichfield Kegisters, siib annis. — I should observe that these last two entries are given with the year A. D. 1351 as their date. They should be 1352 and 1353 respectively, for Jan. 27, 1352, and 81" of Bishop Roger are consistent dates, reckoning the ecclesiastical year to begin at Lady Day, as it did in these Registers. The correction of the second entry follows from the first ; and both will fall under the year 1353 of modern reckoning. 162 ALBRIGHTON. Decorated class, with a transom, — a feature rarely found in any style except the Perpendicular. The head of the Window has rich flowing tracery. J. L. Petit. During some recent and very extensive alterations of this Church, it became necessary to reduce the floor of the South Aisle to what would appear to have been its original level. In removing the soil an Altar-Tomb was discovered, lying buried about eighteen inches below the surface. It has been carefully preserved, and placed outside the Church in a situation approximating to its former one. It is of Stone, and embellished with numerous Coats of Arms, the bearings on aU of which can be satisfactorily made out. This Tomb will have been thus unceremoniously buried more than two Centuries since; for neither Sandford, in his Church-Notes of 1660, nor Johnson, in 1699, make any mention of it, whereas the latter gives very full particulars of another and in may respects very similar Tomb at Albrighton. This last was of Marble and is nowhere to be found, whilst the dishonour shown to the buried Tomb has resulted in its preservation; for it is constructed of not very durable stone, and is at the same time very ancient. The Arcade running round its four sides proves its original position to have been isolated from any wall or Niche. The Pillars and Arches which form this Arcade belong to the "Early- English " period of Architecture and to the thirteenth Century. — Altar-Tombs of that date, in memory of private persons, are by no means common. I offer full particulars of this one, rather for its curiosity and possible import in our future investigations than that I am at present able to declare in whose memory it was first erected. — The upper slab is occupied by a fleury cross whose lower limb extends the whole length of the tomb. In the centre-point of this cross is this coat, — 1. Three Chevronels. Above and below the right limb of the cross are these, — I. Bendy of ten pieces. II. Two Chevrons. Above and below the left limb are, — I. Three Fleur-de-lys. II. Two Bars and (perhaps) a Canton. 33 Q Z o Eh X ALBRIGHTON. 163 On the dexter side of the lower limb are these — I. Fretty. II. A Cinquefoil between eight Mullets^ all pierced. (Pichford). III. Three Fleur-de-lys, two and one. IV. Fretty, on a Canton a Cinquefoil pierced. On the sinister side of the lower limb are these, — I. A Cinquefoil pierced between eight Martlets, three, two, two, and one (Pichford) . II. A Fesse and in chief three Roundels. in. A Cinquefoil pierced between eight Cross-crosslets. (Pich- ford)." IV. Barry of ten pieces. The North side of the tomb has the following, placed above the successive POlars which form the Arcade. — I. Three Cinquefoils, two and one. II. Fretty. III. A Cinquefoil between eight Martlets. IV. Three Fleur-de-lys, two and one. V. Quarterly — first and fourth, a Bend ; second and third, Fretty. (Despencer). VI. Bendy of ten pieces. The West side has these, — I. A Fesse and in chief three Roundels. II. Three Chevronels. The South side has these, — I. Bendy of ten pieces. II. Fretty. III. Two Bars, on a Canton a Cinquefoil. IV. Three Fleur-de-lys, two and one. V. A Cinquefoil pierced between eight Martlets. VI. Two Chevrons. The East side of the Tomb has the Arcade continued, but no Arms above the Pillars. The corners of the Tomb immediately below the Slab are sculp- tured with Fleur-de-lys and Cinquefoils. In 1699, the South Aisle of Albrighton Church contained the Marble Tomb above alluded to. Of this, as it has now disappeared, I add the particulars from an Harleian MS.^^ — swpra, p. 155, note 28. This I =2 Harl. MS. 5848, fo. 41. Churcli coat was also borne by UmfraTill. I Notes taken by J. Johnson, May, 1699. 164 ALBRIGHTON. The Upper slab exhibited seventeen coats of armsj five of which were arranged so as to form the upper limbs of a rude cross, which extended to the whole length of the tomb. The other twelve coats were arranged, two at the S. W. and N. W. angles of the slab, and ten down the sides of the lower limb of the cross. The five coats composing the cross were these — I. [Upper limb) Two Bars and a Canton. II. {Right limb) Pretty. III. {Left limb) Two Chevronels. IV. {Lower limb) A Fleur-de-lys. V. {Centre) A Chevron.'"' The other twelve coats were as follows — I. {At S. W. angle) Two Chevronels within a Border. II. {At N. W. angle) Three Chevronels.^* III. {South side) Fretty, a Label of three points. IV. ( Do. ) Semee of cross-crosslets, a Rose. (Pichford).'^ V. ( Do. ) Three Fleurs-de-lys. ( Do. ) Barry of six. ( Do. ) Two Chevronels within a Border. {North side) A Cinquefoil pierced, between nine Martlets. ( Do. ) A Fesse, and in chief three Roundels. ( Do. ) Semee of cross-crosslets, a Rose. Do. ) Two Bars, on a Canton, a Rose. Do. ) Fretty, on a Canton a Rose, notices that the Windows of the South Aisle of Albrighton Church contained twelve coats of arms, in " very old glass." We thus obtain the colours of some of the above. They were as follows — I. Gu, three Fleurs-de-lys or.^^ II. Barry of six, or and az. (Pembruge). III. Az. Semee of cross-crosslets, a Rose or.^'' IV. Gu, frettee d'or, a Label of three points az. V. Gu, frettee d'or.^^ VI. VII. VIII. IX. ( X. ( XI. \ XII. ( Johnson *' Or, a Chevron G-u, is the coat of the Barons Stafford. ^* Arg. three Chevronels Gru, is a coat of Langton, but not of Bishop Langton. Or, three Chevrons G-u, is the better known cognizance of De Clare. '* Here and wherever else, in these notices, Johnson has depicted a Eose, we are to understand a Cinquefoil. ^^ This charge is associated with the name of De Burgh. *^ Probably the charge was a Cinque- foil rather than a Kose. If so the coat was one of those borne by Pichford. *^ Audley bore Gu, a Pret or. ALBRIGHTON. 1G5 VI. Guj a fesse arg. in chief three Plates.^* VII. Arg. two Bars az. on a Canton of the second a Rose or.**" VIII. Arg. frettee gu, on a Canton az. a Rose or.^i IX. Bendy of eight or and az. (Montfort). X. Az., a Cinquefoil between five Mullets or, all pierced of the field. (Pichford). XI. Az. between nine Martlets (four, two, two, and one), a Cinquefoil or, pierced of the field. (Pichford). XII. Gu, three Fleurs-de-lys, or. In the Chancel Windows were the following coats. — I, Blank, empahngAz., three Stirrups with leathers or (Giffard). II. Ermine, a Cross patonce sa. III. Gu, seven Mascles or, three, three, and one, a Border argent.^^ IV. Arg. on a Bend az. three Roses or. V. Arg. on a Saltire gu, a Rose or. VI. Party per pale arg. and gu, two Lions rampant counter- changed ; on a chief per pale gu and arg. three Escallops counterchanged . Dugdale inserts in his Visitation (1663-4) from the notes of Francis Sandford, Rouge Dragon, the following. ^^ — In an East Window of the Chancel. I. Erm. a Cross patonce sa. II. Arg. six Mascles, three, two, and one, within a Border gu. III. Arg. on a Fesse az. three Cinquefoils or, pierced gu. In a South Window of the Church. — I. Gu, frettee d'or. II. Barry of six, or and az. (Pembruge). In an East Window. — I. Az. a Cinquefoil or pierced gu, between eight Mullets of the second, pierced of the field. (Pychford) . *' Johnson attributes this coat to some name which he writes Meu : : : e. ^ The charge on the Canton I take to have been a Cinquefoil rather than a Rose. The Cinquefoil was the fundamental cog- nizance of Pichford, whilst the ordinaries of this shield have been already ascribed to Hadley (vol. i, p. 100). Piyard bore a similar coat, viz. Arg. two Bars Gu, on a Canton Az. a Cinquefoil or. I am much mistaken if Ealph Baron Pypard (sum- moned to Parliament in Edward I's reign) was not related to the Pichfords. ^' Johnson ascribes this coat to the name "Vylile." ^2 This coat, without the border, was that of Quinci. It was subsequently borne by La Zouche. ^ Dugdale's Visitation at the Seralds' College, fo. 42. It will easily be seen that the same coats arevery differently described by Sandford and Johnson. In every case I should prefer the former authority. 32 166 BISHTON. II. Arg. frettee gu, on a Canton az. a Cinquefoil or. III. Az. a Cinquefoil pierced, between eight Martlets or. (Pychford). IV. Bendy of ten, or and az. (Montfort) . V. Gu, three Leopards' heads, two and one, jessant three Meurs-de-lys, or.^* VI. Gu, a Fesse arg. in chief three Plates. (Davenant). VII. Arg. two Bars az. on a Canton of the second, a Cinquefoil or, pierced of the second. Bisj)ton. The name of this place (originally Bishops-ton) is the only evi- dence of its earliest status. It was attached to some Episcopal See probably that of Lichfield, but at a period anterior to any existing E-ecord. Domesday shows us that Bispetone was in lay hands in the time of the Confessor. Its separation from the Church was therefore no matter of Norman Sacrilege. In 1085, Normannus (Venator) held Bispetone (of Earl Roger), Turgod had held it and was a free man. Here was i hide geldable. There was (arable) land for vi ox- teams. Here two French men with iiii villains and ii Boors had iii such teams. Here was a wood which would fatten x swine. In time of King Edward, the Manor had been worth 30s., at Domesday it was worth 10*. (per annum) .^ Bishton followed the usual descent of Norman Venator's Manors, that is, it went to De Picheford ; but being so near their growing town of Albrighton it gradually lost the distinct status which it had at Domesday and became a mere member of the greater Manor. The Tenants who held Bishopston under the Lords of Albrighton took name from the place. The earliest of whom I find mention, was Henry de Bispeston who will be noticed under Donington, as Surety for Leticia de Humfreston in 1221. ^ This coat is ascribed to Cantilupe, as well as the same with the Leopards' heads inverted. ' Domesday , fo. 59, ». 2. ETONE. 167 Robert and Henry de Bispeston were Jurors, 20 April, 1253, on the Inquest as to the estate of Ralph de Pichford; and in January 1256, were Jurors for Brimstree Hundred at the County Assizes. In September 1272, John de Bisopeston acted in the same capacity. Soon afterwards, in a grant made to Lilleshall Abbey by Hugh de Bolingale, the homages and services of Robert de Bispeston and John his Brother were included.^ On May 9, 1283, a Fine was levied at Salop, between John, son of Henry de Bisshopeston, complainant, and Robert, son of Henry de Bisshopeston, defendant (impedientem) , of two messuages and one virgate in Bisshopeston, whereof was Plea. Robert acknow- ledged the right of John as of his (Robert's) gift — to hold of the Chief Lords by accustomed service. John gave for this Pine one sore sparrow-hawk.^ In October 1292, John Fitz Henry de Bispeston was on the Brimstree Jury at Salop Assizes. He occurs in May 1295, as a witness with John, Clerk of Bispeston, and in June 1300, as a Juror with John Fitz Robert of Bispeston. The latter is on a Jury of May 1304, and John Fitz Henry with Peter de Bispeston were fellow Jurors in June 1305, at the Inquest as to the estate of Hugh de Beaumes. Feb. 10, 1306, John de Aula de Bispeston and Peter de Bispeston were Jurors on an Inquest at Claverley; and in May following, John Robert {i.e. Fitz Robert) de Bispeston was on an Inquest at Brug. Somewhat later than this John de Aula attests a deed which will be quoted under Donington. €tone. There was either some uncertainty about the Tenure of this Manor, which led to its being mentioned twice over in Domesday, or else being then a Manor of one hide it was divided into two equal portions. The two entries which describe it are as follows.— " The same Gerard (de Tornai) holds Etone and WiUiam (holds 2 Pat. 18 Kic. II, p. 1, memb. 7. | ^ Pedes Finimn, 11 Edw. I, Salop. 168 ETONE. it) of him. Turgod held it (in time of King Edward) and was a free man. Here is half-a-hide, geldable. The (arable) land is sufficient for in ox-teams. In demesne there is i (team) and i serf and nil boors; also, there is i Guest (hospes) paying a rent of two shillings. In time of King Edward its value was xii shillings : now it is XI shillings. He (Gerard) found it waste.''^ "The same Rainald (Vicecomes) holds in Etone half a hide. Turgot held it for a single Manor and paid geld."^ The latter entry is obviously incomplete, and if not erroneous, it exhibits Rainald's Tenure only as partial or involved. Wherever Rainald the Sheriff had a Domesday interest we usually find such interest subsequently represented by Fitz Alan. In the present instance I search for such a correspondence in vain. Nothing held by Fitz Alan in the later Hundreds of Stottesden, Munslow, or Brimstree is found to square with Rainald's interest in the Alnodestreu Manor of Etone. Leaving this difficulty, and looking solely at the mention of Etone as a member of Gerard de Tornai's Fief, its identity with the modern township of Hatton will be apparent after a very few remarks. First as to the name ; —this Hatton as well as other places (so called now) are usually found to have been written Hettune or Hetune in older documents. The use or omission of the aspirate was also a matter of caprice. Its omission in Domesday is noticeable in the words now pronounced Hodnet, Hawkesley, and Hopton, which are represented in that record as Odenet, Avochelie, and Opetune. Again, Turgod, Saxon Lord of Etone, also held in time of King Edward, the Manors of Cosford and Bishton, one of which adjoins and the other is near to Hatton. Further, we observe that nearly all the escheated Manors of Gerard de Tornai became tenures in capite by Serjeantry, and some of them by Serjeantry of Castle-guard at Shrawardine. The latter was specifically the case with Hatton. Lastly, Hatton is subsequently found to be a Manor of i hide, a measurement which will combine the contents of the two Domesday Manors of Etone. I can therefore continue my account of the latter no otherwise than under the name of Hatton, — ' Domesday, fo. 259, a. 1. I ' Domesday, fo. 255, a. 2. 169 atttin. The first Document which I have to quote with reference to this Manor is a Deed which on the whole, and notwithstanding some appearances to the contrary, impresses me with an idea of very high antiquity,— as high as the reign of Henry I or Stephen, 1100-1154. Its substance is as follows : — Adam Traynel of Hetton grants to Ivo his Nephew (Nepoti) his Manor of Ivelith, as well in Ivelith as in Hynynton, in the County of Salopsire, also common-right of pasture in his (Adam's) land of Hetton;— to have and to hold, &c. in fee ;— rendering a Red-Rose yearly at the Nativity of John the Baptist. — Witnesses : William de Beaumeis, Walter Fitz Warin, Robert de Cadeleg, Ralph de Pich- ford, Richard Wudecote, John de Sahebury, Henry de Bolynghale, William de Creswell, and many others.^ This Adam Treynel was, I suppose, identical with Adam de Hetune, one of the earliest benefactors to BuUdwas Abbey. Within fifty years of its foundation, he granted to that house with concur- rence of Reginald his Son, a moiety of the vill of Hettune, which grant was afterwards confirmed by King Richard I in his general Charter toBuildwas, dated at Winchester, 22d October 1189.^ The original Manor of Hatton seems to have been divided into two equal portions by a small stream called Tuy-brook, the course of which may still be traced through a series of artificial pools. The moiety of Hatton which Adam Traynel granted to Buildwas lay to the East of this stream, and was therefore contiguous to those other early acquisitions which the Abbey made at Ruckley and Cosford. William de Beaumeis.aWalter Fitz "Warin and a Balph de Piohford iu Henry Ill's time, and each of them likely to attest a deed concerning lands in this quarter, though I should not expect their names to occur in the order indicated above. There were also persons bearing each of these three names in time of Henry I. They were all similarly likely to attest such a deed as this. As far as I can judge, the names of the other witnesses belong to a period anterior to the reign of Richard I. 2 Monasticon, v, 359, No. xvi. ' This Charter is among the Kawlinson MSS. in the Bodleian Library. Having never seen more than three or four ma- norial deed's of this early date, I have little wherewith to compare the one under notice. — It is on an unusually large scale, both as regards the parchment, the hand- writing, and the seal. The latter is completely defaced. The objection to its extreme antiquity, as assigned in the text, is that it has the formulas "Habendum et Tenendum," and "HiisTestibus," usually taken to indicate a date no earlier than the reign of Kichard I. There were a 170 HATTON. The Monks were ever most assiduous in extending their pos- sessions here. During the reign of Richard 1, as I conclude, they obtained a grant from John de Hemes of a virgate and twelve acres of his demesne in Hettun. This was clearly a part of that moiety which lay to the west of Tuy-brook, and which John de Hemes held under Traynel. This second acquisition was followed by a third not later than the year 1202, and of which we have full particulars — Walter, Son of John de Hemes, with assent of his Mother, his heir and his friends, grants and confirms to the Abbey of Buldewas in perpetual almoign all that land of Hettuu, viz. a virgate and twelve acres, which his Father gave of his demesne. He adds to the gift " all the land which is between the road of Hyvelith (Evelith) and Tijibroc, which was formerly heath, and four meadows which pertain thereto." This latter land the Monks were to hold of Walter by an annual rent of 12c?. payable to him and his heirs, and by dis- charging a further annual rent of 5s. which was due to the Grantor's Chief Lord, — Robert Trainel. The Monks were also to satisfy all foreign service due on half- a- virgate of said land, but the rest was to continue free, as of demesne. For this grant the Monks received the Grantor, his Mother, and his Heirs into their fraternity. — Witnesses : John le Strange, Hugh de Pichford, Reginald de Tirne, Wido de Saweburi, Hamo Fitz Marscot, Richard de Ruiton^ Nicholas de Bolinchale, William Crasset, Baldwin de Hinetun, and John his Son, Peter de Hales, Hugh de Becchebur, Reginald le Budel of Ruiton.^ Robert Trainel mentioned in the above deed as Lord of Hatton, must be taken as a Successor of Adam Trainel and Reginald his Son, but by what relationship I cannot determine. At the Assizes of Oct. 1203, he appears as Essoigner of Adam de Hereford, a non-attendant at the Common Summons, and of whom we have heard before.* The Tenure by which the Trainels held Hatton was Petit Ser- jeantry, of which we now first begin to have some evidence. King John's fifth Scutage, that of 1204, was assessed upon Serjeantries. Accordingly we read on the Pipe-Roll that Robert de Tremell fined half a merk for the same.^ ^ Charter formerly in possession of Humphrey Briggs, Esq., copied by Blake- way from Wm. Myttou's MSS. The Seal of this deed is charged with a Lion passant. The Legend is as follows — Sig-.Walteei pil. Johannis deHeme. Wido de Shawbury, one of the wit- nesses, was murdered about 1202, which gives the proximate date. * Supra, Vol. I, p. 181. « Sot. Pip. 6 John, Salop. HATTON. 171 And soon after this, Robert Trainel died, for I find that about March 1205, William Tramnell gave the King fifteen merks to have custody of the lands and heir of the said Robert tiU the said heir should be of age. Mandate accordingly issued to the Sherifl^ of Salop.6 William Trainel seems to have been a Lawyer. He had already appeared in 1199 and 1200 in the Courts of Westminster as Essoigner of several parties to Shropshire Law-suits. He paid his fine of fifteen merks by instalments in 1205, 1206, and 1207. Nevertheless, about March 1210, he seems to have lost this wardship, though the heir was still a Minor. The lists of Shropshire Serjeantries, about 1211,''' tells us that Robert de Tremeill (the said heir) was then in custody of the King; that his Tenure was Hatton, on which the Sheriff was accountable, at the Exchequer, for 40s. per annum. In perfect conformity with this return I find that at Michaelmas 1212, the Sheriff accounted 100*. at the Exchequer "for two-and- a-half years ferm of Robert Traiuel's Hatton," and that at Michaelmas 1214, he accounted £4. on the same, viz. the ferm of two years more.^ This ferm of 40s. per annum was the exact income of Robert TraineFs land^ for, as will presently appear, he had previously to his death granted his interest in Hatton to Buildwas Abbey for a term of years, reserving only the said rent. On Jan. 12, 1215, Robert Trainel (the younger) was of age, and fined " 50s. for his Relief, and to have receipt of 40s. rent, which the Monks of Buildwas were to pay the said Robert for the term during which R. Trainel his Father had demised his land of Hatton to them to ferm, so that, the said term ended, the land may come peaceably to said Robert's hands." The King's writ forthwith issued to the Sheriff commanding him to take security for the fine of 50s. and give seizin of the said rent, and (when the term should expire) of the said land, to the heir.^ It was an arrear of this fine, viz. 10s. for which in 1218, Martin de PatishuU a great Justiciar of that period, undertook to be answerable on behalf of Robert Trainel. Respite was accordingly given till Michaelmas for payment of the same.^° I am inclined to think that the Monks of Buildwas continued ^ Fines, 6 John, memb. 5. ' Testa de Nevill, pp. 56, 417; and Liber Sub. Scacc. 8 Sot. Pip. 14 and 16 John, Salop. s Sot. aaus. i, 182. '» Memoranda, 2 Hen. III. 172 HATTON. to hold Robert Trainers land at ferm, either under the old lease, or a renewal thereof by himself. In 1219, they are paying the Lord of Ideshale a rent of 3«. per annum for common-pasture in Ideshale.i^ In 1227, among Tenures in Brimstree Hundred we read that Eobert Traynel holds half-a-hide in Henton (Hatton) by Serjeantry of finding one serving foot-soldier at Shrewrthin, at his own cost, for fifteen days, if need shall be, and that the Tenure is worth 40*. per annumP We now come to the transaction by which the Monks of Build- was at length obtained full possession of that moiety of Hatton of which they had been previously Lessees, and so became Lords of the undivided Manor. — Robert, son of Robert Traynel of Hattone, for the health of his soul, granted to the Monks in frank almoigne, all the land, and wood, and heath, and moor, which he had, as well in demesne as in seigneury (in servicio) in a moiety of the vill of Hattone, viz. whatever lay " between the rivulet of Tuybroc as it descends into the stream of Worth (Worf ) on one side, and the boundary fences of Hynetone (Hinnington) and of GrenhuU (Grindle) on the other side, down to the aforesaid stream of Worth." He also conceded to the same Monks the other moiety of the vill of Hattone which they already had, by gift of Adam Traynell of Plattone.^^ This Deed probably passed about 1248, and about 1251 an Inquest of Tenures found the Abbot of Buldewas holding two carucates of land in Solde-hatton of the gift of Robert Traynel who used to hold that vill of the King in capite}^ In 1252, Nicholas, Abbot of Buildwas, withdrew the suit of Hatton from the Hundred of Brimstree, a further proof, not only of his seigneury there, but of the Manor being independent of any other. The King was said to be damaged 2s. per annum by this withdrawal, which probably was in conformity with the special pri- vileges of a Cistercian House.^^ " Salop Chartulary, No. 378. '^ Testa deNevin,Tj>.?>i. If one moiety of Hatton wa3 half a hide, the whole must have necessarily been a hide. Herein we have a repetition oittie Domesday estvaxaie. '•^ Monasticon, v, 358 ; xiii. The wit- nesses are Sir Ralph de Picheford, Richard de Grrenehul, Hugh de Leya, Osbert de Stircheleg; also (asinJJoi. Carf.20Edw.I, memb. 40) Nicholas, Parson of Hope, Ralph de Stanton, Humfrey de Humfres- tou, Robert de Dudmaston, and Henry Crasset. '■' Testa de Nevill, p. 60. I cannot account for this name or misnomer of Solde-hatton, unless it be a confusion with Cold-hatton ; a place however where Buildwas Abbey had never any concern. ^ Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 22 dorso. DONINGTON. 178 At the Assizes of 1273, when this presentment was made, William Crasset sued the Abbot for his Manor of Hatton juxta Edeshale (Idsall), as his (William's) right and inheritance, and to be held by him of the King in capita. The Abbot appeared and pleaded that " there were two vills of Hatton in this County, viz. Hatton Crasset and Hatton Traynel," and that the Plaintiff had not specified either of them." This plea, which however I cannot understand, was effectual, for the Abbot was dismissed sine die. In 1291, the Temporalities of the Abbey of Buildwas in Atton (in Newport Deanery and Salop Archdeaconry) were thus estimated. — Two carucates of land £\. Os. Od.; Profits on Live Stock £6. 2s. 6d. Pannage 25. Od.— Total £7. 4s. 6d" Hatton continued in possession of Buildwas Abbey till the Dissolution; the Abbot declared his rents there to amount to ,£5. 6s. 8d. per annum, and the tithes to be farmed at £2.^^ A Chapel is said to have been sometime existent here, a most probable adjunct of a Manor so circumstanced. The district was however in the Parish of Idshall, and the ]\Ionks of Buildwas were, at the Dissolution, still paying a pension of 16s. Sd. to the Vicar of Idshall for administering the Sacraments in " Hatton Graunge."^' oningtom The Saxon word bunij (hilly) scarcely applies to the circum- stances of this locality. Dunning was however a Saxon name; and a person so called, and having sometime possessed this place, may possibly be entitled to the simple but enduring monument thus indicated in a word. Domesday mentions the Manor as follows, — The Earl himself holds Donitone. Earl Edwin held it (in time of King Edward). Here are in hides. In demesne are iv ox- '^ Ibidem, memb. 7 recto. There were should suppose Hatton-Crasset to have four or five vills of Hatton in Shropshire, but it is clear that Hatton-Crasset and Hatton-Traynel, were names applied to two vills, or two parts of the same vill, near Shi£fnal ; otherwise the Plaintiff" s de- scription would have been sufficient. I TI. lain towards Cosford, and to have been some time held by the Crassets under the Lords of Hatton. '^ Fope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 260. 1* Valor JScclesiasticus, ui, 191. 13 Ibidem, p. 192. 23 174 DONINGTON. teams and (there are) viii neat-herds and ii female serfs, and xii villains and ii boorg with iii ox-teams ; and yet there might be vii teams more (employed) here. Here is a Mill rendering v horse- loads of corn (yearly), and a wood one league long, and half-a-league wide. In Wich there are v salt-pits (belonging to the Manor), which render xx shillings (annually). In time of King Edward the Manor realized €20. (per annum) ; now (it pays) £9} The Manors, thus held in Demesne by the Norman Earl, are enumerated in Domesday without any formal statement as to their respective Hundreds. Donington and Tong (also a demesne Manor) stood at the convergence of three Domesday Hundreds, viz, Alnodestreu (which contained Albrighton), Bascherch (which contained Cosford and Idshall), and Recordine (which came up to Lilleshall). The Hundred of Idshall and Cosford was however determiued by a peculiarity of tenure which did not extend to Donington and Tong; and whereas no Recordine Manors are known to have become Brimstree Manors, it follows, I think, from this, and from their proximity to Albrighton, that Donington and Tong were both in Alnodestreu Hundred. After the forfeiture of the Norman Earls, the Seigneury of this Manor passed by grant of the Crown to Richard de Belmeis, Bishop of London, of whom and his Successors, Lords of Donington and Tong, I propose to give a fuller account under the latter Manor. 1 Domesday/, fo. 253, b. 2. There ia one clause in this entry which requires special notice, viz. "In Wich v saUnse reddunt xx solidos." — The Domesday Annotators have left us to suppose that where SalincB (salt-works or salt-pans) are mentioned in connexion with any Manor, some local advantage is indicated, v.g. that a salt-spring or the sea-coast was near at hand. It is further ascertained that Wich was a generic term applicable to any place where salt was produced. ISo etymological connexion has, I think, been estabhshed between the word Wich and salt; but I need only mention Droitwich in Worcestershire, and Nantwich, Northwich, and Middlewioh in Cheshire, as a few instances of the rela- tionship. Are we then to conclude that in 1085 the Manor of Donington contained within its limits a district called Wich, wherein were five salt-works ? I suppose it just as probable that it contained five mUes of sea-coast, where marine salt was manu- factured. The truth, I imagine, is that five SalincB in Wich, that is in one of the large salt- districts of Cheshire or Worcestershire, were adjuncts of this Manor, and had been so in Saxon times. Earl Edwin, the Saxon Lord of Do- nington, was, next to King Edward the Confessor, the principal owner of the Wiohes of Cheshire and Worcestershire. So much for the state of things at and before the time of Domesday. — In the next century (the tweKth) we find Barons, Abbots, and Priors, whose territories lay mainly in Shropshire, holding or trans- fering shares in the salt-works of both Cheshire and Worcestershire. Distance was no bar to the acquisition of property so essential. DONINGTON. 175 Here we will speak of that collateral race of De Belmeis, whose Ancestor having been enfeoffed in Donington held the same under the elder house and transmitted it, so held, to some generations of his heirs. Without attempting to decide who that William de Beaumeis was who stands first witness of the deed with which I have com- menced my account of Hatton/ I proceed to Richard de Beaumeis undoubtedly living in the time of Henry 11, holding Donington under the Lords of Tong, and perhaps having an interest at Meadowley by a similar title. Philip de Belmeis, Lord of Tong, and Cousin as I suppose of this Richard, made, about the year 1139, a grant to the then recently founded Abbey of Buildwas. This grant, besides other advantages, included Ruckley then a member of Tong. Philip's example was in due time followed by his relation and vassal Richard, who (as I understand his deed) granted to the same Monks now established in their Grange of Ruckley, a right of com- mon-pasture throughout his land (of Donington), and three acres of land whereunto they might attach a bridge, which must needs be made across the stream which ran between Ruckley and Don- ington before such common-right could be available.^ Between the years 1153 and 1159, Richard de Belmeys, as a ^ Supra, page 169. Were the date of this deed more certain, I should con- sider William de Beaumeis to have been Brother of the Viceroy and his Feoffee at Donington. ^ This Tery ancient and curious deed is in possession of Q-eorge Pritchard, Esq., of Broseley. It has already been trans- lated (in Mr. Dukes' Antiquities, Appendix, p. Ixv), but with one or two inaccuracies, which render a transcript of the original desirable. I give it with the contractions resolved : — Notum sit omnibus ecclesie Christi fidelibus, clericis et laicis modemis et posteris, quod ego Eichardus de Belmeis, cum consensu et consUio uxoris mese et fratrum meorum concessi et dedi Abbati et Monachis de BUdwas totam communem pasturam per totam ten-am meam, ovibus suis et ceteris animahbus quas habent apud Kochele. — Et ut ad illam pasturam srue ullo impedimento possint venire, dedi eis in perpetuum tres acras de terra mea juxta rivulum subtus Chelfesford, ubi pontem suam ultra aquam ponant. Hano itaque terram cum predieta pastura dedi Deo et Sauctae Marise et prediotis Monachis in perpetuam elemosinam pro salute anima) meffi et patris et matris mese et ceterorum parentum meorum, ita hbere et quiete ab omni terrene servicio et exactione seculari ut nichil mOii nee meis in e^ retinuerim nisi tutelam et protectionem contra omnes qui eis in aliquo adversari voluerint. Hujus meae donacionis et confirmaoionis isti sunt testes, Bernardus de Saint cum Alano de Bildwas et Ad4 Sacerdote, Philippe fi-atre ipsius Kieardi, Eadulfo Venatore, Hemmie de Shakerlau ; De Monachis Adam et Gaufridus cum Eratre Eogerio, totusque Conventus. The Seal of this deed has the figure of a Enight on horseback, with drawn sword and a conical helmet. The words Eicaedi DE Belmeis remain of the Legend. 176 DONINGTON. Knight of Philip de Belmeys junior, Lord of Tong, attests the gTant of the latter to Lilleshall Abbey. In 1157, this Richard de Bealmes is mentioned as having fined ten merks with the King to have some trial (loquela) against Alan de Uppedun. This fine is entered as an aiTear till 1160, when the King's writ had ordered it to be exeused, calling it a fine for a plea of seizin.^ In 1167, Richard de Bealmes' (Manor of) Dunnincton is entered as having been amerced half-a-merk in a recent iter of the Justice of the Forest.^ At Michaelmas 1189, Aaron, a very wealthy Jew of Lincoln, having died, his chattels and securities escheated to the Crown. Richard de Beumes had owed him £4. 8*. Qd. which he pays through the Sherifi" of Shropshire by successive instalments, the last of which is entered on the Pipe-Roll of 1200.^ All that I can further say of Richard de Belmeis is, that he appears to have granted a subinfeudation of Shakerley a member of Donington, to Robert, Uncle of Robert de Wodecote.'^ It is more than probable that the several notices above given as attaching to the name of Richard de Belmeis indicate a succession of two persons of the same name, probably Father and Son. I doubt not however that, if this were so, both were Lords of Donington. From 1185 to 1203, we have occasional notices of one Robert de Belmeis who I believe to have been representative of another branch of the family, and to have had feoffment in Tong and elsewhere. Of him and his very uncertain succession, I will say more when I come to that Manor. The next Lord of Donington whom I can discover after Richard de Belmeis was Walter de Belmeis. He first appears in November 1221, as having been challenged by Geoffrey de Eswell for breach of the King's peace and for robbery. His accuser, though bound over to prosecute, did not appear before the Justices in Eyre, and so was to be arrested, the Jury meantime acquitting the accused.^ ^ Mot Pip. 3, 4, 5 & 6 Hen. II, Salop. I doubt not that the suit referred to some disputed land at Meadowley, where Alan de Upton (mentioned Vol. I, page 140.) "wiU have been the Defendant, and where I have shown Eichard de Belmeis to have been probably interested in 1180 (Vol. I, p. 150). ' Eot. Pip. 13 Hen. II. De placitis Alani de Nevill. « Mot. Pip. 1 Eic. I to 2 John, Salop. ' Vide Monasticon, vi, 264, No. xiii, where Eobert de Wudecote (the Nephew) transfers this Tenancy to LiUeshall Abbey. 8 Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 8. DONINGTON. 177 In Michaelmas Term 1223, Walter de Beaumes being one of four Knights who had to try an issue about land in Little Wythiford was for some cause removed from the panel. About this time and followed by Philip de Beaumes, he attests a Charter of Roger la Zouch, Lord of Tong, to Buildwas Abbey. He has already occurred as a prominent witness to a Badger Deed which passed about 1227. About 1240, he is entered, on a Roll of Tenures, as holding a knight's fee in Doninton of the Barony of Herbert Fitz Peter.' Here, though the Tenant's name be stated correctly enough, it is probable that the Seigneury is altogether misrepresented. In 1255, Walter de Belmeis was deceased, and, as I have pointed out under Meadowley, Roger de Belmeis, who was his son, had succeeded him. At the Assizes of January 1256, I find Johanna, widow of Walter de Beaameis, suing several under-tenants in Donington for her dower. — Her suit against Ranulph, son of Richard Russell, for thirds in four acres of land and two of meadow, was adjourned to one month of Easter, the Defendant calling Roger de Beaumes to warranty. Her suit against the same for thirds in three acres of land and five of meadow, was adjourned till the Quinzaine of Easter ; and the land meanwhile was seized by the Crown because the Defendant did not appear. — Her suit against the Prioress of Brewood for a third part of 100 acres, and that against Roger de Pyweledon for a third of five acres of meadow, were met by both Defendants calling Roger de Beaumes to warranty, Roger de Pyweledon only claiming a terminal interest under demise of Walter de Beaumes. » Testa de Nevill, p. 46. Donington was at this time held immediately of Alan la Zouohe and of the Honour of Tong. So far, therefore, this entry is not strictly correct. Neither can I suppose it true that Alan la Zouche held Tong of the Barony of Herbert Ktz Peter. I can account for the mistake only in one way. The Fitz Herberts had profited largely by the forfeiture of William de Braose in King John's reign, and were subsequently sharers in his inheritance. Moreover, William de Braose had had in 1204 some Seig'noral Interest over Tong. During the temporaryforfeiture of Roger la Zouch, this Seignoral Interest had further gained for Braose the actual possession of Tong as of an Escheat. His rights, therefore, may have inadvertently been taken to have descended to Herbert Fitz Peter, whereas the Tenant-right had been re- stored to La Zouche, and the Seigneural right (whatever it was) seems to have gone with the bulk of the Honour of Brecknock to the Earls of Hereford. How Braose originally acquired a seig- neury in the Honour of Tong I have not the remotest conception. 178 DONINGTON. Roger de Beaumes appeared in these cases and vouched each warranty, so that the Defendants were dismissed sine die, and Johanna adjudged to have equivalents out of other lands of Roger de Beaumes.^" At the same Assizes, Roger de Beaumes, being impleaded by the Prioress of the White Nuns of Brewood in regard to her right to have estovers in Doninton Wood, came to an agreement on the subject.^^ In this year also, Roger de Beaumes was returned by the Sheriff as one of those who, holding £15. of lands, was yet not aKnight.i' In 1258, he fined half-a-merk of gold (equal to five merks of silver) to have respite in this matter, and the said fine was still in arrear at Michaelmas 1259.1=5 All that I can further say of this Roger is contained in a deed whereby William, sou of Walter Spink, of Culeshal (Kilsall) quits to Roger, son of Walter de Beaumes, all his right in the land which said Walter Spink held under the Ancestors of said Roger, with a messuage, curtilage, and other appurtenances, within and without the vill of Doniton. — Witnesses : Peter Giffard, Hugh de Hadinton, Hugh de Bolinchal, John de Pres, Michael de Morton, Stephen Parker (Parcarius), Robert de Picstoc, John Fitz Pagan, Ranulph the Forester, and others.^* A period of at least ten years now elapses, during which I find neither deed nor Record to throw any light on this succession. In 1270, however, John de Belmeis was suing the Master of the Knights Templars under writ of Novel Disseizin for a Knight's Fee in Medweleye (Meadowley),^^ and he must have been of the Donington branch. There was also one Alan de Beaumes whom the Brimstree Jurors presented, at the Assizes of 1272, as not guilty of Larceny. John de Beaumes again occurs in 1284 as holding the ilanor of Doninton with Culeshall (Kilsall) and Shakerlawe (Shakerley) , under Roger la Zouch, by one Knight's Fee. This John de Beaumes bought the Manor of Stanwey from his contemporary Hugh de Beaumes, who also had an interest in Tong and Donington.i^ At the Assizes of October 1292, both John and Hugh oflSciated 15 Fatenf, 54 Hen. Ill, dorso. The Templars held at this time the Barony of Castle Holgate, of which Meadowley was a member. (Vide supra, Vol. I, p. 157.) '" Flacita Coronee, 20 Edw. I. John and Hugh de Beaumes were not related, or related so distantly that the Crown- Prosecutor, questioning some privilege '" Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, membs. 13 dorso, 15 dorso. " Ibidem, memb. 14 dorso. 1^ Dukes' AnUqnities, Introduction, page yii. " not. Fip. 43 Hen. Ill, Salop. '* Charter in possession of the Bev. Henry Bishtou. DONINGTON. 179 as Jurors of Brimstree Hundred ; the former too was returned as Tenant of a Knight's Fee, and yet not a Knight.^? July 11, 1296, both Sir Hugh and John de Beaumes were on the Inquest as to the estate of Fulk de Pembridge of Tong, but the former only is distinguished as a Knight. A writ of King Edward I, dated May 1, 1304, directs an Inquest to be held to ascertain whether it would injure the King if he allowed John de Beaumeys to grant ten acres of land and ten acres of wood in Donyton to the Pridr ess of the White Nuns ofBrewode. The Inquest, which was taken at Salop on May 14 following, reported in favour of the grant, adding that the land in question was held of Alan la Zouche by military service, " for that John held the Manor by half a Knight's Fee under said Alan, and therein were three carucates of land, 300 acres of wood, twenty acres of meadow, and five merks of annual rent over and above the twenty acres proposed to be alienated, which twenty acres were worth 3s. 4id. per annum." ^^ June 12, 1305, John de Beaumes was still living, for the Inquest then taken on the death of his contemporary, Hugh de Beaumes, shows the latter to have held a messuage, &c. in John's Lordship of Donington.i' And within ten years of the last date, John de Beaumes was deceased, leaving two sons Hugh and John, the latter of whom, being the younger, and having some interest in both Donington and Stanwey by disposition of his Father, resigned the same to his elder Brother. The deed is in the form of a common quit-claim, the Grantor styling himself " John de Beaumeys, son of John de Beaumeys Lord of Donython." ^^ In 7 Edw. II (1313-4) died Alan, last Baron Zouche of Ashby, and the Inquest on his death duly records his seigneury at Don- nington where he is said to have held half a Knight's Fee.^^ Koger Carles, Roger de Pyuelesdon, Kichard de Knycheleye (Neachley), John de Aiila de Bispeston and others. It must certainly have passed hetween 1305 and 1324, and, forasmuch as it is un- claimed by Joh:i de Beaumes at Stanwey, denied their relationship altogether. It is this single circumstance which has enabled me to distinguish the two Unes which they represented. '' Ibidem, memb. 51 recto, 23 recto. "8 Inquisitwns, 32 Edw. I, No. 125. 19 Inquisitions, 33 Edw. I, No. 16. ™ Charter in possession of the Eev. Henry Bishton. The witnesses are Sirs Walter de Huggeford and William le Eorcer, Knights; Henry de Beaumeys (son and heir of Hugh who died in 1305), dated, probably in the earlier half of that period. An undated deed of Eulk Pembruge's, which I shall set forth under Tong, ex- hibits a combination of names almost identical, and passed probably in 1312. 2' Inquisitions, 1 Edw. II, No. 36. 180 DONINGTON. But to return to Hugh de Beaumes his Tenant. — He, like his Father, wishing to benefit the Convent of White Nuns of Brewood, procured the King's Writ (dated 10th July 1315, ordering Inquest to be made as to the damage which the Crown would suffer if he granted thirty acres of wood in Donynton to the Prioress. The Jurors sat at Donynton on 28th July, and reported that the grant would be harmless ; that the wood was held of William de Mortimer Lord of Ashby la Zouche, with other lands in Donynton, by service of half a Knight's Pee ; that the thirty acres were worth 5s. per annum ; that the said William de Mortimer and the Earl of Hereford were mediate between Hugh de Beaumes and the King.^^ In 1316, Hugh de Beaumeys was duly returned as Lord of the Manor of Dounington.^^ On April 33, 1334, styling himself Lord of Donynton, he grants to John de Beames his Brother, a messuage in Shakerlew, which John atte Syche held, and two parcels of adjacent land in addition, with two pieces of waste in Donynton Wood, &c., to hold to John and his heirs lawfully begotten, at a rent of 8*. payable to the Grantor and Helena his wife and the Grantor's heirs, for all services except heriots and suit of the Grantor's Court of Donynton. He also grants wood for fire and fence, and the accustomed rights of common for all the Grantee's own stock and for 240 sheep of other persons. If the Grantee die without lawful issue, then, the premises shall remain to John, son of said John, and his heirs lawfully begotten, whom failing remainder is limited to the right heirs of John Senior.^* AU that I can further say of Hugh de Beaumes, Lord of Don- ington, is that he was returned in 1334, as a Man-at-Arms liable to attend the Great Council summoned to meet at Westminster on May 30 in that year.^s A fine of the Manor of Donington levied in 1329, seems to indicate that Henry de Beaumeys was then Lord thereof. He, Henry, was no relation to Hugh, and therefore if any change had occurred it wiU have been rather by purchase than by ^ Ad quod damiwum, 9 Edvr. II, No. 121. ^ Farliamentary Writs, vol. it, p. 399. 2* Charter in possession of the Eev. Henry Bishton. This deed is dated at Donynton, on Sunday, in the close of Easter, IV Edw. II, and is attested by Eoger de Pulesdon, John Humfrey, John Carlas, 'William de Blymhyll, and Richard son of Syman Lucas. Sir Eobert de Atterlegh, Eector of Tong, is mentioned as an adjoining freeholder. 25 Parliamentary Writs, IV. 518. DONINGTON. 181 succession. This Fine shall be given at length, when I come, under Tong, to speak of the succession of the said Henry. Of the Undertenants at Neachley, Shakerley, and Kilsall, in Donington Manor, I have nothing more to say than has been implied already, or will appear in my notices of neighbouring places. HUMPHRESTON,— though mentioned in one instance as a Member of Albrighton, is much more generally associated with the Manor and Parish of Donington. I presume the place to have been named after some early Tenant thereof, of whose descendants, or of a family other- wise settled here, we have several distinct notices. — At the Assizes of 1203, William de Omfreeston was amerced for default f^ and at those of 1221, Leticia, Widow of William de Umfreiston, withdrew the suit of novel disseisin which she had against Walter de Beaumes for stopping up a road in Brewode to the injury of her free tenement in Umfreiston. Her Sureties were Henry de Bispeston and William Pitz Ralph. ^'' About the middle of the Century, Humphrey de Humphreyston occurs as a witness of some local charters. In 1272, among Pleas of the Crown connected with Brimstree Hundred, William de Unfreyston is entered as in misericordid for contempt.^^ At the Assizes of Oct. 1292, John de Unfreyston sat as a Juror for Brimstree Hundred, and I find the same person under the name of John Humfrey attesting deeds, or sitting on Juries under dates of May 31, 1295, July 11, 1296, June 6, 1300, and April 22, 1324. DONINaTON CHURCH. The Record, which so accurately enumerates five Salt-pits, a Mill, and a Wood as adjuncts of Donington Manor, in 1085, would hardly have omitted the Church had it existed at the time. We must therefore ascribe this Foundation to Earl Roger de Mont- gomery whom we know to have bestowed the Advowson thereof on Shrewsbmry Abbey .^' Donington Church will therefore have been built, endowed, and thus disposed of, within eight years of Domesday, for Earl Roger died in July 1094, if not a year earlier. ^ Salop Assizes, 5 John, m. 6 dorso. I ^' Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, 22 recto. "^ Salop Assizes,6Ren.in.,m.3diovBO. I ^s galop Chartulary, No. 2. ■ II. 24 182 DONINGTON. This grant to Shrewsbury Abbey received specific confirmation from King William (probably Ruf us), Henry I, Stephen, Henry II, and Henry III, in their various Charters to that House. The Monks of Shrewsbury were induced to consign this Advowson to Richard de Belmeis, Bishop of London, who, as Lord of the Manor, will have had special reasons for such an arrangement. The last moments of that great Statesman, when he lay dying at the Priory of St. Osyth, were devoted to certain formal acts of restitution, suggested either by some previous injustice of his own, or some doubt as to the honorable inclinations of his heir. His letter on the subject of his interest in Donington Church belongs undoubtedly to this period of his life, and was suggested by some such feeling. It is as follows, — " Richard Bishop of London to all the Barons of the County of Scropscire greeting. I will that ye tender testimony for the Monks of St. Peter, that Roger the Earl gave them the Church of Doninton before that I obtained the vill ; and I do have the same Church from them, not as a gift, but as a trust (non donatam sed prsestitam) as long as they may will. Farewell. "^^ Thus in January 1127, will the Monks of Shrewsbury have obtained a second title-deed to the Advowson of Donington. I should have observed that Earl Roger's grant of Churches to Shrewsbury Abbey was accompanied by a right of appropriation, subject only to the lives of existing Incumbents. Such a right must have been from the first exercised under Episcopal sanction. In the case of Donington it was commuted at a very early period for an annual pension of half-a-merk (6*. 8c?.), payable by the Incumbent to the Abbey. These rights of Advowson and Pension generally were confirmed to the Abbey by Charters of Roger de Clinton,^i Walter Durdent,^^ and other succeeding Bishops of Chester, Coventry, or Lichfield ; the specific pension of half-a-merk, I also find authorized in a Charter of Richard Peche,^^ Bishop of Lichfield from 1161 to 1182. In 1291, the Church of Doniton in the Deanery of Newport so Salop Chartulary, No. 353 b. 31 Harl. MSS. 3868, fo. 7, b, is un- doubtedly the Charter of Eoger de Clin- ton (1129-48). It confirms the Church of Donytone, with a pension of half-a-merk. ^ Salop Chartulary, No. 61. 33 Ibidem, No. 329. But a Charter of Eoger Bishop of Chester (No. 328) names a pension of Ss. 4-d. only as due from Doniogton. HoweTer the Confirmation of John de Peocham, Aj-chbishop of Can- terbury (No. 62), names the higher sum. DONINGTON. 183 stands taxed as of £2. 135. 4,d. annual value, but mention of the Abbot of Shrewsbury's pension is omitted.^* In 1341, the Commissioners assessed the parish of Dunynton at £\. 3s. 4c?. for the ninth of corn, wool and lamb. The reasons why it was assessed so low, were because a thirtieth of wheat was payable as tithe of one carucate held by the Abbot of Buildwas, and because another carucate held by the same Abbot lay untilled; also because the Prioress of the Nuns of Brewod had three caru- cates of land in the Parish and paid tenths thereon to the Pope, and because the glebe, small tithes, the mill, and other spiritualities went to swell the greater sum (the Taxation) and did not affect the ninth conceded to the King.^^ In 1534, the Rectory of Donyngton (of which Richai-d Hill was Incumbent) was of £14. gross annual value, which was chargeable with 13s. M. for Synodals and Procurations. — The Abbot of Shrewsbury still continued to receive, a pension of 6s. Sd. therefrom.28 EAKLY INCUMBENTS. The earliest of these, of whom I have any notice, was a victim of the times in which he lived. — At the Assizes of January 1356, the Jurors of Brimstree Hundred reported how Simon, Parson of Dunyton, had been slain by unknown Malefactors, who had also burnt his house, and how the vills of Dunyton, Tonge &c. had made no pursuit after the assassins.'^ At this period the murdered man had been succeeded by one named James, for at the same Assizes an issue was tried as to whether — Ranulph le Forester had unjustly erected a fence in Duniton to the injury of the free tenement of Hugh de Schenton in the same vill. Roger de Halcton (Haughton), Adam Pollard of Legh, Hugh de BuUinghal (Boningale), Thomas de Albrigton, Robert de Esthull (Astall), and John de Estwik, Recognizors in this cause. 3' Pope Nich. Taxation, p. 245. ^ Inquisitiones Nona/rum, p. 193. We know of no grants made to Buildwas Abbey in Douington Manor, except three acres and a right of Common by Eichard de Behneis. The Parish will therefore have originally been more extensive than the Manor, perhaps comprising part of Kucldey, or else the right of Common must have been ooramuted for a definite quantity of land within the Manor. ^^ Valor JEcolesiasticus, vol. iii, pp. 186, 189. ^ JPlacita Corona, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 9. 184 DONINGTON. did not appear. It was found however that Ranulph had erected the said fence in the name of James, Parson of Duniton ; — so Hugh the Plaintiff was found to be in miser icor did ?^ At the Assizes of September 1273, Henry de Belton, Parson of Donington subtus Brewode, having demised a messuage and half-virgate in Donington to Ranulf Russell, and the latter being sued for the same by John, son of John Gernyn, alleged his tenancy to be at will of said Henry, and so was dismissed sine dieP Richard de Albriston, the next Rector of Doniagton of whom I find any mention, died May 4, 1311, and on June 5 following, — Richard de Polyleye, Subdeacon, was admitted and instituted at presentation of the Abbot and Convent of Salop. This Rector has license for a year's study Nov. 6, 1313, and resigned April 27, 1320. On May 3 following,— Sir Thomas de Coventre, Chaplain, was admitted at the presentation of Salop Abbey. On March 10, 1329, he exchanged this preferment for the Vicarage of Wotton (Lichfield Diocese), and the late Vicar thereof, — Sir Roger de Boyvyle, was instituted here at the usual presentation. On Aug. 3, 1330, Sir Roger Doyvile {sic) exchanged for the Church of Chirchelalford (Church Lawford, Warwickshire)*" and the Incumbent thereof, — Robert le Vener, Priest, was instituted here on the usual presentation. He did not long hold the Living, for on July 9> 1339,— Nicholas de Wasthull, Rector of Donyngton, having exchanged this Rectory for that of ^ eston juxta Cammel (Bath and Wells Diocese), the late Rector of Weston, — John de Pencrich, was admitted here. Sir Thomas [sic) Penkcrych, Rector of Donington, died August 25, 1349, and on Feb. 11, 1350,— Roger de Umfreston, Chaplain, was admitted on the usual presentation.*^ Francis Sandford notices (in 1663-4) two coats of arms in Donington Church Windows, apparently the same as those which may still be seen there. They are — ^ Ibidem, memb. 15 recto {Flacita de Juratis et Assizis). ''' Salop Assizes, 56 Hen. Ill, memb. V recto. * Compare Dwgdale's WarwicTcshwe, p. 31 (Thomas's Edition). ^' Lichfield Registers, suh annis. BREWOOD FOREST. 185 1. Gu, ten Bezants, four, three, two, and one. II. The same, with a Chief erinme.*^ I take to be the coat of Belmeis Lord of Tong, as The first afterwards borne by his heir — La Zouche. perhaps be the coat of Belmeis of Donington. The second will 3Sreb30oti ^forest. Breude appears in Domesday as a Staffordshire Manor exclusively belonging to the Bishop of Chester. It contained a spacious wood still known as the Bishop's Wood, and which is noticed in Domesday as an adjunct of the Manor .^ But there was a large tract of land hereabouts of which neither the Shropshire nor Staffordshire Domesday takes any notice, but which doubtless formed an exclusive district at the time of the Survey, and was known for more than a Century afterwards as the Royal Forest of Brewood. Its extent may be clearly ascertained. — Weston and Bishop's Wood mark its Northern boundary ; Brewood and Chillington its Eastern; Albrighton, Donington, and Tong complete the circle to the South and West. I have before intimated that land exclusively of the Forest does not necessarily claim any notice in Domesday. Here then is an instance of the fact. This district occupied hundreds of acres both in Shropshire and Staffordshire, and the only hint which we have of its existence, or the King's appropriation thereof, is where he is said to have retained in his own hands some, probably adjoining, forest- ground in Albrighton.^ No notice has occurred to me of any Royal visit to Brewood or its Forest before the time of King John. That Monarch, whose daily movements for the greater part of his reign are well ascer- tained, is found to have been thrice at Brewood, viz. April 4, 1200, January 27-29, 1206, and August 18, 1207.^ Each of these visits ■•^ Dugdale's Visitation of Shropshire, fo. 42. • Domesday, fo. 247 a. 1. The Bishops of Coventry and Lichfield were generally styledof Chester in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. 2 Supra, p. 149. ' See the " Itinerary of King John," by T. DuffuB Hardy, Esq.,— printed in his Introduction to the Patent KoUs of that reign. 1.86 BKEWOOD FOREST. formed a halt in a journey between Lichfield and Kinver, and the adjacent Forest was doubtless the object of attraction. Never- theless it was King John himself who, by one grant after another, surrendered the more imperative rights of the Crown in regard to this district, so that after his reign we find no mention of Brewood as of a Royal Forest. I will quote one or two documents which indicate the progress of this suppression — On April 10, 1200, King John, after a visit to Brewood, having reached Worcester, addresses a precept to Geofirey Fitz Piers and Hugh de Nevill (then Chief Justice of England and the Justice of the Forest) prohibiting them from hindering the Bishop of Coventry in inclosing a Park in his wood of Brewude ; for which Park, to be two leagues in circumference, as weU as for fortifying Eccleshall Castle, the said Bishop had the King's License.* On March 13, 1204, the King being at Bruges issued his Charter to certify that he " had altogether disforested his Forest of Browud, in all respects pertaining to a Forest or Foresters. Wherefore the said Forest, and the men who dwelt therein, and their heirs, were to be disforested for ever, and quit of the King and his heirs, in all those same respects." ^ On Feb. 4, 1306, the King informs Hugh de Nevill that he has given the Bishop of Chester " license to make a decoy (saltorium) in his Park of Briwud towards the Forest ; and Hugh de Nevill is to allow it."" From this it would appear that the former Charter was not yet in full operation ; but the King's retention of his Forest-rights appears more clearly and at a still later period. At the Forest Assizes of March 1209, the following proceeding was duly registered : — " The Knights and men who live in Brewode in Salopesire give the King 100 merks that they and their heirs may be for ever dis- forested, according to that which is contained in the King's Charter which they, and the men of Staffordshire, have : — So that all they of the County of Salopesire who have hunted or taken beasts in Brewode within the County of Salopesir may bear their share of the aforesaid fine, rateably Avith the said Knights and men, according to their respective interests therein."'' At these same Assizes, John Bagot and Hamo de Weston were indicted for receiving Marksmen (Bersatores) and Hounds at ^ Sot. Chart. 1 John, memb. 25 dorso. I * Claus. 7 John, memb. 4. * Ibidem, 5 John, memb. 10. I ' P/ocifo2^oj-e«fe,Salop,No.u,memb.l. BREWOOD I'OREST. 187 Blymhill and Weston, but the result of this indictment does not appear.^ I find no later notice of Brewood as a Royal Forest nor of the Crown being seized of any lands in the district. A precept of King John, dated 26th July 1213, allows the Archbishop of Dublin to take thirty stags in Brewud Park ; but this precept is addressed to the Oust odes of the (then vacant) See of Coventry, from which I infer that the Bishop's Park was to supply the order.^ CISTERCIAN NUNNERY OP BREWOOD, NOW WHITE-LADIES. The Forest, whose boundaries and history I have been sketching, inclosed at the beginning of the 13th if not at the end of the 12th Century two principal objects of interest, viz. a Convent of Cistercian Nuns, whose house, dedicated to St. Leonard, and still known as White-Ladies, was in Shropshire, and a Convent of Black or Benedictine Nuns, whose house, dedicated tcr St. Mary, was in StafPordshire.io So far from constituting one foundation, as these establishments are sometimes taken to have done, they had nothing to connect them but their propinquity, and nothing in common but a spirit of mutual rivalry. It is with the Cistercian and Shropshire House alone that we are concerned, and this is the fittest time to speak of it. — Though associated with Donington more than any other place,^i the spot still retains some vestiges of its antient status. It is parochially and manorially independent. Its ruined wall and con- secrated precinct are still protected and venerated by members of the Faith under which it was founded. Its History, like itself, consists but of fragments, for, however ' Some words which seem to have stated the illicit objects of the accused are unintelligible. ' Clans. 15 John, memb. 3. ^^ I may, in a note, anticipate that third and more romantic interest which now attaches to this district. The Eoyal Eorest of Brewood gave place in course of time to farms and homesteads, one of which, as yet uncleared and unnamed, was afterwards to be known as Boscobel. Perhaps indeed, and at the very time of which we treat, the King's Forest was already nourishing that saphng oak which was destined in its maturity to shelter a King's person. '' Tanner makes this house to be in Brewood Parish, and so a part of Brewood Parish to be in Shropshire. Neither as- sumption is correct. The Nuns were called " of Brewood," not because their house was in Brewood Parish but in Brewood Forest. 188 BREWOOD FOREST. interesting to the Antiquary, no Chartulary of this House is known to exist ; we have not even a definite Legend as to its origin.^^ We are told, and I believe truly, that it was founded in the time of Richard I, or of John. It certainly was in full existence during the latter reign, for besides the grant in Bridgnorth which King John made to this Sisterhood, and which has been already spoken of,^^ his Charter dated September 1, 1312, gives them some immu- nities in regard to land at Calvreton (Co. Notts) of which they were previously possessed.^* Their further endowments, as far as Shropshire contributed, will be or have been detailed in different sections of this book, and where other Counties were concerned, must be epitomized in a note.^^ I may however here say that all details collectively warrant an idea that the property of this Sisterhood was acquired by gradual and small instalments, and that each item represents the consign- ment of some female member of a wealthy or powerful family to the service of Religion. No more direct and apparent Patronage of this House can be traced in its scattered history than that of the Diocesan Bishops. No consent of the Crown seems to have been necessary on the election of its successive Prioresses. — The Sisterhood elected their own Superior and the Bishop con- firmed or cancelled their choice. No Seal of the house is known to exist ;^^ no earlier Charter, •2 Mr. Dukes (Antiquities, p. 201) says indistinotively of these Black and White Nunneries, that "it is supposed that they were founded by Isabel Launder and Hubert "Walter about the year 1195." Part of this supposition may rest upon a Legend, and seems to require a passing note. If Hubert Walter ever founded a Nunnery, we know enough of him to declare that it was the Cistercian rather than the Benedictine Order which would have had his patronage. If again he ever founded a Shropshire Nunnery, it will have been at about the time indicated (1195-6) when he was Archbishop of Canterbury, Legate of the See of Eome, Viceroy of King Eiohard, and somewhat occupied in this County. His authority in Brewood Porest must, however, have existed solely under permission or direction of the King.— As to Isabel Launder, her name indeed is associated with the Black Nunnery of Brewood, but in a way singularly incon- gruous with any concern in its foundation. —She was its last Prioress, and as such surrendered it to the Commissioners of Henry VIII. " Supra, Vol. I, p. 361. " Sot. Chart. 14 John, memb. 5. The King calls the Sisterhood " Nuns of St. Leonard of Brewud." His Charter of Nov. 15, 1200, to the rival House describes it as the " Church of St. Mary of Brewud." (Rot. Chart. 2 John, memb. 20). '^ See Tanner's Notitia Monastica, under 'Shropshire;' Xfew Monasticon, vol. f, pp. 730, 731 ; Leland's Itinerary, vol. vii, p. 22; Unices' Antiquities of Shropshire, pp. 201, 202 ; Pope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 162. '" The two ' Seals alluded to by Mr. Dukes are both of Black-Ladies. BREWOOD FOREST. 189 original or transcript, have I been able to discover than that of King John. The names of a few Prioresses remain to us, viz. — Alditha, who has already occurred about 1225.1'' — Cecilia, who seems to have followed her. — Agnes, who occurs in 1256. — A letter of Bishop Roger de Northburgh, dated at Heywode, 10th Sept. 1326, directs search to be made through the Archdea- conry of Derby for Elizabeth la Zouche and Alice de Kallerhale, Nuns regularly professed of this House, who had left their Convent. They are when found to be admonished to return within ten days under pain of the Greater Excommunication. All who aid or abet their concealment are threatened with the like penalty.^^ A letter, by the same Bishop, as to a recent election of a Prioress of this House, will show the names and rank of some of the Sister- hood.i^ It bears date at Heywood, May 29, 1332, and recites as follows : — " that the Priory of White Nuns of Brewod had recently been vacant by resignation of Dame Joan de Huggeford, the last Prioress; that on the third day of the vacancy the Sub-prioress and Convent met in the Chapter House and agreed to elect a Prioress by method of Scrutiny; whereupon Agnes de Weston (Sub-prioress), Beatrice de Bures, and Joan GifFard were appointed Scrutineers to collect and announce the votes of the Convent ; that they did so ; and that the result was the election of Dame Alice de Harlegh, a Nun of the House." The Prioress-elect had apparently offered the usual opposition to her own promotion, and at last given the not less usual consent. The premises had been reported to the Bishop whose ratification was necessary. — He had ordered due inquiry to be made as to all particulars, and finding the process of election to have been informal, cancels it altogether, deprives the electing body of the power to elect on this occasion, and appropriates the same power to himself The Bishop then ("in his own Pontifical Authority") appoints the same Dame Alice de Harlegh to be Prioress, lest the Convent should suffer harm by a protracted vacancy, and because he has heard of the many virtues by which the said Alice is recommended to the office. — Sir Richard Morys, Chaplain, has the Bishop's mandate to induct and instal the new Prioress. >' Supra, Vol. I, p. 361. I '^ Ibidem Register, ii, fo. 210. '^ Lichfield Register, iii, fo. 19. I II. 25 190 BREWOOD FOREST. Dame Alice de Harley died in 1349, when Beatrice de Dene, Prioress-elect, and her Convent, agreed to submit such election to the order of the same Bishop. The Bishop in a letter dated at Heywod, July 29, 1349, appoints the said Beatrice to be Prioress, and orders the Archdeacon of Stafford to instal her."" At this period the site and local possessions of the Priory extended to three carucates of land, which, as we have seen under Donington, were estimated to be in that Parish. In 27 Henry VIII (1535-6), Dame Margaret, Prioress of this House, returned its gross annual income at £31. Is. 4d., its out- goings at £13. 10s. 86?., and its net income at £17. 10s. 8d. — The demesne lands at White Ladies contributed £6. 13*. 4d. of the gross income. The balance was made up by rents in Notting- hamshire, Staffordshire, and Shropshire. The latter arose from small parcels of land at Higley, Chatwall, Rudge, Bold, Sutton (Maddock), Rowton, High-Ercall, Berrington, Shrewsbury, Bridg- north, Ingardine, Tedstill, Beckbury, and Humfreston. The Advowsons of Muntford (Salop) and TydshuU (Derbyshire) also were appropriate to White-Ladies, and a pension from Bold Chapel, already alluded to. — Among the outgoings of the House was a chief rent of 10s. to the Lord of Donyngtonj an annual fee of 16s. 8d. to Thomas Gifforde, Esq. their Seneschal; and a Salary of £5. for the Chaplain, who by appointment of the Nuns performed services within their Monastery for the souls of their Founders,^! The Ministers' Accounts of 28 Henry VIII (1536-7) exhibit the gross income of this House as £35. 3s. 3d. — a difference arising from the addition of a few items of revenue, the alteration of others, and the valuation of the Demesne-lands and Manor being raised to £10. 9s. 6fi?.23 The Architectural Remains at White-Ladies consist of a Chapel in the Norman style with round Arches. From an ornament over the North Door, I should assign the work to the latter part of the twelfth Century. On the north side is an open round Arch which might have led into a Transept or Chapel. T T TD J. L. Petit. 2» Ibidem, fo. 224. '^' Valor Bcclesiasticus, Hi, 193, where the return is properly classified with other Shropshire Houses, while that of the Blaok-Ladies (p. 103) is with equal accu- racy given under StafFordshire. ^ Moiiasticon, t, V31. A M »ij ,t 1*1 'I 191 Coujj, Without hazarding a conjecture as to the etymology of this name I will proceed at once to state what Domesday says of the Manor, whilst as yet it was held in Demesne by the first Norman Earl of Shrewsbury. " The same Earl holds Tuange. Earl Morcar held it. Here are III hides geldable. In demesne are iiii ox-teams; and (there are) VIII serfs, and iii villains, and ii boors with m ox-teams. Here is one league of wood. In time of King Edward (the Manor) was worth £11. (annually) ; now it is worth £6."^ If there be a place in Shropshire calculated alike to impress the Moralist, instruct the Antiquary, and interest the Historian, that place is Tong. It was for centuries the abode or heritage of men, great either for their wisdom or their virtues, eminent either from their station or their misfortunes. The retrospect of their annals alternates between the Palace and theEeudal Castle, between the Halls of Westminster and the Council- Chamber of Princes, between the battle-field, the dungeon, and the grave. The History of the Lords of this Manor is in fact the biography of Princes and Prelates, Earls and Barons, Statesmen, Generals, and Jurists. These are the great names and reminiscences with which the place is associated ! — the Saxon Earls of Mercia, brave, patient, and most unfortunate ; — victims of inexorable progress : then their three Norman successors, one wise and politic, another chivalrous and benevolent, the last madly ambitious and monstrously cruel ; — then the Majesty of England represented by Hem-y I, a Prince who, in ability for ruling, almost equalled his Father, and has been surpas- sed by none of his Successors; — then the sumptuous and viceregal pride of De Belmeis, Bishop, General, Statesman, and withal very. Priest; — his collateral heirs with their various and wide-spread interests, dim in the distance of time, but traceable to a common origin ; — the adventurous genius and loyal faith of Brittany represented in La Zouche; tales of the oscillating favouritism 1 Domesday, fo. 253, b. 2. II. 25 § 192 TONG. and murderous treachery of King John; — overweening ambition and saddest misfortune chronicled in the name of De Braosej — a Harcourt miscalculating the signs of his time and ruined by the error; — a race of Pembruges whose rapid succession tells of youth and hope and the early grave; — then the open-handed and magnificent Vernons ; lastly, Stanley, a name truly English, and ever honourable in English ears, yet for one^ of whom it was fated to add a last flower to this chaplet of ancestral memories, to cut short the associations which five centuries had grouped around this fair inheritance. Such summarily is the history of which I am now to give a few of the earlier details. — That the Norman Earl of Shrewsbury should retain in demesne the richest Manors of his Saxon Predecessors was an act of compara- tive moderation. Tong and Donington were of this class at a period when a fertile, level, and well-watered soil can alone have constituted Manorial value. That the two Manors thus combined were objects of the EarFs special regard we may learn from the only fact which remains to us of his dealings therewith. — Within ten years after Domesday, he founded a Church in each of them. Churches were at that period so thinly scattered that the necessity of two so near together can have suggested itself only to a mind intent upon the welfare of a certain locality, and the district, thus cared for by the Earl, was doubtless honoured by his frequent presence. — There were woods wherein he might exercise his favorite diver- sion, waters which could supply so devout a Catholic with the proper means of abstinence, to say nothing, of the salt-works attached to Donington, — those essential adjuncts of a great feudal establishment. On the forfeiture of Earl Robert de Belesme, Tong and Donington will have been of the Demesne of King Henry I. How long they continued so, we know not ; we only know the fact, but not the time or particulars, of a grant which that Monarch must have made of both to his Viceroy, Richard de Belmeis, Bishop of London. Here then is a fitting opportunity to introduce a notice of this remarkable man whose public career for forty years was more or less associated with Shropshire. 2 Sir Edward Stanley, E:.B., Pather of the beautiful, but too famous, Tenetia, Lady Digby. She was her Father's Co- heir, and, had Sir Edward not sold the estate, Tong might have further been asso- ciated with the name of Sir Keuelm Digby. TONG. 193 It is intimated, by a respectable authority/ that Richard de Belraeis was, in the first instance, largely and confidentially employed by Earl Roger de Montgomery. If so, he was doubtless largely rewarded ; but being a Clerk, and his preferment probably Ecclesiastical, we cannot appeal to Domesday for any verification of this statement.* Nevertheless we find Richard de Belmeis prominent among the great men who attested the Charters of Earl Roger, and a witness also of all the Charters, genuine and doubtful, which are assigned to Earl Hugh, in the Register of Shrewsbury Abbey. His non-participation in the treason of Robert de Belesme is apparent and most probably recommended him to the notice and patronage of Henry I. Here I must again quote the Welsh Chronicle for specific details which can be supplied from no other source, but whose veracity is warranted by a most extraordinary coherence with less relevant documents. — Three Sons of Blethyn ap Convyn, Prince of Powis, had, in the first instance, allied themselves to Belesme, but the promises of King Henry had subsequently detached Jorwerth, the most influential though not the eldest of the three, from the confederacy. On the fall of Belesme, about August 1102, Jorwerth went to the King's Court to claim his reward, but without success. The King afterwards, probably mistrusting his intentions, invited Jorwerth to a conference at Shrewsbury. Jorwerth came, was accused of treason by the King's Commissioners and thrown into prison. This was at the close of the year 1102. The King's Commissioners who were sent to Shrewsbury on the occasion were " Richard de Belmersh or Beleasmo, afterwards appointed by King Henry to be Warden of the Marches and governour of the Countie of Salop : Walter Constable, the father of Milo Earle of Hereford, and Rayner the King's lieutenant in the County of Salop."— If this be correct it shows us that Rainald, the Domesday Sheriff of Shropshire, had not joined Belesme's rebellion, but was in ofiBce at a subsequent period. It also shows that Richard de 3 FoweVs Chronicle, p. 120 (Edit. 1584). " Cheefe dooer about Roger Moimtgomery , Earl of Salop." * Domesday does not record the names of ChurcK Incumbents or Church Digni- taries ; but the Earl had large patronage of this kind, and we know from Ordericus that he specially affected the society of wise Clerks. Richard de Belmeis' pro- bable tenure of a lay fee at Meadowley has been already pointed out (Vol. I, p. 149), and I am by no means sure that he does not occur elsewhere in Domesday, and in a similar relation. 194 TONG. Belmeis did not become Sheriff or Viceroy immediately on Belesme's fall. — And the latter fact can be substantiated by other evidence. — A Precept of King Henry restores, to Ralph Bishop of Chichester, land near the wall of that City, which he had held " in the day of Robert de Belismo." This precept is addressed to R. de Belmes, Hugh de Faleyse, and all the King's Barons of Sussex. It shows Richard de Belmeis in the King's employ indeed, and as concerned with the escheated honours of Robert de Belesme, but not yet holding office in Shropshire. And this precept passed " in Council at Westminster ; " — assuredly that very Council which the King is said to have held there at Michaelmas 1102.^ Within the next two months Belmeis will have been sent to Shrewsbury on the commission already described, and, as I believe, for more permanent objects. In fact, there is every reason to think that this Commission closed the Shrievalty of Rainald, and that Belmeis succeeded him, — but with fuller powers than an ordinary Sheriff, and having a deputy (Fulcoius) to discharge the routine duties of the office. This will appear from another precept of King Henry,, the object of which was to support the title of the Monks of St. Remigius-at-Rheims to certain lands in Shropshire. This precept is addressed to " Richard de Belmeis, and Fulqueius the Sheriff and all the Barons of Salopesire." It is dated "at Westminster, in Council," and issued certainly at Christmas 1102.« The Chartulary of St. Remigius-at-Rheims supplies us with another, and perhaps later precept of King Henry, which I quote here merely to show that Belmeis was on that occasion addressed simply as Sheriff of Salop ; '' but I have before alluded to the ' Monasticon, viii, 1168, No. xxTiii. William de Werelwast, sole witness of this deed, attests many of the King's Charters at this period. He was sent as Ambassador to the Pope in 1103, and was consecrated Bishop of Exeter in 1107. ^ We have two copies of this Deed (Monasticon, vii, p. 1043 ; v ; and p. 1099), one of which serves to correct the other. The sole witness, Walter or Waldric, Chaplain, attests other deeds of the period; but immediately aftci-wards he became Chancellor, and as Waldrio or Walter, Chancellor, attests various deeds, the earliest of which bears date Jan. 13, 1103. Thus we obtain the limits within which this precept issued, viz. between Michaelmas 1102 (when Belmeis was not yet Viceroy) and Jan. 1103 (when Wal- dric was Chancellor). The Court which King Henry held at Westminster (Christ- mas 1102) is noticed by the Chroniclers and supplies the exact date. ? Monasticon, vii, p. 1043 ; vii ; and p. 1099. The precept is also addressed to Bobert Bishop of Chester, and Nicholas Sheriff of Stafford. It is tested by Henry Earl of Warwick, at Waltham. TONG. 195 complex nature of his office, and the variety of names by which it was consequently described.^ Within the first five years of his provincial trust we have a well-recorded instance of his " violence and might," followed however by the exercise of milder powers in his capacity of a Mediator and Judge.** Of that however hereafter. We now pass to his ecclesiastical career. — On Whitsunday (May 24), 1108, he was elected to the vacant See of London, and, not being in full Orders, was ordained Priest on one of the following Ember days (May 27, 29, or 30), by Archbishop Anselm at Mortlake.^" In July of this year the King was waiting on the coast of Sussex to embark for Normandy. Anselm came, at the King's request, to the sea-port that he might give the King his blessing, ere he sailed. On the night of his arrival Anselm was seized with sudden illness, and when morning came was so weak as to be unable to cross an arm of the sea which separated his hospice from that of the King. The Monarch, hearing thereof, sent the Bishops of Exeter and Winchester to excuse Anselm's attendance, and to recommend perfect rest. He however commended himself in his journey to the Archbishop's regard, his Son, whom he left behind, and his whole Kingdom, to the Archbishop's care. He besought him moreover, by the love he bore him, that he would consecrate Richard, Bishop-Elect of London, at Chichester, since that City was near, and there were Bishops at hand who could assist in the ceremony. The reason, says Eadmer, why the King was so urgent about this matter was alleged to be as follows : — "because the said Richard was a most able man in secidar affairs and the King was arranging to send him, on the instant, far off to the Western Marches of England, there to manage the King's concerns. Anselm had special reasons for not consecrating Belmeis at Chichester, but to oblige the King he performed the ceremony in his own Chapel at Pageham, on Sunday, July 26, the Bishops of Winchester, Salisbury, Chichester, and Exeter assisting."^^ 8 Supra, Vol. I, p. 245. ' Salop Chartulary, No. 1. i» Eadmer, p. 96. " Eadmer, pp. 96, 97. I hare been particular in giving these details, because in the Sheriffs of Shropshire (p. 31) Belmeis is assumed to have relinquished his provincial office on his Consecration. The probability is that lie returned to Shropshire with larger powers than ever. — I by no means adopt the reflection which in the same page is cast upon PoweVs Chronicle. Its coincidences with ascertained truth are wonderful. 196 TONG. Thus much from the Diary of Eadmer, the friend and companion of Anselm himself^ and by far the most accurate of the Chro- niclers of that age. On August 9, 1108j "Bishop Belmeis assisted at the consecration of Radulph Bishop of Rochester^ and made a handsome offering to his Mother-Church of Canterbury, as indeed the King had desired him to do." Now, probably, Belmeis retiimed to Shropshire, for the Welsh Chronicler describing him as " Richard, Bishop of London, whom the King had appointed Warden of the Marches," says he was at Shrewsbury in this year. There was a disturbance in Wales, for Owen ap Cadogan ap Blethyn, a Prince of the house of Powis, had forcibly carried off the wife and children of an Englishman, — Gerald Steward of Pembroke. The Bishop is represented as forthwith treating with Ithell and Madoc, sons of Riryd ap Blethyn (and so cousins of Owen) whom with other Welsh Chieftains he bribed to take or kill the offender, and revenge the insult offered to the King of England. Owen escaped to Ireland, but returning within the year was fortunate in finding his enemy Madoc ap Riryd at variance with the Bishop. The latter had, it seems, required Madoc to deliver up certain English Felons whom he was harbouring. Madoc refused, and his quarrel with the Viceroy led to his reconciliation with Owen, and their joint attack, in the following year, on the lands of all Norman or English settlers in Wales. Towards the end of ]\Iay 1109, King Henry returned from Nor- mandy, and the Viceroy of Shropshire was forthwith in attendance at Court. Archbishop Anselm being dead, it fell to this aspiring Prelate's lot to consecrate Thomas, Archbishop of York. This cere- mony took place on June 27, 1109, in the Church of St. Paul's, London. In the Autumn of this year the King visited Shropshire and Nottinghamshire. It was at Castle-Holgate that he issued his writ, appointing Hervey, Bishop of Bangor, to the newly created See of Ely. It was also, as I suppose, during this Royal visit that the Bishop of London adjudicated, in the King's presence, that suit about a Prebend of Morville which has been already described.^^ The Bishop of London passed on with the King to Nottingham, and '2 Supra, Vol. I„ p. 32. The Assessors I PeTerel, Roger and Robert Corbet, and in this trial were Alan Fitz Tlaald, Hamo I Herbert son of Helgot. TONG. 197 on Oct. 17, attended the General Council, at which was finally settled the constitution of the See of Ely. At Christmas 1109, the King held another great Court at London, and with more than usual pomp. Thomas, Archbishop of York, was in attendance, expecting that, the See of Canterbury being vacant, he would have to celebrate mass before the King and place the Crown on the King's head. The Bishop of London however led the King by the hand into Church and performed the said ceremonies. Afterwards, meeting at the King's table, the two Pre- lates again disputed about their precedence, whereupon the King dismissed them both to dine at home, not wishing to hear their quarrel. The Bishop of London's conduct on this occasion was justified by him on two grounds, viz. that being Dean of Canterbury he was the proper representative of the Primacy ; and that his Con- secration having preceded the Archbishop's he was, according to St. Gregory's Institutes, the superior. Eadmer, who relates all this, knew in fact that it was for the sake of attaining this precedence that Belmeis had hurried forward his own consecration, though other grounds (as above related) had been given out to the public. Eadmer had the truth not only from private friends of the Bishop, but from the Bishop's own acknowledgment in familiar conversation with Eadmer himself.-'^ Belmeis now probably returned to Shropshire, where the unsettled state of the Border must have required his constant presence. Owen and Madoc, before mentioned, had wound up their enormities by the murder of a Bishop, William de Brabant, which so enraged the King that they thought it prudent to retire for a time to Ireland. The year 1110 however found Madoc again in the Principality and ready to purchase the favour of Belmeis. This he effected by murdering Cadogan ap Blethyn, Owen's Father, whom, with his said son Owen, the Bishop most specially detested. Madoc was rewarded by Belmeis with a grant of lands, but Owen, returning at the same time from Ireland, effected a separate reconciliation with the King, in person. This is the last direct notice which we have of the interference of Richard de Belmeis in Welsh affairs. The grossest treachery seems to have pervaded this part of his policy, but it was perhaps balanced by specific circumstances with which, of course, the Welsh Chro- niclers do not acquaint as. They draw, however, a general picture of Wales and its Rulers, faithful enough, and which warrants a " Eadmer, p. 105. II. 26 198 TONG. suspicion of the very worst particulars. The King invaded the Country in 1114, but his success, whether in arms or negotiation, had no permanent results. Utter subjugation came in the course of ages to cure those inherent evils, which Wales self-governed must have fostered and suffered from, till the end of time. Of the duration of Belmeis' power in Shropshire we have no direct information. The apparent dates of the various precepts which the King addressed to him in that capacity, must sufiBce for our information on this head. The latest of these I have already quoted, as having passed between 1121 and 1123.^* His resignation at a somewhat later date will appear probable from circumstances presently to be mentioned. Of Belmeis as a Jurist, we know little more than the great authority with which he was invested, and which, within his Pro- vince, was equal to that of Royalty itself. What appears more extraordinary still is, that he should be found presiding at a purely Ecclesiastical Synod of the district. His judgments, the few which remain, belong properly to the localities which they affected. Two of them are preserved to us in his own words as he recorded them in the royal form and style of Letters Patent. The first was given apparently about a. d. 1110, in a Court composed of Church Digni- taries and Laymen which sat at Wistanstow. The second was his decision given in an Archidiaconal Synod at Castle Holgate, about 1115.^^ The extraordinary prescriptive rights of W^enlock Priory were on both occasions in question, and Belmeis supported them with most determined and transparent zeal. Something more should be said of his, not very frequent, appearance in the King's Court or in company with his fellow Suffragans, something too of his connection with his own See and Diocese. On August 1111, he was with the King at Waltham (Hants), where the latter was waiting to embark for Normandy. In Sep- tember 1114, he attended the King when similarly delayed at Bumham (Essex). On June 27, 1115, he was present at the En- thronement of Archbishop Ralph at Canterbury; and, on Dec. 28 " Supra, Vol. T, p. 246. He is both addressed in, and stands first witness to, a Charter of Henry I, which passed at Shrewsbury in the same interval. (Salop Chartulary, 46, c.) ^ Fat. 22 Edw. Ill, p. 3, memb. 34. King Edward treats the Bishop's acts with the same respect as those 'of any Eing his predecessor ; — e.g. "Inspeximns litteras patentes quas Celebris memorise Eicardus Londinensis Episcopus fecit Wenlooensi Ecolesise in hsec verba." TONG. 199 following, attended with the King and Queen at the Dedication of the Abbey Church of St. Alban's. On April 4,, 1120, he assisted at the Consecration of David, Bishop of Bangor; on January 16, 1121, at that of Bichard, Bishop of Hereford ; and on October 2, 1121, at that of Gregory, Bishop of Dublin ; which last two took place at Lambeth. In this same year he attests Boyal Charters at Windsor and West- minster. On February 16, 1123, William Curboil, Prior of St. Osyth's (a house of Belmeis' foundation), was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury. William Gifford, Bishop of Winchester, performed the ceremony, apparently because the Bishop of London was at the time suffering from paralysis. ^^ He will, however, have affixed his own signature to a great Charter which Henry I expedited, later in the same year, to the Church of Exeter .17 William of Malmsbury, speaking of Maurice, Belmeis' prede- cessor in the See of London, commends him for his magnificent improvements in St. Paul's Cathedral. " But such," he adds, " was the extravagance of his design that he left his successors to pay the cost of his vast undertakings. And at length, when Richard his Successor had assigned all the Episcopal Revenue to the building, supporting himself and his kindred from other sources, he seemed as though he accomplished nothing in proportion to such a prodigal outlay. Wherefore as years passed by he grew weary and despairing of the good intent which he entertained in his early Episcopacy, and by degrees fainted therein." " There is a place," continues Malmsbury, " in London Diocese, commonly called Cic (Chich)bythe East-Saxons, where rests Saint Osyth, that Virgin famous for miracles. This house had Richard amplified with certain grants of land and the introduction of Regular Canons. There were here, and still are. Clerks of noted learning; and a joyful harvest, so to speak, clothed the whole country under the example of men thus trained. And the Bishop himself was at one time minded to retire hither and cast off the ensnarements of the world, especially as he had experienced some warning from a chronic paralytic disorder ; but the habit of power restrained his mind, diseased as it was with such allurements. William, who succeeded Ralph in the Archiepiscopacy, was the first Prior of this House, who, though a Clerk, and at first 16 Diceto, p; 504. | '' MonasUcon, ii, 539, 20. 200 TONG. dreaded by the Monks (of Canterbury), yet did nothing to cause them regret, being a man of sound religion, great affability, and neither slothful nor hasty ."^^ Richard de Belmeis, besides his greater donations to St. Paul's Cathedral and the Priory of St. Osyth, was also a Benefactor to the Nunnery of Clerkenwell. There is much probability that at the last, he retired to St. Osyth's and died there. The latter event took place on January 16, 1127. When he felt his end approaching, he was careful to make formal record of a certain act of restitution which he owed to the Abbey of Shrewsbury. His Confessors were his own Nephew William, Dean of St. Paul's, and Fulk, a Prebendary of the same Church, who had succeeded William Corboil in the Priory of St. Osyth. The said Prior certified this act of restitu- tion in a series of letters addressed to the King, to William, Archbishop of Canterbury, to Bernard, Bishop of St. David's, and to Gr (Geoffrey), Abbot of Salop. — The Archbishop transmitted his intelligence to Pagan Fitz John (then Sheriff) and all the Barons of Shropshire.^' This restitution related to the Manor of Betton. Another, not so circumstantially recorded, was of the Church of Donington. It has been already noticed. A third was of the Church of Tong, and perhaps took place before the Bishop was in extremis. It was tested by Roger, Archdeacon of Salop, Clarembald the Clerk, and John, Clerk of the Queen .^^ The Canons of St. Osyth procured the interment of their dis- tinguished Benefactor, within their Priory Church, where a marble tomb long bore the following inscription : — Hie jacet Richardus Beauveis, cognomine Rufus, London : Epis- copus, vir probus et grandsevus, per totam vitam laboriosus, fundator noster religiosus, et qui multa bona nobis et ministris ecclesise suae Sancti Pauli contulit. Obiit xvi Januarii, mcxxyii. Cujus animse propitietur Altissimus.^i Belmeis, during his occupancy of the See of London, appears to have conferred some Prebendal preferment on his relations, and one at least of these would seem to have had something more than a 18 W. Malmsbury, p. 134 b. " Salop Chartulary, Nob. 22, 23. ^ Ibidem, No. 329 b. The Queen, whose Clerk attested this deed, was, I doubt not, Adeliza, who had been pre- sented with the County of Salop at a great Court held in the Christmas of 1126. '"' Weaver's Sepulchral p. 607. TONG. 201 collateral claim upon his consideration. We have nothing however here to do with the Prebendaries of St. Paul's. Belmeis' successor in all those Churches and lands in Shropshire, which having first belonged to Godebald (the Priest) and Robert son of Godebald, had been conferred by Henry I on the deceased Prelate, was Richard de Beimels his Nephew. The latter had a special grant of the same from the King, which is preserved, and must have passed about August 1127.^^ This second Richard de Beimels was son of Walter de Beimels, brother of Richard de Beimels I. I shall have to notice him again as Founder or Co- founder of Lilleshall Abbey, and also as eventually occupying the See of London. The temporal heir of Richard de Beimels (I), was another son of his Brother Walter, viz. Philip de Beimels, of whom as succeeding to the Lordships of Tong and Donington I am now to speak. When Richard de Beimels on his deathbed directed the restora- tion of Betton to Salop Abbey, he intimated the possible alternative that his Nephew Philip might be able to re-obtain it by the good will and free concession of the Monks. Fulk, Prior of St. Osyth,. before the Bishop had expired, informed Philip de Beimels, his Knights and serving-men, of the expressions of his Uncle and the state of the case. It appears however that Philip did not acquiesce in the proposed restitution. A suit in the King's Court ensued, and a trial was to have been held before the King and the Archbishop of Canterbury at Woodstock, probably about Easter 1127. — Then however Philip de Beimels made default (defecit a jus- titia) and Betton was restored to the Abbey, Archbishop William, Legate of the Apostolick See, certifying the same to all the faithful.ss Philip de Beimels next appears in litigation with Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Lichfield. Philip had seized upon some land (probably lying between Tong and Brewood) to which the Bishop had a claim. The latter was consequently, in 1130, indebted two merks to the King, his fine " that Philip de Beimels might try legal issue with him (placitet versus eum)" as to the land so seized.^ Between this time and the year 1135, we find Philip de Beimels holding three Knights' Fees in the Honour of Arundel.^^ We have 22 Monastieon, vi, p. 262, No. ii. 23 Salop Chartukry, No. 56. ^-i Mot. Fip. 31 Hen. I, Staffordshire, p. 76. 25 Liber Ifiger, i, 65. — The Liler Niger is mainly a return of the years 1165-6, and the much earlier date which I thus confidently assign to a particular section 202 TONG. already seen his Uncle the Bishop, interested in the County of Sussex, and the Nephew's tenure there had doubtless devolved to him from that source. It was probably this Sussex Tenure which, in the year 1138, separated Philip de Belmeis from the cause for which the greater Eeodaries of Shropshire were contending, and associated his inter- ests with those of an Usurper. When Stephen, in August of that year, was besieging Shrewsbury, Philip de Belmeis was with him, and attested the Charter whereby the King confirmed the then recent foundation of Buildwas Abbey. ^^ thereof needs explanation. I enter into the question more fully as I shall again have to quote this document with refer- ence to Shropshire names. — The Earl of Arundel making a return in 1165-6 of the Knights' -Fees in the Honour of Arundel, prefaces his statement thus : — " Our Lord King Henry, on occasion of a certain dispute which arose among the Knights of the Honour of Arundel about a certain Army of Wales, chose four of the better, more legal, and more ancient Knights, and caused them to make recognition of the Knight's serrice of the Honour ; and he was unwilling thereafter to listen to any one touching the legality of those four Knights' decision and their sworn return. And this was their re- cognition," &c. This preface (which I translate from the original and not from Hearne's inaccurate transcript) is followed by a list of the lands and persons on which and on whom the said four Knights assessed the relative proportions of service. Among them is the name of PhiHp de Belmeis, assessed at three fees ; of Alan de Dunstanvill, assessed at eight fees ; of Hugo de Faleise, assessed at five fees ; and of Savaric, as- sessed at three fees. ThenfoUows a further statement made by the Earl himself of such Feoffments as he had since granted in the Honour. My position is, that the King Henry alluded to was Henry I and not Henry II, and that the " army of Wales" must have been levied in or before 1135, when Henry I died. Mr. Stapleton has already pointed out that the return made by the four Knights was referable to an earlier period than 1165. He identified the "army of Wales" spoken of with that of 1159 (meaning, I suppose, 1157). Vide Hot. Norman, ii, xxxiij. The same internal evidence which led Mr. Stapleton to that discovery leads me stUl further. Savario, one of the Tenants of the Honour, was dead in Stephen's reign, and liis Son and Successor, Ralph, dead before 1157. Alan de DunstanvUl also was dead before 1156, and Hugh de Faleise, a, third Tenant, has occurred to us as a man of great trust in Sussex fifty years before Mr. Stapleton's date of 1159. Less proof than this would suffice; for, having once established the date of the four Knights' assessment to be earlier than 1156, we must go back at least to 1135. There was no intermediate "army of Wales" levied by any King Henry. Now Henry I meditated an invasion of Wales in 1135. We do not indeed hear of the levy of an EngHsh army on that occasion, and the King's immediate death (Dec. 1135) is hardly consistent with his alleged uuwiUingness to disturb the as- sessment, if of the current year. Yet I cannot help referring the whole matter to that year. At all events the assessment appears to be later than 1130. ^ Monasticon, v, 356, No. i. PhUip de Belmeis had also witnessed the Foundation Charter itself, which was by Bishop Roger de Clinton, and passed in 1136 or early in 1137. (Blakeway 's MSS. ; Parochial Notices, i, 76.) TONG. 203 Belmeis' personal interest in that House, was soon afterwards shown more substantially by a grant of his own. The original deed is extant and as a document of great interest and bearing upon a very obscure period of County History, must be given entire. ^ Notum sit omnibus hominibus et amicis meis tarn Francis quam Anglis quod ego Philippus de Belmes dono et concedo ecclesise Sanctse Marise et Sancti Ceddae de Bildewas et Abbati omnique Conventui ejusdem loci terram quae fuit Selferi de Roche- lai pro salute animse meae totiusque prolis mese, liberam et quietam ab omni temporali servitute. Preterea sciatis me concessisse illis omnia necessaria sua simul cum pasnagio suo de bosco meo de Luseiard et de Brewud et communem pasturem de Thonga in bosco et piano. Igitur tam pro hiis quam pro aliis beneficiis pre- fato loco a me adjunctis ego et Matilda uxor mea et heredes mei suscipimur in fraternitatem ejusdem ecclesise de Bildewas et matris ecclesiae de Savinneio et omnium aliarutn ad illam pertinentium. Quapropter precipio et precor omnes qui mihi sint amici ut eandem elemosynam manuteneant et defendant sicut diligunt salutem animse mese atque meorum. Unde etiam in confirmacionem hujus mese donacionis presentemcartam sigillo meo munio et testes assigno. Testes, Robertus de Belmes, Herbertus de CasteUo Nicholas frater ejus. Philippus filius Odonis, Helias de Sai, Johannes Bagot, Robertus de Girros, Hugo de Sai, Robertus Capellanus, Thuroldus de Mainnio. Signum Philippi de Belmes. Signum Philippi filii ejus. Signum Matildse uxoris ejus Signum R filii ejus.^^ This Charter must have passed about 1138 or 1139. It shows Ruckley to have been at that period a member of the Manor of Tong. It shows the latter to have comprised the Lizard and to have extended far towards Brewood. It gives us a list of witnesses to which I shall often have to recur. It furnishes the names of the Grantor's wife and heir, and we shall see that his second son Ranulph must be the person indicated by the initial letter-R. ^ Charter in possession of George Pritchard, Esq., of Broseley. Of the two Seals originally attached to this in- valuable document, the first (that of the Grantor) is broken, the second (probably that of his wife) is gone. The marks were evidently added by the parties under whose names they stand. The deed is translated in Mr. Dukes' Appendix (page Ixv) and supposed to be of date "about 1150." 204 TONG. It illustrates the connexion in which Philip stood to the Lord of Castle Holgate (Herbert), viz. as his Tenant at Meadowley. Its further significances I must at present postpone. — Philip de Belmeis' patronage of the Order of Savigny was for some reason or other soon withdrawn. Not ten years after his grant to Buildwas, he is seen to be promoting, if not himself founding an Abbey in the immediate neighbourhood of Tong, and of a totally different class. Nay further, his mode of establishing this second House must have materially diminished the value of his former benefits to Buildwas. Philip de Belmeis was in fact the originator of that great Augustine institution which was, through the further favour of his Brother Richard, eventually to find an establishment at Lilleshall. His deed of Foundation runs as follows, — " To his Lord and most beloved Father, Roger the venerable Bishop of Chester, and to all other prelate and subject sons of Holy Church, Philip de Belmeis, greeting in the Lord. Know, O Father, and O beloved brotherhood of Prelates and Subjects, that I have given and conceded in lasting almoigne and perpetual possession, for the souls of my Father and Mother, of my wife, and of my other Ancestors ; and for the health of myself, my wife and children (fUiorum), all the land which is contained between Wathlingestreete and Merdiche, for the foundation of a Church in honour of the Holy Mary, Mother of God, to Canons of the Order of Arroasia, who having come from the Church of St. Peter at Dorchester, are there regularly serving God and St. Mary; (I give it) free and quit, and absolved of all secular service and exaction. I concede also to them advantage of the neighbouring woods, both for fire and for building materials. I have also added the Church of St. Elena of Aessevi (Ashby, Co. Leicester), with the Church of Blackfordbi, to which sixty acres are attached, and with its other appurtenances. I have further added in the same vill of Aessibi all that land of my demesne, which is called Suarteclive, and also the land of Haco Sutor; and tithe of my mills in the same vill ; and tithes of my herds, viz., of mares and colts; and tithes of my pannage; and free pannage for their swine, and advantage of my wood, both for fire and building materials. Of this donation then and concession these underwritten are Witnesses : Robert, Bishop of Hereford ; Philip son of Philip de Belmis, who is not only a witness but a Promoter and Conceder (Conditor et Concessor) of the aforesaid almoigne ; TONG. 205 Dame Matilda, daughter of William Meschin,^ wife of Philip de Belmis aforesaid ; Herbert de Castello, Hugo de Cuilli, Hugo de Say, Philip Fitz Odo and Roger his Brother; Roger de Ewias, Robert Clerk, Walter de Aessebi. Farewell in the Lord to thy Holiness. Amen." ^' This Charter passed undoubtedly after the grant to Buildwas above recited and before May 1145 ; for at the latter date, these Arroasian Canons, having migrated from Tong to Donington Wood, under the auspices of Richard de Belmeis, Dean of St. Alkmun4's, were called Canons of Duninton. They found soon afterwards a more permanent resting place at Lilleshall, and when settled there, continued to enjoy all the benefits conferred on their fraternity by Philip de Belmeis. The Lizard however instead, of being the Site of their house, became as we shall see, only a Grange thereof. There are other points in Philip de Belmeis' Charter which require notice. Two boundaries of the land granted for the foundation of a Church are named. These are Watling Street, the Northern boundary, and Meredich, which I conclude to have been the Eastern, and identical with the rivulet which flowing from North to South, now supplies a spacious artificial lake known as Tong-Mere. The Western limit of Belmeis' grant will consequently have been the Manor of Idsall, its Southern his own domain of Tong. The Lizard Grange, thus bounded, is still in name a Grange, and though the locality be otherwise unremarkable, it has its interest to the Antiquary, as having been the germ and once proposed site of an establishment, which grew elsewhere to great magnificence. 28 It does not appear who WiUiam Mesohin, Father of Matilda de Behneis, was. Dugdale'B aeoount {Baronage, i, 89) of WiUiam de Mesohines, lord of Coup- land, and Brother of Kanulph Earl of Chester, would not, as far as date is con- cerned, except him from being the person named. But this William de Mesohines appears erentually to have been repre- sented by a daughter and sole heir, Cecily wife of Kobert de Romdy. However, Dugdale's, and indeed all other accounts of the Barony of De Mesohines, are either confused or inconclusive, and I think it II. possible that further evidence may connect Matilda with that house. The second WiUiam D'Albini of Bel- Toir is also said to have been sxmiamed Meachines. A probat)ility that his family might intermarry with that of Belmeis, arises from their relative positions in the same County (Leicestershire) j but the era of the Albini specified is too late to allow of his having been Father of Matilda de Belmeis. 2' Monasticon, vi, 262 ; iii ; — where the document is accurately printed in the original Latin. 37 206 TONG. It is probable that Philip de Beimels' possession of Ashby (now Ashby de la Zouch) and Blackfordby in Leicestershire arose under a grant thereof by Henry I, to his Uncle the Bishop. Be that as it may, we have now seen Philip seized of lands in Shropshire, Sussex, and Leicestershire. It is almost certain that he had Manors also in Staffordshire, and probable that some estates in Cheshire and other Counties which were held by his heirs were derived from him. The last feature which I shall here notice ia his Charters is that attestation by Tenants of the Honour of De Lacy which may serve to throw some light on a great and as yet unexamined genealogical problem. I cannot suppose that Philip de Belmeis long survived his grant to the Arroasian Canons of Dorchester. Of Philip de Belmeis the younger I have only one notice as his Father's Successor. Calling himself Philip, Son of Philip de Beumes, and addressing Walter, Bishop of Coventry (who sat from Oct. 1149 to Dec. 1159), he confirms to "the Canons Regular of St. Mary of Lilleshill, of the Order of Arroasia, aU the land which lies between Watlingestret and Merdische, and also the Church of Aessibi with that of Blackfordbye."^" Philip de Belmeis junior, who was living at the time of Henry II's ^ Dodsworth, toI. cx, fo. 43, b. I am fayovired by T. Eossell Potter, Esq., with another transcript of this deed, including the Testing Clause, which is very impor- tant. The names given are Bichard Bishop of London (consecrated 28 Sept. 1152), Kichard Archdeacon of London (omitted in Le Neve's List), Hugo k Lon- don, Badulf de Belmeys " my Brother," Peter Fitz WiUiam, Roger de Arundel, Bichard de Belmeys, WUliam de Costen- teine " my Knights," and Boger " my Clerk," and Eobert Fitz William, WiUiam de Pontefracto, Bolfert de Belmeys, Wil- ham his Brother, Peter " Candarius (Qy. Camerarius) mens," Maurice Pincema, Eobert Camerarius, and other Servants of the Bishop of London. — The deed therefore passed between 1152 and 1159. Another transcript by Dods- worth (vol. 141, fo. 49, b.) gives Hugh Archdeacon of London, and Philip Fitz WiUiam, as second and fourth witnesses. Dodsworth appends to this deed his idea of the descent of Belmeis and La Zouche. The scheme is however inconsistent with the very evidence on which Dodsworth founds it. A Trial about the Manor of Betton, which is recorded on the Bolls of HUary Term, 1226, gives WiUiam de Belmeis as the Brother and next heir of Philip Junior, and omits all mention of Banulph. This is a mere mistake of the Law-Clerk. At a previous stage of the same suit, during the County Assizes of 1221, the descent was declared to have been as stated in the text; and much secondary evidence confirms the better authority of the Provincial Becord. The annexed Pedigree of Belmeis and La Zouohe is, I beheve, accurate in aU points which it distinctly asserts. The doubts which are inseparable from such an investigation I have indicated by waved hues, or such other marks as seemed suitable for the purpose. TONG. 207 accession (1154), was succeeded by his Brother Ranulph, of whom I have the following notices. In a donum of the Knights of Nottinghamshire, recorded Michaelmas 1159, Radulf de Bealmes' proportion (two merks) is pardoned by writ of the King.^^ A Certificate remains on the Salop Chartulary, whereby Ranulph de Belmeis, addressing all his heirs, kindred, friends, and vassals, tells them that he came before the full County of Salop and there acknowledged that he wrongfully held Betton, which belonged to the Monks of Shrewsbury, and which his Ancestors had unjustly held. He restored it, and was thereupon received into the Society of the said Monks. Of this were witnesses the Barons and Knights of the whole County .^^ In the lAber Niger (1165-6), his return as a Tenant in capite is not preserved. His Tenure at Meadowley, indicated in that Record, has been already noticed. But a Tenure of three Knights' Fees held by him under the Baron Stafford at that period, is fully stated and requires particular notice. These fees were apparently of old feoffment, that is, had been bestowed on RanulFs ancestors before the death of Henry I. His Under-Tenant in two thereof was John Bigod (Bagod) and ia the third, Hervey de Wilbrichtone.^^ Ranulph de Belmeis therefore may be taken to have been Mesne- Lord of BlymhiU, Brinton, and Wilbrighton, all in the County of Stafford. His Tenure in Sussex at the same period has before been noticed, viz. as standing in the Record under the name of his Father. At this period Ranulph de Belmeis seems to have been employed by Henry II in Wales. The Castles of Rhuddlan and Basingwerk had remained in the King's hands since 1157, when they were garrisoned by him as a result of his first Welsh campaign. At Michaelmas 1166 the Sheriffs of Warwickshire and Leicestershire had paid £10. by the King's order to Randulph de Belmes for garrison {municionem) of the Castles of Basingwer, Roelend and Prestinton (Prestatton). At Michaelmas 1167, Tong and Tong-Norton (entered as "Tonge et Norton Randulfi") had been amerced one merk by Alan de Nevill for some offence against the Forest-Laws. At the same period, Ranulph de Belmeis was deceased, for the Sheriff of Shropshire accounts to the Crown, for a sum of 3' Rot. Fip. 5 Hen. II. | ^^ Uler Niger, i, 136. ^ Salop Chartulary, No. 294. 208 m W o o tsi <) Hi <1 ;^ o h-l f4 .9 I m — -» =» ^H ED o § Ha '3 o ri fl -s .w u o o ^ PSOOhIO N ir ?" M d ^ 00 13 o 1-1 r-1 rH 1-4 1 s 1 OOCUTE 1154. . 3 H 1 < O lO 1 -« -» . S*"^ '-'« 1 t. Clams, i, p. 1. I liave before alluded to the mesne interest •which Braose seems to have had in Tong and Donington. It perhaps explains why Belmeis and La Zouche were not usually TI. assessed to Scutages in Shropshire, as Tenants in ca/pite. « Ibidem, p. 5, b. ^^ Rot. Normarmia (by T. Duffus Hardy, Esq.), pp. 130, 139. 28 214 TONG. These valuations can scarcely have been completed when Roger la Zouche returned to the allegiance of his English Suzerain, paying a hundred merks for seizin of his lands and all issues thereof which had not been converted to the King's use. Geoffrey Fitz Piers, the great Justiciar, stood surety for this Fine.** But on the 25th of April 1305, the debt was excused, Eoger la Zouche undertaking to serve the King a year in Poitou with another Knight.*^ On May 1, 1205, the King had lent Roger la Zouche fifty merks, for repayment of which William Fitz Warin appears to be liable.*^ Roger la Zouche accompanied King John in his Irish expedition of 1210. On the 28th of June, being at Dublin, 40*. is lent to him by the King's Treasurer.*'' About this time the following, not very consistent, returns were made as to Roger la Zouche's tenure of Tong. — A list of Tenures, apparently taken in 1211, says that " Roger de Tusche holds in capite of the King and is bound to the service of finding two serving men in the King's Army in Wales."*^ — Two nearly contemporary Rolls give a similar account of " Roger de la Zuche's'^ Shropshire Tenure ;*^ but a Roll, apparently of 1212, says that "Roger la Zuche holds the Manor of Thonk which was of the Fee of William de Braose by service of half-a-Knight's- Fee."5o At this period the forfeiture and miserable fate of William de Braose had been consummated. He died an Exile and, if we may believe the Chroniclers, his Wife and Son were starved to death in the Dungeons of Windsor Castle. Roger la Zouche on the other hand continued to advance in the favour of John. In February 1214, he accompanied the King into Poitou, and on May 26 had the usual Letters of Scutage in regard of his personal service." *t not. Fin. p. 221. ■** Claiis. i, 28. The disseizin of Koger la Zouohe is expressly said to have taken place " whilst he was in Brittany." •"« Claus. i, 30 ; Rot. Fin. p. 266. *' Mot. de Frcestitis, p. 182. ^' Testa de Nevill, fo. 254. '^ Ibidem, fo. 880, and lAber Muber, fo. cxxiij. '" Testa de Nevill, fo. 256. A fifth BoU {Liher Euher, fo. cxxxvii) omits all mention of Eoger la Zouche among the Shropshire Tenants i» capias; but it ex- hibits the name of "Philip de Doniton" ■without any statement as to service. I cannot help thinking that this indefinite, and probably iaaccurate entry, was in aUusion to Eoger la Zouche's tenure of Tong and Donington, and that the officer who made the return was uninformed of the true particulars. " Clans, i, pp. 166, 200. TONG. 216 On Oct. 14, 1315, he had a grant of the Manors of PeterfieM and Mapledurham (Co. Hants) which Geoffrey de Mandeville had forfeited to the Crown.^^ On Nov. 18 following, he had a grant, during the King's pleasure, of Samihest (Southants) and Kidderminster (Worcestershire), lands which had been Henry Biset's.^^ On April 25, 1216, the Sheriff of Gloucestershire is ordered to give him Fairford, a Manor which belonged to the Honour of Gloucester.^* Faithful to King John in every later extremity, he appears in his Eetinue at Corf on June 11, 1216; and on that King's death shortly afterwards was no less faithful to his Son, King Henry 111. On the 15 th March 1217, still retaining the Lordships of Mapledurham and Peterfield, he is ordered to allow her dower in the same to Milisent, widow of the Earl of Evreux and then wife of William de Cantilupe junior.^^ On the 4th of April and 10th and 11th of May 1217, various Precepts issued to the Earl of Salisbury, to Hugh de Vivon, to the Sheriffs of Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, and to Peter de Maulay, to give Roger la Zouche seizin of all such lands in his Fee as were tenanted by the King's enemies. ^^ I should here take notice that the Vicomtes of Rohan, who seem to have constituted an elder branch of the house, from which Roger la Zouche sprung, were at one time seized of con- siderable estates in England. Alan, who appears to have been the last Vicomte thus seized, occurs in 1201, as Grantee of King John in the Manor of Costesei.^'' The fact of this Alan's forfeiture of all his English estates is certain, though I am unable to ascer- tain its exact time and cause. — Probably it resulted in the usual way, viz. that, during the reign of John, every man possessed of lands on both sides of the Channel was constrained to elect between two allegiances. His decision once made, all that he held under the Suzerain of his choice was confirmed and perhaps augmented, whilst he suffered a correspondent forfeiture in the other quarter. Thus while Alan Vicomte of Rohan adhered to his French allegiance and forfeited his English Fief, so did his kinsman, L.gl. °2 Ibidem, p. 231. 63 Ibidem, p. 237. "•i Ibidem, p. 266. 65 aaus. i, p. 300, b. 56 Ibidem, p. 304, 308. 67 Hot. Cane. 3 John, p. 340, Norfolk aaid Suifolk. 216 TONG. Roger la Zouche adopt a contrary policy. And it further appears that King Henry III compensated Eoger la Zouche for his losses in Brittany, not only by increasing his estates in England generally, but by granting him some of those very lands which Alan Vicomte of Rohan had lost. — For instance, on July 22, 1218, the Sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk is ordered to give him lands in Costesey which had belonged to the "Vicomte of Roain;" and on Jan. 10, 1219, the same Sheriff is to give him Huningeham and Eston, which the same Vicomte had once held, " unless those Manors were parcel of the Honour of Eye." ^^ Meanwhile, that is on July 28, 1218, Roger la Zouche had license to hold an annual fair at his Devonshire Manor of Northmolton; and on January 22, 1219, the Sheriff of Devonshire is ordered to give up to him for his maintenance, and during the King's pleasure, lands in Blaketorinton and Nymed, which had once been Joel de Maine's. This grant is expressed to be in recompense of lands which Roger "had lost in Brittany, in the King's service." ^^ On May 1, 1219, he has a grant of Fair and Market at Blactorinton ; and on July 9, the Sheriff of Norfolk is to give him certain lands in Bamburc, to hold during the King's pleasure, which lands had once belonged to the Vicomte of Roain, but had since been held of the " King's Bailiwick," by William de Man- devUle, Earl of Essex.«° In July 1220, he appears in account with the Crown as one of the Executors of Ehjuger de Bohun ; ^^ and on August 6 of that year, has Royal License to go on a Pilgrimage to St. James^ (of Compostella) .^^ At the Salop Assizes of November 1221, Roger la Zouche appears in various relations. His suit with the Abbey of Shrews- bury for the Manor of Betton came on for hearing. The details of this cause belong to another portion of our History, but it happened that Roger la Zouche offered a statement of his descent, which is much to our present purpose as proving a great deal of what has been asserted above, merely on the evidence of Charters. — On this occasion Roger la Zouche claimed to be heir of Philip '8 Clans, i, pp. 366, 385. ™ Ibidem, pp. 366, 386. ™ Ibidem, pp. 391, 423. ^1 Ibidem, p. 424. «2 Hot. Pat. 4 Hen. III. TONG. 217 de Beaumes whom he described as his Uncle (avunculum) . He of course alluded to Philip de Beaumes junior. He traced his heirship as follows. — The Successor to Philip's rights was Ranulph, Philip's Brother : to Ranulph succeeded Alice^ Eanulph's Sister, because Ranulph died without issue; to Alice succeeded William her Son ; and to William, his Brother Roger, the present Litigant.®^ All that need here be further said of this matter is that Roger la Zouche's Pedigree passed unquestioned, and, though the Suit continued for years, the undecided issue was not as to his heirship, but as to the original seizin of Philip de Belmeis. At the same Assizes, Roger la Zouche sued the Abbot of Shrewsbury for the Advowson of Tong, and without success. The particulars shall be given, when we come to speak of the Church. His resistance of Thomas de Chabbenore's claim on his estate shall also be noticed among the various contingents of his Shrop- shire Fief, which we shall hereafter have to give account of. His quarrels with Buildwas Abbey should however be here particu- larized, inasmuch as they probably resulted in a composition, and in a Charter of Roger la Zouche to Buildwas, whose date it is much to our purpose to establish. At these Assizes then, the Abbot of Buildwas was found to have " erected a fence to the injury of Roger la Shuch's tenement in Tong." The fence was to be taken down, but the Abbot was excused any amercement by writ of the King.^* — The Abbot of Buildwas further appoints Brother Walter de Bolingehal, a Monk, his Attorney in several suits, one of which was a suit of novel disseizin between the said Abbot on the one hand, and Roger la Shuche and WiUiam de Vigeford (Hugeford) on the other. I cannot determine whether this was the same suit of novel disseizin which William de Hugeford had against the Abbot about a right of common pasture in Ideshal and which he with- drew.^' Soon after these transactions, as I imagine, " R;Oger, son of Alan la Szouche," granted a full Charter of confirmation to Buildwas. TJpton was then held by the Lords of Tong, perhaps under the Lords of IdsaU. It adjoined lands of Buildwas Abbey, both at Kucbley and Hatton. piugford's Sureties in this litigation were Keginald and Kobert de Upton, and Hugh de Beckbury. ^' Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. ,6. '■* Ibidem, memb. 6 dorso. ^ Ibidem, memb. 1 and 6 dorso. This right of common pasture probably arose from some interest of William do Hugford at Upton. — 218 TONG. He specifies the land of Selfer dc Rookie, easements and pannage in his wood of Brewode ; in Ruckley, dead wood for burning ; common- pastiu-e in Tong ; also that they may make their bridges on each side of their Grange of E-ocIei, viz. one towards Hupton, and one towards Doninton, in the places where they used to be, and that they shall have his (the Grantor's) Banks {i. e. the abutments at the ends of these bridges) and free egress and regress through his land, to and from the said bridges.*^ It will be observed that this Charter is not only a confirmation of the Grant of Philip de Belmeis senior, before recited, but it implies some cognizance of the grant which had been made by Richard de Belmeis, as set forth under Donington. Roger la Zouche therefore was confirming not only his Ancestor's grant, but the grant of his Ancestor's Feoffee. Consequently this Deed implies his continued Seigneury over Donington, whose Lord is in fact the fifth witness. I should here notice that in May 1324, William de Serland and Nicholas de Molis were intrusted respectively with the Cambridge- shire Manors of Fulburn and Suavesey, which, having once belonged to the Vicomte of Rohan, had since been committed to William de Breant during the King's pleasure. In October following, the privileges which had been enjoyed by " Allan de Roien," what time he was Lord of Fnlburn, were ordered to be renewed to William de Serland.^^ — We shall presently recur to this subject. In November 1229, Margery Bagot was suing Roger la Zouche under writ of novel disseizin for her free tenement in BlymhUl.^^ La Zouche doubtless retained at this period the same mesne interest in Blymhill which we have already ascertained to have belonged to his predecessor, Ranulph de Belmeis, ^ This Charter is in possession of George Pritchard, Esq., of Broseley. — The witnesses' names are Walter de Hugeford, Henry de Hugeford, Gerard Fitz Toret, Engeram Chavel, Walter de Beaumeis, Philip de Beaumeis, Thomas son of Beiaer de Le, Thomas Clerk of Maumes- bury, Master Richard of Ideshale, Nicholas his Son, and many others. — The Seal, of white wax, exhibits a shield of arms, charged with a Fesse between six * * * . The following Letters of the Legend remain : — Sia. * » * EOOEEI LA Stch. I should here say a word about the armorial bearings proper to La Zouche, as distinct from those which the family afterwards adopted as inheriting from the Houses of De Quinci or De Belmeis. The seal of William La Zouche, elder Brother of this Koger, exhibits a Fesse as the bear- ing on his shield (supra, p. 212, note 39). Alan la Zouche son of this Roger, and husband of Eleu de Quinci, sealed a grant to Mayden Bradley (WUts), with Oules, a fesse between six pears or. {NicJiolVs Leicestershire, iii, 563) . «' Clam, i, pp. 599, 624. ^ Patent, 14 Hen. Ill, dorso. TONQ. 219 On April 20, 1230, Roger la Zouche has the King's Letters- Patent of Protection, dated at Portsmouth, " so long as' he should be with the King in foreign parts." ^^ " In 14 Henry 3," says Dugdale, " Roger la Zouche had a con- firmation from the King, of the Manor of Swavesheye and of all his lands in Fulburne, in Com. Cantabr. which he possessed by the gift of Alan Vicomte of Roan, in exchange for all those lands which he, the said Roger, then possessed in Brittany." ™ This requires further illustration. —Roger la Zouche was at this time Sheriff of Devonshire, and high in the King's confidence. Henry himself was warring in Prance, if his first puny effort to recover his continental dominions can so be described. — The contest was one of diplomacy rather than strategy, and Henry's success seems mainly to have consisted in receiving the homage and allegiance of the Earl of Bretagne and of Alan Vicomte of Rohan. His concessions to both were enormous. Those to the Earl or Duke are not to owe purpose ; but on the 12th of October, being then at St. Pabus, the King granted his Letters-Patent to Alan Vicomte of Rohan, promising that, if ever there should be variance between him (the King) and the Earl of Bretagne, the said Alan should not thereby lose his lands in England as long as he and his heirs discharged their services due thereon. Moreover the King granted to the said Alan an annuity of 200 merks, — to date from Michaelmas 1230, and to be paid to him and his heirs, till the King should assign them lands in England of equal value.'''^ It does not appear that any of the old possessions of the Vicomtes of Rohan were restored under this contract. Certainly Roger la Zouche transmitted Swavesey to his own descendants. I have thus far traced the evidences of this family of La Zouche in parts of the Kingdom distant from the County with which I am immediately concerned. — In so doing I have at least been able to correct some previous error as to the origin and relations of a great Baronial House. I doubt not that a still wider search among foreign documents might ascertain the precise afiinity which existed between these English Zouches, the Earls of Brittany, and the Vicomtes of Rohan. Returning now to Shropshire, we find " Roger la Zuche" assessed ^' Patent, Ibidem. '" Sa/ronage, i, 688, quoting Fat. 14 Hen. Ill, p. 1, memb. 2. '' Fat. 14 Henry III, page 1, memb. 220 TONG. in 1236 to the ^ic? for marriage of the King's Sister. His "Honour of Tange," constituted a Knight's Fee and so was rated at two merksJ^ Dudgale has thought fit to notice, in his Baronage, the curious Deed of Feoffment which this Roger la Zouche granted to Henry de Hugford in Tong-Norton and ShawJ' I can add little to Dugdale's ample notice of the particulars of this Deed, except to say that Henry de Hugford was also a Tenant under La Zouche at Upton, and that this Deed passed during the last ten years of Roger la Zouche's life. This Roger la Zouche must have lived to a great age, but I find no better evidence of the exact period of his death than is supplied by a license bearing date November 3, 1238, whereby the King allows Alan la Zouche, his Son and Heir, to pay his Father's debts to the Crown as he (Roger) had done, viz. by instalments of forty- five merks yearly.'^* The public career of Alan la Zouche was distinguished by steady loyalty, much capacity, and a proportionate advancement of his house in riches and honour. This great Jurist married Helen or Ela, daughter and co-heir of Roger de Quinci Earl of "Winchester, in whose estates, involving a share of the older Earldom of Leicester, Zouche of Ashby was thenceforth a Co-parcner. But leaving to the more honourable pages of National or Baronial History the great events in which Alan la Zouche took part, I con- fine myself to his very brief connexion with Tong. — On December 7, 1240, a Fine was levied at Lichfield between Nicholas Abbot of Build was, plaintiff (querentem), and Alan la Zuche, defendant (impedientem), of two carucates in Rocleg, whereof was plea of warranty of Charter. Alan acknowledged the Abbot's 72 Testa de Wevill, fo. 277. Eoger LaZouoUe's personal payment of this Aid was an exception to the general rule. It only perplexes us as to the exact nature of his Tenure, viz. how far it was a Tenure itt capite and how far a Tenure under the Honour of Brecknock. 73 Baromfflye, vol. i, p. 689. A transcript of this deed is preserved among the Cotton Charters (ii, 8) at the British Museum. — The Witnesses are, Sir Walter de Huggeford, Sir Walter de Beaumyes, Sir "XsaMgrue Tlaunce-foliCf John de Beck- bury jHughdeBolingalejUnfreydeTJnfras- ton (Humphrey de Humphreston) and others. — The third witnesses name I give as I am ahle to read it, but doubt whether its original form is thus retained. It is John de Beokbury's name, which, in conjunction with the era of the Grantor, gives the date assigned in the text. — Besides Norton and the Shaw, and the particulars given by Dugdale, the deed mentions these localities, viz. Scherley, the Brand, Luttleford, Le Pas, and Trenswall. 7< Rot. Fin. i, 315. TONG. 221 right thereto as the gift of Philip de Beaumey's, Alan's relation (consanguinei), whose heir Alan is. — To hold, &c. to the Abbot and his Successors, &c, — Also Alan conceded common-pasture for all the Abbot's stock at Rocleg Grange through the whole Manor of Tonge, except in his (Alan's) Park of Tonge, which is called Holy (Holly), and in the wood which is called Rocleg, and that they (the Monks) may have one swine-stall (porcariam) in Alan's wood of Brewde, and eight cart-loads of fuel yearly. For this the Abbot received Alan and his heirs to all benefits and prayers which should thereafter be made in his Church of Buildwas for ever.''^ On July 1, 1247, another fine was levied at Westminster between the same plaintiff and Alan la Zuche, deforciant (by his Attorney Walter Fitz Warin), of two carucates in Rochley, whereof was plea of fine-levied. Alan acknowledged the Abbot's right to said land, with the site and approach of Rochley Grange and whatever was con- tained between said land and the water of Wrgh (Worf) down to Rochley wood, without any right of common therein belonging to Alan or his heirs, — all of the gift of Philip de Belmeis (as before) . And besides this, Alan conceded that the Abbot might take old stumps (sucum boscum for zucum boscum) in Rochley wood. Also he gave to the Abbot all the Tenement which he had in Upton on the day of this fine, in pure almoigne, but reserving foreign services due thereon. And Alan would warrant and defend the same against the Chief Lords from all services, suits of Court at Ideshall, &c. for ever. A provision follows in case of the Abbot's animals straying into Tonge Manor ; and the Abbot's free right of road between Rochley and the bridge towards Doneton is assured. — For all this the Abbot renounced his right of common-pasture in Thonge Manor and Brewude Wood, also his swine-stall in the latter ; also his right in a virgate of land which he and his Convent had by grant of the Black Nuns of Brewude. But he reserved a certain site for a mill at Tylemoneslode, with water course, stank, right of road, &c. Lastly, he renounced all his right to common- pasture of Lusyard, towards the Grange of the Abbot of LilleshuU there, for ever.'^^ About the year 1250, as I suppose, Alan la Zouche seems to have '5 Pedes Finium, 24 Hen. Ill, Salop. '6 Ibidem, 31 Hen. Ill, Salop. Tyle- moneslode (i. e. Tylemon's-Ford) is still to be identified. The Bridge and part of II. the road which connect the North Western boundary of Tong-Manor with Shiffnal are still known as Timlet-Bridge and Timlet-HoUoway. 29 223 TONG. given this Manor with his Sister Alices m frank Marriage, to WOliam son of Richard de Harcourt. William de Harcourt was, as I take it, first Cousin to Alan la Zouche's wife, his iMother being of the house of Quinci and his Father a principal Feoffee in that Honour. William de Harcourt, thus seized of Tong, appears in January 1256, as subject to a very extraordinary prosecution by the Abbot of LilleshallJ^ He was summoned to give account as to "where- fore he had made such sales and wastes in the wood of Tong as that the Abbot could not get therein reasonable Estovers for his Grange of Lesyard." The Abbot complained that whereas he and his Pre- decessors from the first fmindation of Lilleshall Abbey had been in continual seizin of such right of Estovers, now the said William had wasted the wood, for he had given away 3000 oak-trees, had sold 3000 more, and had assarted 300 acres of the wood-land. The Abbot laid his damages thereby at forty merks. — William de Harcourt replied, denying all violence and injury, and asserting that the writ under which the Abbot sued him was of a novel and unheard-of nature, and that the Abbot could not be deprived of estovers, for that the wood in question extended to five leagues, and that the Abbot's Grange aforesaid did not contain more than one or two hearths (astra). — The Abbot rejoined, that though Harcourt did not deprive him of Estovers, he had already destroyed that part of the wood which was nearest to Lizard Grange, and was about 40 destroy it all. — The parties were ordered to attend at Westminster and hear sentence in the suit, on the Quinzaine of Easter. The loss of many Plea -Rolls prevents my tracing the successive adjournments of this suit, but in Easter Term 1260, it was still unsettled, and the Sheriff had been ordered to distrain William de Harcourt to appear at Westminster and hear judgment. He appears accordingly and requests that the Record of what had passed at Salop be read over in Court. This being done, William expresses his willingness to let the Abbot have what is sufficient, and avers that enough of wood remains for that purpose. The Abbot replies, that he cannot have estovers so conveniently as he claims, and appeals to a Jury of the district. The Sheriff is ordered to summon such a Jury to Westminster for the Quinzaine of St. John the Baptist ; but afterwards, it is added, the Parties agreed.'?^ " Salop Assizes, 40 Hen. Ill, memb. 5 | '* Placita, Easter Term, 44 Hen. Ill, dorso. I memb. 25 recto. The Abbot fined one TONG. 223 On July 19, 1360, Giles de Erdinton is commissioned to try an action of novel disseizin which John de Pres had brought against William de Harcourt and others, for a tenement in Thong.'?^ This Suit is doubtless connected with a Charter which John de Pres sometime obtained from Alan la Zouche as Seignoral Lord of Tong : and it is worth observing, that, though Harcourt has appeared above to be seized of the Manor at least as early as 1255, yet this deed of Alan la Zouche must have passed subsequently. He (Alan) grants and confirms to John de Pres and his heirs all lands, tenements, and liberties contained in the Charter of Sir William de Beumys, of the feoffment of Roger le Verner, and of Sir Roger his (Alan's) Father, and of Robert Collet, which Charter said John has in his keeping. He also grants him in addition (de incremento) the land which Robert de Betterton heldintheBarnde, also his (Alan's) waste near the Pole, between the wood and the marlpit of Metheplekes, against the road which passes from Tong towards the wood, — also all the Brodmore between his (John's) culture and the water-course called Lutleford, — also his (Alan's) waste between the Brodemore and the wood of Lutleford. — To hold, &c. at a rent of 5«?. payable to the Grantor and his heirs.^" I should now observe that Alice La Zouche, first wife of William de Harcourt, was deceased in the beginning of the year 1256. She left two daughters Orabel and Margery, of whom I shall speak pre- sently. Harcourt hereupon espoused Hillaria, Sister of Henry Lord Hastings, who, in December 1256, became the Mother of Richard de Harcourt, the eventual heir of his Father William. In the troubled times which ensued, William de Harcourt' s political choice will have been a matter of some perplexity. Alan la Zouche, his first wife's Brother, was the staunchest of Royalists, merk for " lleenoe to accord," which, says a Postscript on the Plea-Eoll, " appears on the Roll of Easter Term, 45 Hen. III." This alludes to the Pipe-KoU of that year, where among the Nova Oblata is the fol- lowing entry : — Abhas de IMleshall debet 1 marcam pro licentia concordandi. — The system of adding postscripts to the Plea-Eolls of any particular Term is worth notice, and explains many entries in those Kecords which otherwise would be unintelligible. Often too we find a blank space left for this purpose at the foot of an unfinished Plea. In thesccases the Postscript would appear to have been forgotten or un-needed. ?' Patent, 44 Hen. Ill, dorso. so Cart. Cotton, ii, 9. This Charter has been applied by Nioholls {History of Leicestershire, iii, 731) to some localities caUed "Tonge" and "The Brand" in that County. The witnesses are. Sir William de Hugford (who succeeded after 1255), Hugh de Bolynghale, Hugh de Beckbury (deceased 1263) and Humphrey de Hum- freston. These prove not only the date of the Deed, but that the locality concerned was in Shropshire. 224 TONG. while the disaffection of Henry de Hastings was so rank and ob- stinate that he was one of the few who, on the promulgation of the Dictum de Kenilworth, were excluded from its benefits. Harcourt had chosen the losing side and had forfeited all his estates in 1265 ; but his infant daughters were no sharers in his loss. The better-chosen and more successful policy of their maternal Uncle, Alan la Zouche, secured them a powerful intercession. On the 22d of October 1267, the King's Letters-Patent certi- fied that at the instance of Alan la Zuche and in aid of the mar- riages of Orabell and Margery, daughters of William de Harecourt and Nieces of the said Alan, the King conceded the redemption of Tonge and Ayliston and the Soke of Stratton, lands of William de Harcourt, according to the Dictum de Kenilworth.^^ As regards Tong this transaction only entailed upon these Sisters that which was reasonably theirs as the only issue of their Mother. In July 1270, Sir William de Harcourt was dead, leaving his second wife Hillaria surviving. Later in the same year died Alan la Zouche, and apparently without having apportioned between his Nieces the lands which he had redeemed for them conjointly. About this time Orabell the elder of these Ladies married Henry son of Henry de Pembruge, whose family, if not himself, had been distinguished among the Anti-Royalists of the preceding period. Of that however presently. — A story somewhat complicated in itself and rendered still more intricate by the verbal inaccuracy of certain Law Records has now to be dealt with. On December 26, 1271, King Henry III, being then at Win- chester, granted by Charter to his beloved and faithful Henry, son of Henry de Pembrig and Orabil his wife, the following privileges, viz. that they should have a weekly Market on Thursday in their Manor of Tong, and an annual Fair to last for three days (the vigil, the day and the morrow of Saint Bartholomew the Apostle) unless such Pair should be injurious to other Pairs in the neighbourhood ; also that they should have Free-Warren in their demesne lands at Tong.83 In July 1 272, Henry de Penbrigg and Orabil his wife and Mar- gery, OrabiPs Sister, gave the King a merk that an Assize might be taken before Gilbert de Preston (a Justiciar of that period) ; and the King's mandate issued accordingly to the Sheriff of Leicester- si Rot. Fat. 51 Hen. III. I ^ Rot. Cart. 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 6. TONG. 225 shire/^ in which County the lands or other matters in question, will have lain, either wholly or in part. The result of this Assize or process of Law seems to be contained in a Fine, levied at Westminster on February 3, 1274, between Margery de Harecurt, plaintiff (querentem), and Henry Penybrigg and Orabil his wife, Defendants, of the Manor of Ayliston and the Advowson of the Church of the same vill, and six merks of annual Rent in the Soke of Stratton (Leicestershire), whereof was Plea of Convention. Henry and Orabil acknowledged the premises to be the right of Margery, to hold of the Chief Lords of the Fee by accustomed services ; and Margery conceded to Henry and Orabil the Manor of Tonge (Co. Salop) to hold to Henry and Orabil and the Heirs of Orabil, of the Chief Lords of the Fee, for ever.^* The Suit and Fine therefore constituted nothing more than a legal and perhaps amicable partition of the estate of two Co- par cners. Soon after this Margery de Harecourt married John de Canti- lupe, and within five years both she and her husband were deceased without issue. Moreover within the same period died Orabil, wife of Henry de Pembruge, leaving an only son Fulk. Also Henry de Pembruge himself died,^^ having however married a second wife Alice, by whom he left a son Henry. At their Father's death, in February 1279, Fulk and Henry were both Infants, the former and elder being eight years old according to one authority, or hardly so much if, according to another, he was still under age in October 1292. I must now retrace my steps, not only that I may give some earlier account of these Pembruges with whom so many Shropshire Families claim affinity, but that I may render more intelligible their various interests and connexions whilst Lords of Tong. In 1235, as I infer from various entries in the Testa de Nevill, Henry de Pembruge was holding two Knight's-fees, less a twentieth part of one fee, at Weston and Woneston (Gloucestershire) of the Honour of CormeiUes. So also about eight years later is the same Henry found holding Pembridge, in Stretford Hundred, Hereford- shire, of the Honour of Eadnor, by one Knight's-fee.^^ The S3 Eot. Mm. 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 10. ** Pedes Mnium {Divers. Comitate 2 Edw. I, Salop and Leicestershire. ^ Originalia, i, p. 32, anno 7 Edw. I. 86 Testa de Nevill, folios 301, 317, 345, 349. 226 TONG. PEDIGREE OF PEMBEUaE AND VERNON. Henry de Pembruge of Pembridge (Herefordshire) '■ Occurs 1235 and 1254. I I ufemia, daughter =p WiUiam de Henry de Pembruge -y- Elizabeth, daughter and coheir of nd Coheir of God- :ey de Gamages. Pembruge. Occurs 1254, 1267. Occurs 1263. Obiit circa Jan. 12V2. Godfrey de Gamages. Occurs 1263. Superstes October 1273. 2d wife Ahce. =t= Henry de Pembruge of Tong, =p Orabel, daughter of William Godfrey de 1282, 1300. &c. Occurs 1267, 1272. Obiit Jan. 16, 1279. de Harcourt. Occurs 1267. Married before 1272. Pembruge. Occurs 1267. Henry de Pembruge. Eulk de Pembruge Born circa 1272. Infra mtatem 1292. Obiit circa June 1296. Isabella. Superstes 1297. Fulk de Pembruge Born Aug. 27, 1291. Occurs April 1314. Obiit Jan. 8, 1326. : Matilda (de Bermingham). A Widow 1326. Remarried before 1333. :2d husband, Robert Corbet of Hadley. Occurs 1333, 1334. Eulk de Pembruge — AHoe ? Born Nov. 30, 1310. Superstes Occurs 1333. 1334. Obiit circa 1334 s.p.s. Richard de Vernon = of Harlaston, &c. Obiit 1377-8. - Juliana Pembruge. Robert de Pembruge, Knight. Said to occur in 1346. I 2d wife, Isabel = Eulk de Pembruge = 1st wife. Margaret oZiosElizabeth Occurs 1377, 1382. Trussell. Lingen. Obiit 1408-9 s.p.s. Occurs 1377, 1382. Obiit 1446-7. Obiit June 11, 1402. Richard de Vernon t= Johanna GrifBth. Defanctm 14i)2-3. SelictaUOS. Benedicta = p Richard de Pembruge 1 Isabel de =i p WiUiam de 1 Joan de Ludlow. alias de Vernon. Vernon. Ludlow. Vernon, Occurs Infra cBtatem 1402-3. Occurs Occurs Occurs Nov. 25, Married in 1410. 1410. 1410. 1410. 1410. Treasurer of Calais 1450. Obiit 1451. y S ^ William de Vernon. I Vernon of Tong and Haddon. TONG. 227 Honoui" of Radnor was, at this time, held by Ralph Lord Mortimer of Wigmore, whose Vassal therefore Henry was. In 1248, Henry de Penbrigg had a Charter of Free- Warren at Weston.^'' On May 10, 1254, he fined one hundred merks to have custody of all lands, &e., which were the hereditary right of Lucia and Eufemia, two of the daughters and coheirs of Godfrey de Gamages, out of the lands which were said Godfrey^s. He was to hold such lands till those coheiresses came of age, and was to have their marriages for two of his Sons. Margery de Lacy who had the said wards in her custody was to deliver them up, so to be married.^* On July 1, 1263, the Plea- Rolls of Westminster exhibit Henry de Penbrug, and Elizabeth his wife, with William de Penbrug, and Eufemia his wife, as suing Hugh de Plessetis for the Shropshire Manor of Stottesden, which the Plaintiffs claimed as the right of the said Elizabeth and Eufemia. The Defendant not appearing, the Manor was ordered to be seized into the King's hand, and the cause was adjourned.^^ Of Godfrey de Gamages and his sometime interest in Stottesden it wUl be better to speak when we reach that Manor. Here I would observe that Henry de Pembruge's wife Elizabeth, though a daughter and Coheir of Godfrey de Gamages, was either a different daughter to Lucia for whose marriage Henry de Pembruge senior had fined in 1254, or else was described at different periods by two distinct names. Henry de Pembruge does not appear to have ever recovered any interest in Stottesden, and for this or some other cause of discontent, he became a strenuous supporter of Montfort's treason in 1265 : — nay it was alleged that after the Battle of Evesham (August 4), and after the Council of Winchester (in September following), he insulted Prince Edmund at Warwick, committed depredations, set fire to that Town, and was there taken prisoner. He seems to have been given in charge to Roger de Mortimer, under whom he held his Manor of Pembruge. Mortimer bestowed his captive in the dungeons of Wigmore, with what object or result we shall presently learn. 8? liot. Chart. 32 Hen. Ill, memb. 4. He appears to have fined 20 merks for this privilege; but the printed Originalia Boll (vol. i, p. 10) describes the Manor as "Eston" in Herefordshire. 83 Rot. Fin. ii, 186. 89 Flacita, Trinity Term, 47 Hen. Ill, memb. 23 dorso. 228 TONG. Of course all the estates of Henry de Pembruge were forfeited. Weston (Gloucestershire) was given to Walter GifiFard^ Archbishop of York, Leye (Worcestershire) to Matthew de Gamages, and Gyllock (Herefordshire) to Hugh de Mortimer. Roger de Mortimer of Wigmore, in virtue probably of a general licence which he had to confiscate all such lands of the King's enemies as were of his Pee, entered upon his Prisoner's Manor of Pembridge. Foreseeing however that such occupation would eventually be null and void, and that Henry de Pembridge, by the King's clemency, would ultimately have that power of redemption which was accorded to Rebels in general, by the Dictum de Kenilworth, Mortimer strove rather to realize the escheated Manor than to reclaim the unsteady faith of his Vassal. The Prisoner made a formal conveyance to Mortimer of the Manor and Advow- son of Pembridge ; and not only that, but he wrote to his Tenants informing them of the transfer and their consequent change of fealty. He was further taken, or, as Mortimer afterwards asserted, went willingly, before the full Court of the County of Hereford and ratified the transaction. Mortimer seems however to have felt that all these concessions, extorted from a Prisoner, could not amount to a legal conveyance. A further security was desirable. He therefore got to his Castle of Wigmore the two sons of his Prisoner, Henry and Godefrid, and leaving them there as hostages to secure his own ascendancy over the Father, journeyed with the latter to the King's Court, then sitting at Clarendon. There on the Quinzaine of St. Martin in the 5 2d year of King Henry (Nov. 35, 1267) appeared Henry de Pembruge senior (so called with reference to his eldest son and because his own Father was now deceased), and acknowledged that he remitted and quitted to Roger de Mortimer all his right and claim in the Manor and Advowsbn of Pembruge for ever. He also undertook to give any such other security as Mortimer should devise in the matter, whether by Fine, to be levied in the King's Court, or otherwise.^" From Clarendon Mortimer seems to have conducted his Prisoner '" Placita coram Mege, Michaelmas Term, 51 & 52 Hen. Ill, memb. 25, where this Quit-claim is given independently, and without any allusion to the circum- stances under which it was obtained. Those circumstances, as detailed in the text, transpired at a trial long afterwards, when however this very Quit-claim was cited in evidence. TONG. 229 to Ernewode, one of his Shropshire Manors^ but for what purpose does not appear. Mortimer's object was gained, and Pembruge lost for ever the estate which gave name to his House. It is probable therefore that he was soon released, and indeed thus much is implied by a statement which says that he took measures in accordance with the Dictum de Kenilworth to redeem his other estates. Three years, or four at most, remained to him for such a purpose; for in 1270, or 1271, he died, leaving his wife Elizabeth a widow, and that son Henry his heir, whom we have already noticed as a Hostage at Wigmore and as Lord of Tong in right of his wife Orabell, niece of Alan la Zouche. This youth, the third Henry de Pembruge of whom we give account, set himself strenuously to redeem the fallen fortunes of his house. In December 1271, his peace with the King is obviously implied by the terms " faithful and beloved " already quoted in connection with his name. On January 20, 1272, " Henry, son of Henry de Pembrigg lately deceased," had been suing the Archbishop of York, Matthew de Gamages, and Hugh de Mortimer, that they should aUow him to redeem those, his lands, of which they were seized. On their refusal so to do, the King had issued a mandate to Nicholas Pitz Martin and his companions. Justices appointed to hear and determine all such suits in Herefordshire, Glouces- tershire, and Worcestershire, apprising the said Justices of the Claimant's readiness to abide by the Dictum de Kenilworth, and ordering them, if he was entitled to the benefits of that edict, to summon the parties before them and do their duty, according to the form of the .said edict, touching Henry de Pembruge's right to recover seizin of his estates. It would appear that the Justices thus instructed found the case to be beyond their jurisdiction. — Pembruge's claim to the benefits of the Dictum were denied by the Archbishop and others. So on the day last mentioned (Jan. 20, 1273) the parties appeared before the King himself. The Archbishop pleaded for all. He denied young Henry's right to the benefit of redemption, inasmuch as the Dictum de Kenil- worth excluded, inter alios, those who had persisted in rebellion and rapine after the Council of Winchester (the " peace proclaimed at Winchester " he calls it) . He then instanced the elder Pembruge's conduct before recited. Young Pembruge, on the other hand, urged that the Dictum de II. 30 230 TONG. Kenilworth applied to all transgressions up to the time of its pro- mulgation, except those of the Citizens of London ; that his Father and, after his Father's death, he himself sued for redemption of their lands in conformity with the Dictum, which Dictum, he added, contained a special concession of the King's, viz, that no Eebel should suffer disinheritance. The suit or suits did not end on this occasion, but a postscript on the Roll states that soon after the King's death, in the octaves of Hilary (Jan. 30) the parties accorded by License, and it gives reference to a Roll of the said term in the first year of Edward I (1273) for particulars.'!— I find the Concord thus indicated. Thereby Henry de Pembruge relinquished to the Archbishop all his right to the Manor of Weston super Egge (Weston sub Edge) receiving in exchange 1000 marks and the Manor of UUingwyke (Herefordshire) which he is to hold under the Archbishop at a penny rent, for all services. He also remits to the Archbishop all his right in the Manor of Norton (Gloucestershire), for a sum paid down and an annuity of £10. chargeable on the Archbishop's Manor of Brockwode during the life of Elizabeth, Henry's Mother.'^ How Henry de Pembruge recovered his other Manors of Gillock (Herefordshire) and Leye (Worcestershire) from Mathew de Gam- ages and Hugh de Mortimer I have not thought it worth while to inquire. Suffice it to say that he did regain them. Thus far successful, he opposed himself to the gigantic influence of Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, suing him before the Justices Itinerant at Hereford for the lost Manor of Pembruge. The cause was adjourned to Westminster, where it came on for hearing before the King's Council in the octaves of Hilary (Jan. 20) 1274. The pleadings are given at an unusual length but are well worth epitomizing. — " Henry son of Henry de Penebrigg sued Roger de Mortimer, Matilda his wife, and Ralph his Son for the Manor, &c. (except ten Librates of Land) of which Manor, &c. Roger and Ralph had unjustly disseized the Plaintiff's Father, whose heir the Plain- tiff is."— The Record is ambiguous as to the appearance of the Defendants, whether all or only Matilda pleaded by Attorney. Her plea was that she claimed to hold nothing in demesne ; Ralph's was that he " Placita coram Rege, Hilary Term, 1 "2 Ahbrev. Tlacitorum, p. 185. b. 56 Hen. Ill, memb. 11 dorso. I TONG. 231 held nothing except at will of his Father. So Roger was virtually the sole Defendant. He took exception to the word " disseized" used in the Plaintiffs writ, and alleged the Charter of Henry de Pemhruge Senior, his letter to his Tenants, and his voluntary quit-claim in the County- Court as inconsistent with " disseizin." — He produced also the documentary proofs of each transaction. The Plaintiff replied that Mortimer had ingress in the Manor by disseizin, not by the documents produced ; for he entered on the Manor while his (the Plaintiff's) Father was a prisoner and before the documents were executed. Mortimer took exception to the form of the Plaintiff's proceed- ings and asked judgment of the Court as to whether the Plaintiff was competent to sue under a writ " de ingressu " which involved mention of the term " disseizin."^^ The Plaintiff answered, that if his Father had demised the pre- mises while in prison, a writ " de ingressu," making mention of such imprisonment, was a form in which he was competent to sue ; he was however prepared to show that neither in nor out of prison had his Father ever demised the premises. — He repeated that Mortimer had ingress by disseizin, notwith- standing that his Father had given him (Mortimer) a seizin by feoffment. He appealed to the Court to say whether he was com- petent to sue under any other form of writ than that which he had employed. The Court's assent to this proposition may be inferred from the continuance of the pleadings. — Mortimer now again alleged the quit-claim in the County Court, his own seizin of the Manor foi" a long period, and finally Pem- bruge's acknowledgment in the Curia Regis. To the Rolls of Pleas in that Court he now appealed. Henry acknowledged that such recognition had been made by his Father at the time and place stated; but he also showed how himself and his Brother being in Prison at Wigmore, his Father had acted under fear on their account and lest evil should befal them (we de eis pejus evenii'et). He asks the Court's Judgment ''^ There was a technical distinction betwean the writ " de ingressu " and the writ " de noTi .disseizinS,." The former apphed to cases of disputed property or right, the latter to cases of disputed pos- session. If a party had brought his action under the superior form, " de ingressu," he could not, while that action was pend- ing, sue under the inferior form. 232 TONG. whether a recognition thus obtained should have force ; and that it was thus obtained he was prepared to prove before a Jury {per patriam) . Mortimer hereupon expatiated on the freedom and impartiality of the Curia Regis, adding that if things had been as the Plaintiff stated, Pembruge Senior might have proclaimed the oppression in open Court at Clarendon, and, refusing the Recognition required of him, might have procured the enlargement of himself and his Sons. Thus far the pleadings on this occasion. — A Postscript on the same Roll intimates that another hearing took place at Westminster on Feb. 3 (1274), before Martin de Littlebury and other Justices appointed to terminate pleas; that again, after death of said Martin, the cause came before Ralph de Hengham and his Fellows, and that then Mortimer appeared in Court and asserted that judgment bad been given in his favour at the previous hearing before Martin de Littlebury, Nicholas de Stapleton and Master Richard de Stanes. The two latter, being survivors of the three, he called to bear record of the fact. Their record was that judgment was given to this effect, viz. that " Mor- timer and the other Defendants were dismissed sine die, and that Henry de Pembruge was adjudged to be in misericordid for a false claim."9*— Such was the redress which misfortune obtained when it wrestled against power in the early years of King Edward, — the " English Justinian." I now proceed to give the substance of the Inquisitions which were taken after the death of this Henry de Pembruge. The King's writs of t?iew clausit extremum bear date 18 February and 3 March 1279. A Worcestershire Inquest, which sat in con- sequence, reported that the deceased held Leye (Legam) of the Abbot of Pershore and that Fulk his son and next heir was eight years of age. A second Inquest, which sat at Salisbury Castle on May 5, said that the deceased was Tenant of Lora de Saunford at North- Tudeworth (Wilts), but that of the age of Fulk his next heir, the Jurors knew nothing as he was not living in Wiltshire. The same Jurors found that Henry de Pembruge once held Weston sub Egge (Glouc.) of Walter Giffard, Archbishop of York, by '■i Placita apud Westm. coram Consilio Uegis, Hilary Term, 2 Edw. I, memb. 17 recto et dorso. TONG. 233 service of dne Knight's-fee, but that the deceased, son of the said Henry, had quitted all his right in Weston to the Archbishop, for the Manor of UUyngwyke (Heref.) and 1000 merks. A third Inquest was taken at Salisbury Castle on December 28, 1279. The Jury found that the deceased had not held Tudworth in capite, but that Roger la Zouche, who formerly held it under John Biset, gave the Manor to Gilbert de Stanford (Sanford) with his daughter Lora m. frank -marriage, and that, after Gilbert's death, ^^ Lora gave it to Orabell, formerly wife of Henry de Pembruge, and to Fulk the son of said Henry and Lora (read Orabell). A fourth Inquest which sat in Herefordshire on Jan. 8, 1280, found that the deceased had held GiUock in capite by service of finding one man for fifteen days in time of war, &c ; — also that he had held a third part of the Manor of Ullingewyk of the Bishop of Hereford (read Worcester) by one-third of a Knight's-Fee ; — also that he held £4. 17*. Qd. annual rent in Catteley of the gift of William Devereux by service of \d. per annum. A fifth Inquisition sat Jan. 26, 1280, in Leicestershire, and gave the following almost accurate account ; viz. that William de Harcourt, formerly Lord of Ayliston (Elstow), had two daughters, Orabell and Margery, to whom conjointly he gave the Manors of Ayliston and Tonge; — that afterwards Henry de Pembruge married Orabell, and John de Cantilupe Margery; — that by consent, Tong remained to Henry and Orabell, and Ayliston to John ; — that John and Margery died seized of Ayliston, but without issue, so that thereby Ayliston reverted to Fulk the son and heir of Henry de Pembruge, which Fulk was now under age; — that Henry, Fulk's Father had therefore not died seized of Ayliston ; — that the Manor was held of Richard de Harcourt by one Knight's- fee, and by Richard of the Earl of Winchester.^^ These details, though slightly inaccurate, supply a general and quite intelligible truth. In this respect they differ widely from some Records of Law proceedings which took place during Fulk de Pembruge's minority. These latter, taken as they stand, present us with inconsistent and impossible results ; in fact, it is evident that the Law-Clerk who recorded these pleas did not 85 Gilbert de Saunford died in 1249, leaving a son and heir under age. Either that heir never attaiaed hia majority, or else was Gilbert's son by another wife than Laura la Zouche. ^ Inquisitions, 7 Edw. I, No. 12. 234 TONG. understand their drift. I have therefore thought it better, while giving the substance of the original minutes, to insert in brackets whatever 1 conceive to be necessary for their correction or ex- planation. I should premise that Walter Giffard, Archbishop of York, seems to have conveyed, between 1273 and 1279, the Seigneury of UUingwike to Godfrey GifFard, Bishop of Worcester. In October 1282, the following is given as the result of a plea heard before the King or his Deputies. " The Bishop of Hereford (read Worcester) recovers his seizin of two parts of the Manor of Ollingwyk alias Ullingwyk by reason of the Minority of Henry de Penebrigg. Fulco, brother of the same Henry,^'' who had custody of the said Henry by gift of the Queen, concedes that all tenements which he holds of his brother's inheritance together with the dower of Alice his wife (read Mother, i. e. Mother of Henry, step-mother of Fulk, and widow of Henry Fulk's father) shall be put in hochepot ; — and that Fulk shall have two parts and Alice the third part, but not of the Manor of Todeworth in Co. WUts." ^^ Another Record of this same plea intimates that it was heard at Salop, in three weeks of Michaelmas 1282, before the King or his Deputies. Its substance is as follows ; — " The Sheriff had mandate to bring into Court Alice, widow of Henry de Pembruge, that she might respond to Godfrey, Bishop of Worcester, in the following suit," — viz. " Whereas custody of two parts of OUingewyk, which belonged to Henry de Pembruge de- ceased, except \7s. rent, pertained to the Bishop until the age of the heir " (read devisee), " in that it was held by Knight's-service, — and whereas Alice now held those parts in dower, — whether she, Alice, had ought to allege why the said Bishop should not have those two parts in custody." The Sheriff had also mandate to bring into Court "Fulk de Pem- bruge, who was to have with him the heir (read younger son) of Henry de Pembruge, in order that he Pulk, might do and receive as regarded the tenements which Fulk holds of the inheritance of the aforesaid heir (read younger son), and which had belonged to Henry his (Henry's) Father, and brother (read Father) of the said Fulk, whatever might appear just." — '•^ Fulk Pembruge himself was not yet twelve years of age. 85 Ahhrev. Placit. 274. I am unable to discoTCr the original or duplicate of the original Eecord which the Abbreriator of ihePlacita mxist have used in compiling tliis abstract. TONG. 235 Now Pulk appears; and Alice appears, and concedes that the Bishop may have custody of the said two parts of Ullingwyk saving to Alice her goods lying in thht Manor. So the Bishop recovers the same. Fulk, on the other hand, pleads that he cannot bring the heir (devisee) into Court, because he is in the Queen's custody : and as to the dower of Alice, Pulk concedes that all the tenements which he, Pulk, holds of the inheritance of Henry his Brother, together with the dower of Alice, be put in hochepot, and that Pulk should have back two parts thereof and Alice have her dower. And Alice agrees to this, if so be that she shall have such dower in the Manor of Toddeworthe, Wiltshire. — Pulk replies that Toddeworthe was not of the inheritance of Henry (his Father), nor had he anything there except in the name of Orabell his first wife, because he, Pulk, says that Lora de San- ford gave the Manor to Orabell and to Pulk, Orabell's son, by a charter which he produces. Whereupon Pulk asks judgment of the Court if Alice ought to have dower therein. Alice replies that Henry (her husband) held the same by inheritance, and asks that inquiry be made if it were not so. And Pulk agrees. Afterwards at Bristol in the Quinzaine of Hilary, 13 Edw. I, (Jan 27, 1285), a Jury found that Lora gave Tudworth to Orabell and her heirs, so that Henry de Pembruge had held nothing there except in name of Orabell, once his wife. A day to hear sentence was given to the parties in the Quinzaine of Easter following. " The whole of this last enrolment," adds the Record, " is to be found in the Rolls of Hilary Term in the 13th year."^^ Of Alice widow of Henry de Pembruge and her son Henry, I will attempt no further account, except to notice that she was living in 1300 and unsuccessful in a suit about lands in " Brenchesle and Pepingbury (Co. Herts) .i"" We return to Pulk de Pembruge, son and heir of Henry, whose minority, though for some inexplicable cause, it is not once "' PlacHa apud Salop, Michaelmas Term, 10 & 11 Edw. I, memb. 22. An abstract of this plea, but taken from another and third original, is given in the Ahhrev. Flacitormn (page 104). It indicates the dismissal sine die of Fulk de Pembruge. lO" Originalia, i, 113. Henry de Pem- bruge son of Alice seems to have founded a distinct house. It was probably he who in 1303, and as a Knight, made a grant in Wyneston (Gloucestershire) sealing the deed with arms — Barry of six * * * , over all a Bend. {Olover's Collections, A, fo. 109). 236 TONG. mentioned in the law-suits above detailed^ endured for many years after. At Michaelmas 1380, the Sheriff of Shropshire rendered account of £17. 14s. 9ld., "issues and rents of the Manor of Tonge, formerly Henry de Pembruge's, viz. from Monday, January 16, 1279, till January 13, 1280, before that the Manor was given up to William Burnell as Gustos in behalf of John de Binelard, to whom the King had given custody of Henry's lands. "^"^ The Feodary of 1284, says as follows, — " Fulco de Penebrugge holds the Manor of Togge with the vill of Norton (Tong Norton) of the Honour of Breyseynok (Brecknock is meant), for one Knight's-fee ; nor is there mention in the inqui- sition as to whom the said Fulco holds under."^"* At the County Assizes, October 1292, the Brimstree Jurors reported that Fulco de Penebrugg, a minor in the King's custody, claimed to have assize of bread and beer, also to hold a Market and Fair in his Manor of Tong.^"^ In March 1293, the heir of Henry de Pembruge was found to be holding Ayliston (Leicestershire) of the estate of Richard de Har- court then deceased, by service of one Knight's-fee.^''* Very soon after he attained his majority, Fulk de Pembruge died. He left his wife Isabel surviving, and a son and heir Fulk, not yet five years of age. On June 20th, 1296, the King's writ of " diem clausit extremum " issued to the Escheator citra Trent, and the Inquests which followed contain further particulars as to the estate of the deceased. — That which sat at Boscomb (Wilts) on July 23, 1296, reported his tenure of Tudeworthe and found that Fulk his heir would be five years of age on August 27, then next coming. — The Leicestershire Inquest reported his tenure of the Manor of Ayleston and rents in Stretton, and gave a similar account of the age of his heir. — The Herefordshire Inquest gave August 24, as the heir's birth-day, and reported the tenures of the deceased in Gyllouch, UUyngwyk, and CatteleyjMa^^a Upleden. — A Fourth Inquisition sitting at Tong on July 11, 1296, found the deceased to have held that Manor under Sir Alan la Zouche, whose Grandfather Alan gave it (said these accurate Jurors) in marriage >i» lELot. Pip. 8 Edw. I, Salop. I i™ Placiia Coronal, 20 Edw. I, m. 23. "^ Kirby's Quest. Brimstree Hundred. I •"'' Irupdsitions, 21 Edw. I, No. 46. TONG. 237 with Alice, grandmother of Sir Fulk, lately deceased, who owed no service thereon. They valued the Capital Messuage at 5s., the Fishery of the Vivary at 3s. %d., the Dove-cot at Is. 8c?., the Water Mill at £2. per annum. They enumerated various rents due from the free tenants of the Manor, among which one of a Chaplet of Roses is observable. The whole Manor and income they estimated as worth £20. 19s. ^\d. yearly. They found Fulk, the son and heir, to have been four years old on Saturday August 27 previous.^"' I presume that Isabel, widow of the deceased, had Tong in dower, for pursuant to the King's Writ dated at Portsmouth, May 24, 1297, the Sheriff of Shropshire returned Isabel Lady of Tong, among those who, holding lands or rents to the yearly value of £20. or upwards, were (generally) liable to be summoned to perform military service in person, with horse and arms, in parts beyond the seas, and were to muster at London on July 7 foUowing.^"^ In 4 Edw. II (1310-11), consistent mention is made of Fulk de Pembruge's heir as still under age. The King then intrusted his land to Oli'dsr de Bordeaux till he should attain his majority .i"" This last event will have been on August 27, 1312, and we have several notices of him during the fourteen years of his remaining life. On the 1st of April 1314, being at Stanton Harecourt (Oxford- shire), he acknowledges to have received from his Cousin, Monsieur de Harecourt, Lord of Bosworth, a Charter of the Manor of Tong, whereby Alan la Zouche gave and granted the same Manor to Sir William de Harecourt and Alice his wife in frank-marriage}'^'^ On June 15, 1314, Fulk, son of Fulk Penebrugge, was a Knight. So describing himself and as Lord of Tong he quits to Sir Walter de Langton, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, all his claim to a plot of wood called Stryfwode, in Brewood. For this the Bishop paid him £10.io9 Dictum de Kenilworth, secured Tong for his Sister's issue, the Title-deeds had re- mained with the male line of William de Haroourt, that Sister's husband. i»9 Lichfield Register (Ashmol. MSS. 1527). The deed is dated at Lichfield, and tested by Sir Robert de Stepulton, Sir Alexander deFreviU, Sir John G-ifiard, and Sir Eoger de Ooovre, Knights ; also by WiUiam de Freford, Henry de Hare- court, and Eoger de Pulesdon. 31 •tions, 24 Edw. I, No. 31. 106 Parliamentwry Writs, i, 291. W Originalia, i, 113. '"^ Dodsworth, toI. 96. The consan- guinity implied in this deed was thus : — Sir WiUiam de Harcourt was Grandfather of Sir John (the person who gare up the Tong Charter) ; he was also Great-grand- father of Fulk de Pembruge who acknow- ledges receipt thereof. — It would seem that when Alan La Zouche had, by composition under the II. 238 TONG. In time, as it would seem, of Edward II, Falke de Peimebrugge, Lord of Tonge, appoints Nicholas le Taylour of Tonge, his Attorney, to overlook an exchange between William de Pres and Fulke's tenants of Norton and Tonge, of that land called the Old-Castlc^^" This Pulk de Pembruge also granted a Charter of Confirmation to Buildwas Abbey which contains several points of interest. It specifies free road for the Monks' sheep and animals, to be driven to and from their Grange of Rochlegh, to their pasture of Donyn- tone, beyond the rivulet under Chelfesford, through Fulk's wood of Rochlegh j also that the Monks may make a fence from the corner of their field of Eochlegh to the rivulet aforesaid ; also that they may make and maintain a bridge upon Fulk's land beyond the said rivulet and have easements of the bank of the said rivulet to repair said bridge when needful, as by the Charters of Roger, son of Alan la Zouche, and of Richard de Bealmeys is testified respecting the said bridge : also that, if at any time, from scarcity of their live stock, the Monks should neglect to use these liberties of road and bridge, it should not be to their prejudice or pre veift them from reviving the dormant right when they chose ; he also grants them a site for making a Mill at Tylesmendeslode-stank, with water-course and right of road through his land to the said mill, and earth to repair the stank when needful, " as was contained in a fine levied in the Curia Regis about making the said Mill, between the Abbot of Buildwas and Alan de la Zouche formerly Lord of the Manor of Tonge/'i" On 16 Oct. 1313, Fulk de Pembruge was included among those adherents of Thomas Earl of Lancaster who having participated in the death of Piers Gaveston had the King's pardon. In the Feodary of March 1316, called Nomina Villarum, he "» Dugdale's MSS. (vol. K, fo. 11) in Bibl. Ashm. — from a deed in Dugdale's own possession. The transcript gives 30 Edw. II for the date of this docu- ment, where of course there is a mistake as to the year, or else the reign. I have supposed the former, as the Fulk de Pem- bruge of 30 Edw. I was an Infant, and the last Fulk de Pembruge wiU hardly have succeeded so early as 30 Edw. III. Still there is doubt about the matter. The Deed was sealed with Arms — Barry of six. "' Charter in possession of George Pritchard, Esq. of Broseley. The wit- nesses are Sir Walter de Huggeford, Sir William de Forcer, Knights ; Roger Carles, Hugh de Bealmeys, Henry de Bealmeys, and others. I have already estimated the date of this deed to be about 1312, i.e. on Pulk Pembruge's attaining his majority. The seal is a coat of arms, well executed, and charged with — Barry of six. The Legend is — S. Ftoconis de Pembbiq-g. Mr. Dukes (Appendix, Ixvi) has given an abstract of this deed, but the date assigned thereto (1229) must be a typo- graphical error. TONG. 239 is returned as Lord of Tong (Co. Salop) and of Ullingswiek (Herefordshire) }^^ On Aug. 14j 1319, lie had license to exchange ten acres in Tong with the Prioress of White-Ladies who was to give him other ten acres in the same Manor.^^^ He served as a Knight of the Shire of Salop at the Parliament of York in May 1322, and was returned as a Knight of the Shire of Gloucester to a second Parliament holden at York in November of the same year.^^* His various employments as a Commissioner to levy Archers, a Commissioner of Array, or Inspector of Levies ; his summonses to Councils at home or military service abroad, are too numerous to mention here. In the years 1323-1325, his name occurs no less than eighteen times in one or other such connection.^^^ He died on January 8, 1326. The King's Writ of Diem clausit ewtremum issued to the Escheator of Salop, StaflFordshire, and Glou- cestershire on January 21, and an Inquisition as to his estate was held at Tong on Feb. 25 following. The Jurors found that he had held nothing in capite, that he and Matilda his wife had held con- jointly the Manor of Tong under William la Zouclie, by service of one Knight's-fee and as a member of Ashby de la Zouche : that they had it by feoffment of Henry de Byrmentham (Bermingham), who by fine levied in the King's Court had enfeoffed them, with entail upon their heirs male : that Fulk their son and heir was fifteen years of age on Nov. 30 previous.^^^ The Inqmsitions of other Counties do not seem to be preserved. Of Fulk de Pembruge (III), thus proved to have been born Nov. 30, 1310, I have only one notice after he attained his majority. In 1333, Robert Corbet of Hadley and Matilda his wife had reco- vered against Fulk son of Fulk de Pembruge, the Manor of Ayleston (Leicestershire) ™ I presume Matilda, thus named, to have been Fulk's Mother, who. '12 ParlioMientary Writs, iv, 1271. 1" Fat. 13 Edw. II, memb. 37. "'' Farliamentary Writs, 866, 399. 1'* Ibidem, p. 1271 ; Foedera, ii, 592. "" Inquisitions, 19 Edw. II, No. 56. Henry de Birmingham bad, of course, been a Feoffee in Trust. I doubt not that Matilda, wife of Eulk de Pembruge, was of the famUy of Bermingham. W Originalia, ii, 82. In 8 Edw. Ill (1334-5) I find, by an unvouched note, that Alice de Penneburge was suing under writ of novel disseizin for laud in Tonge. Robert Corbet of Hadley Chevr. and Matilda his wife were the defendants. Whether this Alice were Sister or Widow of Fulk Pembruge of 1333 I will not venture to say. 240 TONG. having since 1326 remarried to Robert Corbet, had now recovered Ayleston as her dower. I have seen no original documentary evidence which will enable me to state the descent from Fulk Pembruge III (living 1333) to Fulk IV who died in 1408-9. Shaw informs us of a Robert de Pembruge living in 20 Edw. Ill (1346-7), and whom Shaw takes to have been Brother and Heir of Fulk III, and Father of Fulk IV.ns The latter occurs in 1371, with Margaret his wife, daughter and eventual sole heir of William Trussel of Cublesdon, by his wife Ida (or Idonea) le Botyler.^^^ Margaret, first wife of Fulk de Pembruge IV, died without issue June 11, 1402. Fulk took a second wife, Isabel or Elizabeth Lingen, but dying without issue, in 10 Henry IV (1308-9), closed the male line of his succession at Tong. In 12 Hen. IV (1410-1) Isabel, relict of Fulk Pembruge, was busy in the Religious Foundation, since known as Tong College, the particulars of which are amply detailed elsewhere.^^" Isabel long survived her first husband, long enough (as Shaw has it) to remarry twice, viz. to Sir Thomas Peytevine and Sir John Ludlow.131 She died in 25 Hen. VI (1446-7). The heir of the last Sir Fulk Pembruge of Tong was Richard de Vernon (sometimes called Richard de Pembruge). He was, if former accounts be correct, son and heir of Richard de Vernon, son and heir of another Richard de Vernon, by Juliana, sister of the said Fulk de Pembruge.^^^ AU that I shall here add of this Richard de Vernon, thus succeeding to his supposed Great Uncle's estates after the death of Isabel, the said Great Uncle's surviving wife, is, that he was a Minor in 1402, a Knight in 1418, and that he died in 1451, seized of various Vernon and Pembruge estates, viz. Pyche- cote (Bucks.), Harlaston (Staffordshire), Haddon (Derbyshire), Tong, Ayleston and UUingwyke. lis history of Staffordsh,ire,\,k.&.&Ma ( Pratum. Silva. . .j 1 hide 5 hides 20 hides 2 hides 30 hides fo. 248, a. 1 249, a. 2 [ 248, a. 1 Ibidem fo. 248, b. 1 Stottesden Brimstree, Salop (part) Seisdon, Staffordsh. (part) Brimstree Stottesden Brimstree Alveley. > Bobbington. Claverley. Norley Regis. Worfield. DRED OF CLENT, WORCESTERSHIRE. ( Eoclesia cum 2 pres- j bitris j Salina in Wich. . . (.Domus in Wirecestre 10 hides fo. 176, a. 1 Hales Owen. DRED OF STANLEL WARWICKSHIRE. (Silva. Molendinum. | (Pratum ) Silva Quarentena Quercuum . fo. 239, a. 2 Ibidem Ibidem Ibidem Stottesden Stottesden Ibidem . , Brimtsree , Quat. Eudge. Shipley. * Only one of these Manors (Bobbington) has its Staffordshire Hundred assigned in Domesday. hat Hundred is Saisdone, in which also will have been situated Alveley, Claverley, Norley and I'^orfield. But their Hundred is not expressed and possibly their status was extra-hundredal. 260 SHROPSHIRE MANORS AND DISTRICTS, ALREADY ISOLATED IN DOMSSHAT, OR SUBSEQUENTLY DETACHED FROM OTHER COUNTIES. Having now completed our Survey of the ancient Hundred of Alaodestreu, we proceed to classify those various detachments of other Counties and Hundreds which, at the time of Domesday, lay intermixed with, or adjacent to, the Manors of Alnodestreu, or else have been since annexed to those Hundreds (Brimstree and Stottesden) which mainly represent Alnodestreu. The foregoing Table presents this series in a succinct form, and, when compared with the Map already given, will indicate the pro- posed plan of our further investigations. It is not however my intention to give any detailed account of Hales Owen. That Manor is no longer a part of Shropshire, and its anomalous position has already procured for it the notice of the Historian of its proper County, Worcestershire.^ Its former connection with Shropshire demands however this passing mention, and I insert its name in the annexed Table not merely for the sake of completeness, but because it will serve to illustrate some remarks which I have to offer with respect to these eccentric divisions of territory,^ — their causes, meaning, and objects. Dugdale, speaking of a part of Worcestershire, which in his time was isolated in Warwickshire, says as follows ; ^ — " Before I go farther, it will not be amisse to give some probable reason (for apparent proof I have none) why this, and such parcells so encompassed (as is frequently seen) became thus severed from the Counties wherein they lye ; which, in short, 1 conceive to be no more than this ; viz. that they being originally (I mean before the division of Counties was absolutely made and settled) belonging to some great person, whose residence was far distant ; and in the old assessments rated there, continued afterwards so taxt; and for that respect have been, and are still reputed part of those Shires. And that this was the first ground thereof, will be evident enough from the instances that might be given therein, through sundry parts of this Realm, as in this particular here before us • " Dugdale then proceeds to show how certain Worcestershire Manors, surrounded in his time by Warwickshire, had anciently belonged to the Church of Worcester, or to the Monastery of Pershore, and ' Nash, Tol. i, pp. 508, 535. 1 ' Sistory of WarmicksUre (Thomas's = Supra, Vol. I, p. 17. I Edition), vol. i, p. 628. MANORS ANO DISTRICTS. 261 how they had continued to be parts of Worcestershire^ notwith- standing all subsequent territorial arrangements. Mr. Blakeway, commenting upon and assenting to this doctrine of Dugdale's, quotes a passage of Ordericus to show how it was " in the power of any great man to throw his estates into whatever district he pleased."* — The transfer, thus alluded to by Mr. Blakeway, belongs to the provincial history of Normandy, early in the eleventh century, and only exhibits instances where certain Nobles submitted their terri- tories to a specific and comparatively distant Episcopal supervision, not to any secular jurisdiction.^ Their object was clearly to escape all imperative control whatever. Nevertheless the case is well cited by Mr. Blakeway ; for an analogy of motives is observable in all such transfers whether ecclesiastical or temporal. We may now consult the annexed Table to see how far these oljservations of Dugdale and Blakeway bear upon our own immediate subject. — It will be observed that four names are prominently connected with the Domesday Manors therein enumerated. They are Earl Eoger, Ralph de Mortimer, Roger de Lacy, and Robert Fitz Tetbald. Now each of these was " a great man," and doubtless the peculiar status which then or afterwards was obtained for their respective Manors had its object. They either had in view the concentration of their own jurisdictions, or else an escape from all superior or coordinate interference. Thus I presume that Mortimer, Lacy, and Fitz Tetbald procured their Manors to be registered in the Domesday Hundred of Baschurch ; not because they themselves had any other and para- mount interest in that Hundred, but to escape being classified with those ordinary Tenants of Earl Roger, who owed suit and service to Alnodestreu. Thus too Roger de Lacy, being Tenant in capita, and not Earl Roger's Tenant at Cleobury-North, will have had a still stronger motive for keeping that Manor in an isolated condition. These, however, are instances where boundaries of Hundreds only were affected. As regards the limits of Counties the cases under notice present a totally distinct feature. Four Manors in Staffordshire and one in Worcestershire, which had been originally in those Counties, and which Earl Roger and Hugh his Son held almost wholly in demesne, retained at Domesday their a^icient status. * Sfcottesdon Parochial History, Tit. j * Liher, iii, p. 464, A, B. Farlow. I II. 34 262 COSFORD. The obvious convenience of attaching them to Shropshire was not yet recognized. It came however to be seen^ and probably soon after Domesday. The change then, in this instance^ was not based upon prescription or the authority of Domesday, but was brought about afterwards ; its object being evidently to give integrity to the Palatine Earldom of Shropshire. The last and most curious case is that of the four Domesday Manors which, being locally in Staffordshire at that period, are yet exhibited in Warwickshire. These were not held by Earl Roger in demesne, but by his Tenants, one of whom I identify with Ralph de Mortimer. It is again clear that the said Tenants were interested in dis- uniting these Manors, not only from the Manors of Earl Roger's demesne, wherewith they were intermixed, but also from the yet more alien Staffordshire Hundred of Saisdone : they therefore procured them to be recognized as in Warwickshire. A combina- tion with any nearer jurisdiction or district would have been to the disadvantage of these Manors. They would in fact have constituted an hundredal minority. Summarily then there were cases where the isolation of a Manor added to its importance ; there were also cases, where a Manor, already isolated, might profit by being annexed to some distant jurisdiction where its Lord was already paramount. osforti. The etymology of this name is more traceable in the older ways of spelling it than in that which is now current. — GoppCej- Eopb (Gorstes-ford) or " The ford of gorse " is a term relevant both to the shallow stream, which flows hereby, and to the nature of the soil, which in this quarter is favourable to the shrub thus indicated. Domesday says that " Radulfus (de Mortemer) holds Costeford (of Earl Roger) . Turgot held it (in time of King Edward) and was a free man. Here is one hide geldable. There is (arable) land suf- ficient for III ox-teams. In demesne there is one (such team). In time of King Edward it was worth xls. (per annum) ; afterwards it was waste ; now it is worth v«." (per annum) } This small Manor introduces to our notice one of the greatest names which occur in the Shropshire Domesday. The connection of Mortimer with Cosford was however very transient, and we must ' Domesday, fo. 257 a, 1. cosFORD. 263 postpone our account of that extraordinary race till we reach some locality more associated with its fortunes. A probable reason should meanwhile be given why this and some other Manors, held by Mortimer at Domesday, appear at no subsequent period in the hands of his Successors. — I have already suggested (under Ryton) how an outlying Manor might be a mere incumbrance to a great Fief^ and so be surrendered by its Tenant as a matter of policy. I have further imagined that some involuntary loss may have befallen those who shared in the rebellion of 1088. Either consideration will apply to Ralph de Mor- timer's tenure of Cosford ; for it was isolated from all his other possessions, and he shared prominently in that rebellion. In short, the very name of Mortimer implies turbulent restlessness and never- sated ambition, alternate honour and disgrace, the greatest ascend- ancy succeeded by the most utter ruin. ^Pesides this case of Cosford, I shall hereafter notice other early dismemberments of Mortimer's Fief, and one which must have happened within thirteen years of Domesday, — that is before the death of Earl Hugh de Montgomery in 1098. Cosford, after its separation from the Fief of Mortimer, seems to have been annexed to that Tenure in capite which the Pichfords enjoyed in the neighbouring Manor of Albrighton. Richard de Pichford, before the year 1176 (when he was de- ceased), granted to Buildwas Abbey "all the service of Richard Crasset, of the land of Cospelford." Such is the Record of a Charter of King Richard I, dated at Wiachester, October 23, 1189.^ But another Charter of the same King, dated in the first instance on October 20, 1189, and after- wards renewed at Roche- Andely on October 24, 1198, speaks of the same or other land acquired by the Monks at Cosford in a different way. This Charter confirms them in possession of " the land of Cospelford which they had in exchange by gift of William Crasset." ^ Of "William Crasset, thus ascertained to have had an interest in Cosford, we meet with other mention. A deed dated in, 11 76, and which is a grant of William son of John Bagoth (of Blymhill) to Buildwas, is attested by William Qrasset.* So also is the somewhat had been lost. Its impression was there- fore no longer a Gruarantee of a genuine Document. 2 Monasticon, v, 359 ; xvi. ' Blateway's MSS., from W. Mytton's Collections. King Kichard thus renewed many of his Charters. The reason was, that, during his captivity, the Grreat Seal ■i This Deed which, though it concerns land in another County, must again be 264 COSFORD. later Charter of Walter de Hemes to the same Abbey, which I have quoted under Hatton. Again, we have seen Henry Crasset standing last witness, about 1248, to Robert Traynel's grant of Hatton to Buildwas, and finally we have William Crasset in 1272, suing the Abbot of Buildwas for his Manor of Hatton, which appears at that time to have comprehended two Townships, one called Hatton Traynel, the other Hatton Crasset.^ Thus from the time of Turgod the Saxon, who held, as I have already concluded, both Cosford and Hatton before the Conquest, two Centuries had elapsed; — two centuries during which nearly every notice of one Manor is either directly or indirectly associated with the other. Now at length both belonged to Buildwas Abbey, whose specific interests in. Cospeforde were thus estimated in 1291, viz. two carucates of land worth annually (at 10s. each carucate) £\. Qs. Od. — Annual profits of Stock £6. 4s. 6c?. — Two Mills annually worth £1. Os. Od.'^ In 1341, as we have seen under Albrighton, the Abbot of Buildwas is said to hold three carucates in Albrighton Parish. I know however of nothing which he had therein except Cosford ; but these estimates are very often thus irreconcilable, and can be taken to prove little more than that the returns and assessments of that period were either made very carelessly or very dishonestly. In 1535-6, Stephen, last Abbot of Buildwas declared his Rents derived from "Gofl'ord" to be £3. per annum, from Abrighton 2#. 4rf., whilst he paid the Prior of Wenlock 12s. per annum for Common near Gofi'orde, and 10s. to the Vicar of Albrighton for ad- ministering the Sacraments in GofForde.'' The Ministers' -Accounts, a year later, give £3. as the ferm of Gosforde Grange, and 4d. as the ground-rent of a Mill there.^ quoted by me, is as follows : — " I, William, son of John Bagoth, have conceded to the Abbot and Convent of Buldewas the whole Convention which was made between them and my Father about the land which is beyond the Rivulet, from the boundaries of Westune to the boundaries of Broctune. And to observe all these things firmly for the (specified) term we have made affidavit in the County Court at Stafibrt, viz. I, my Mother, and my Brothers, Roger, John, and Thomas. And of all these things are witnesses Hervey de Stratton, Sheriff (he was Sheriff of Staffordshire from 1166 to 1184), Geoffrey Salvage, Adam de Wrotes- leg, Nicholas de Mutton, Ralph le Belcher, Alan de Bildewas, William Crasset. This last Convention was made in the year from the Lord's Incarnation 1176." (Blakeway MSS. from Mytton's Collections.) * Supra, page 173. ^ Fope Nicholas' Taxation, p. 260. ' Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii, 191, 192. ^ Monasticon, v, 361, No. xxv. 265 $tesi)ale, 5Itisall, ov ^j^iffnai; Domesday notices this place as follows, — " Rotbert son of Tetbald holds Iteshale of Earl Roger. Earl Morcar held it. Here are 7| hides geldable. In demesne are IX ox-teams ; and (there are) xxvi Serfs, and xxxvii villains, and III boors, and iii radmans, with xxvii ox-teams. Here is a wood which will fatten three hundred swine. In time of King Edward (the Manor) was worth £15. (per annum) ; afterwards it was worth 6s. Now it pays £15." ^ It is not always that Domesday records the value of a Manor at the period of its transfer from a Saxon to a Norman Lord. In the case before us we have however a statement on the point ; and most significant that statement is. — Iteshale, once an estate of Morcar Earl of Mercia, and ordinarily a Manor of £15. annual value, was worth no more than 6s. per annum, at the said period of transfer. The rebellion and fate of Earl Morcar in 1071, have already been alluded to. We have here another feature of the same tragedy, viz. the almost utter desolation which visited his lands and dependants. To this, then recent, state of disorganization, I must attribute the silence of Domesday as to a Collegiate Church which doubtless had existed here in Saxon times,^ and which will have been re-established by the Norman Lord very soon after the period of that Survey. 1 It is probable that the names Idsall and Shiffnal originally represented two districts lying respectively West and East of the small stream which divides the Town. Each however has, in its turn, served to describe the whole place. The name Schuffenhale, as that of the vill, first occurs to me in a deed of 1320 ; but deeds of that and four following centuries speak of the "Lordship, Manor, Fee, and Church of Idsall," sometimes adding "alias Shiffnall," sometimes not. Now, at length, the latter name is the only one II. recognized by common usage. 1 take both to be Saxon words : — Ibef - heal is the Hall of Ide, Sceajran-heal the Hall of Sceafa. 2 Domesday, fo. 256 b, 2. 3 Vide History of Shreiosbwry, ii, p. 14, note 1, where my idea that this Church was originally Saxon seems to be coun- tenanced. The statement that, (in the same note) "traces of the interest of Shrewsbury Abbey are wanting in regard to Idsall Church," is however premature. 34 S 266 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. We must now speak of Robert Fitz Tetbald, who receiving this dilapidated Manor and Church from Earl Roger, seems to have restored both. He had in 1085 three other Shropshire Manors, viz. Kemberton, Woodcote, and one whose extent was very small, and whose name is unrecorded. He is mentioned in authentic documents not only as a witness to part of Earl Roger's endowment of Shrewsbury Abbey, but the Earl himself names him as one of his Coadjutors in that pious work. " Robert son of Theobald," says the Earl, " gave them (the Monks) the Church of Iteshale with the tithes of the same vill." * This grant seems to have been increased, or more fully specified, during the time of Earl Hugh or Earl Robert, who are said to have confirmed the grant which " Robert Fitz Thetbalt, Vicecomes, made of the tithe of Cambriston (Kemberton), and the Church of Ithessal with all things pertaining thereto, and with the tithe of the same Manor, viz. in monies, and in animals, and in crops." * Rothbert Vicecomes, or Robert Fitz Theobald next appears, both as a witness of the genuine, and 'an alleged witness of the more suspected Charters of Earl Hugh to Shrewsbury Abbey. There is, I think, no probability that his jurisdiction as Vicecomes was in Shropshire. — Of that however presently. He does not appear to have been involved in the fall of Earl Robert de Belesme, for Richard Bishop of London (consecrated July 1108) is said to have attested a grant, whereby Robert Vicecomes, son of Tedbald, not only repeated his donations to Shrewsbury, but directed that, as fast as the Clerks (that is Canons) who were then in possession of the Church of Ithesal should die off, the Church should come into the demesne of St. Peter.« Thus far of Robert Fitz Tetbald, as connected with Shropshire. I must now speak of him in a much more important relation, hitherto unnoticed by local Historians. The Domesday Survey of Sussex presents Robert Fitz Tetbald " Salop Chartulary, No. 2. * Salop Chartulary, No. 35. ^ Monasticon, iii, 518. "Et quia eandem ecclesiam tunc clerici habebant, precepit isdem Eobertus, ut cum illi morerentur, ecclesia in dominie Sancti Petri veniret." This was an exact imi- tation of Earl Roger's dealing with regard to Morville. The Normans first restored the Saxon Collegiate Churches, and then disposed of them in such a way as that they should erentuaUy lose their Collegiate character. IDSALL, OR SHIl'PNAL. 267 as holding under Earl Roger two burgages (hagas) at Arundel, and being entitled to levy his own tolls on strangers. The same Robert Fitz Tetbald is described as holding the large Sussex Manor of Treverde (Trayford) under the Earl.'' The same person, easily recognized under his Christian name Robertus, further appears as Tenant of more than thirty Manors in the Honour of Arundel. Being thus by far the greatest Feoffee in Roger de Montgomery's Earldom of Arundel and Chichester, it was doubtless in this relation, that Robert Fitz Tetbald acquired his title of Vicecomes, though his Shrievalty is nowhere noticed in Domesday, and perhaps had not then commenced. It will answer a present as well as a future purpose, if I give a summary of Robert Fitz Tetbald's Sussex Fief. — It included Peteorde (Petworth), Cochinges (Cocking), Heriedeham (Hardham), and a number of Manors which constituted that integral portion of the Earldom of Arundel known afterwards as the Honour of Petworth. It also included Poleberge (Pulborough) and Garinges (Goring).^ I have already cited evidence to show that Robert Fitz Tetbald did not share the fall of Earl Robert de Belesme in 1102. His Fief both in Sussex and Shropshire will accordingly have been held after that event under King Henry I. It is however clear that during that Monarch's life the whole lapsed to the Crown, but whether by surrender, forfeiture, or failure of heirs, I cannot determine. The Honours of both Earl and Vicomte were thus at the redisposal of King Henry. The estates of Robert Fitz Tetbald do not however appear to have been granted to any Subject during that Monarch's reign; for the Feodary of the Honour of Arundel (which I have already determined to belong to the period between 1130 and 1135) enumerates the following Tenures and Fees without naming any Tenant. " Pettewrtha— 22^ fees, Garinges— 11 fees, Poleberga— 3 fees, and Trieferda— 1 fee."^ Thus at the close of Henry I's reign, was the Fief of Robert Fitz Tetbald in the King's hand. I shall hereafter have to trace its subsequent history in connection with Shropshire names and estates. At the time I speak of (1130-5), another large portion of the ' Domesday, fo. 23 a, 1. I ^ I^ier Niger, i, 64, 65. ^ Domesday, fo. 23-25. I 268 IDSALL, OR SHIPFNAL. Earldom of Aruudel, estimated at eight Knights'-Fees, had been placed at the disposal of the King. This he had granted to Alan de Dunstanvillj who was then holding the same. He had also, if I mistake not, granted to the same Alan the Shropshire Manor of Idsall. And here, in attempting to declare who this Alan de Dunstan- vill was, I must undertake the history of a great Feudal Barony, the early part of which was left unexplored by Dugdale, and has only been misrepresented by others. BARONY OF DUNSTANVILL. In the Wiltshire Domesday, one Humphrey de Lisle (Humfridus de Insula) is recorded as holding of the King a Fief of not less than twenty-seven Manors. Of these it will suffice for our present purpose to name the following, viz. Broctone, Contone, Sterte, Cumbrewelle, Will, Colerne, Poltone, Bedestone, Come, and Wintreburne.^" Of this Humphrey de Lisle, I can say no more than that in January 1091, he was in attendance at Hastings on King William II, then about to embark for Normandy .^^ He appears to have left a daughter and sole heiress, variously called Adelina de Insula, and Adeliza de Dunstanville, for it was the custom of great heiresses to retain their paternal names after marriage. The husband of Adelina de Insula was Reginald de Dunstanville, whose marriage of so wealthy an heiress bespeaks some Court- influence, but of whose origin I can form no conjecture. The name is associated with the liaisons of Royalty, but certain it is that this Reginald was deceased before his great namesake the illegitimate son of Henry I, and afterwards Earl of Cornwall, had passed the age of boyhood. This Reginald, under the name of Rainald de Dunestanesvill, gave to the Priory of Lewes the Church of Winterburne in Wiltshire with all that appertained thereto.^^ Now as Winterburne was among the Domesday possessions of Humphrey de Lisle, so will the various confirmations which Lewes Priory had of this Church enable us to judge of his succession. 1" Domesday, fos. 70, b 2, and 71, a 1. '' Monasticon, viii, 1294 ; ii. '^ Monasticon, v, 14, No. vi. A pen- sion from the Church of Wjnterbome Basset (Wilts) was payable to Lewes Priory at the Dissolution. IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 269 Adelina de Insula, wife of Reginald de Dunstanvill survived him. In her widowhood and yet previous to the year 1124, she granted to Tewkeshury Abbey the land of Poltone for the soul of the said Reginald her husband.^^ She appears also on the Wilt- shire Pipe-Roll of 1130, under the name of Adeliza de Dunestanvill as Surety for one who owed ten merks to the Crown.^* She further seems, by a document which I shall quote presently, to have made some grant or confirmation of Winterbourne Church to Lewes Priory. In 1130, there was one Reginald de Dunstanvill who had a very large property in Wiltshire, whose Sister Gundred had also lands there, and who both seem to have been high in Royal favour.^^ If this Reginald was in the succession of Humphrey de Lisle, I can say nothing further of him. If, as, notwithstanding some evidence to the contrary, I must believe, he was identical with Reginald Fitz Roy, then I have no present concern with him. In the succession of Adeliza de Dunstanvill came one Walter de Pinkney. Whether he were her heir (the son of a former husband), or whether his claims superseded those of others in consequence of his siding with the dominant political party of his day, I can hardly determine. The following evidences are all I have to offer on the point. — In or about the year 1145, this Walter, having been left by Stephen as Governor of the garrison of Malmesbury, was dis- tinguished for his fidelity to the Usurper, and his readiness in 13 Mowasticon,, ii, pp. 66, 86. Polton, near Marlborough (Wilts), continued to belong to Tewkesbury till the Dissolution. It was a Domesday Manor of Humphrey de Insula. Adelina's grant thereof was confirmed by Henry I, apparently when at East-Bourne (Sussex), and certainly before 1124. " Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I, p. 21. " He is excused £7. Is. of the Banegeld assessed on Wiltshire. His liability to such a sum indicates a large property. Several Hundreds in the same County were also under amercement, for murders committed within theur Umits ; — but a sum of 40*. chargeable on Reginald, and one of 24*. chargeable on his Sister G-un- dred, in that respect, had been excused by Koyal favour. Similarly 24s. of the Danegeld assessed on the County of Surrey had been excused to Reginald de DunestanviU {Rot. Fip. 31 Hen. I, pp. 22, 51). The doubt about this Regi- nald being Reginald Fitz Roy arises thus : — William of Jumieges, writing apparently between the years 1135 and 1140, speaks of Reginald Ktz Roy as " adhuc juvenis et sine casamento" (still a youth and without territorial provision). Never- theless Reginald Fitz Roy was fighting for the cause of the Empress, in Coutance, in 1138 ; and there are other reasons for thinking that Henry I's illegitimate chil- dren were all born at an earlier period than the Monk of Jumieges' account would imply (Tide, — Willelmus Gemmeticensis, p. 306; and Ordericus, p. 915; — inter Normannorimi Scriptores) . 35 270 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. the field. Falling however into the hands of William Peverel de Dover, an equally zealous supporter of Matilda, he was given up to the latter. Neither persuasions nor threats would induce the captive to cooperate in a scheme which the Empress entertained of obtaining possession of Malmesbury-Castle through his agency. He would not and could not further her design, for Stephen, hearing of his captivity, came to Malmesbury himself and took measures for its future defence. The Empress, cruel in her dis- appointment, consigned Walter de Piakney to chains and a dungeon.^^ It must have been two years afterwards, that Walter de Pinkney (Pinchenei) escaping from prison flew again to arms. Backed by the assistance of Roger Earl of Hereford and an efficient band of soldiers, he got possession of Christ-Church (Hants), a Castle then garrisoned for the Empress. His conduct was now marked by violent extortion, sacrilege, and the most wanton cruelties. A combination of the Citizens of Christ-Church and the neighbouring tenantry resolved to put an end to his barbarities. Passing, as it seems, from the Castle to the Church, he and his suit were waylaid by the conspirators, who in the first instance addressed him as suppliants deprecating his extortionate conduct. The answer they received was a defiant look, and a threat of yet harsher treatment. The look and the threat were the last; — in another moment Walter de Pinkney fell lifeless under the stroke of a battle-axe, his followers were put to the sword, and the Castle of Christ-Church surrendered to the Conspirators.^^ This Walter had in his life-time, and probably before his imprisonment, expedited a Charter to Lewes Priory of which the followiug is a translation. To the Venerable Lord Prior of Lewes, &c., Walter de Pencheni, greeting. Know ye that I give ye, the Church of Wintrebume, which my Mother ^^ (materna mea) Adeliza gave ye ; — I give it after the decease of the Clerk my kiasman (clerici, parentis mei) to whom I granted it, and as long as that Clerk shall live, he shall hold it of ye, and he shaU pay ye every year, whilst the War shall last, 10*., and when God shall have given peace, he shall pay one merk of silver. But after his decease, ye shall have it whoUy 16 . i; Q-esta Regis Stephani, pp. Ill, 112, 132, 133. '' In translating materna mea as if it were simply wor/pr I follow the Ruhricator of the Lewes Chartulary, who thus heads the deed, — " Carta Walteri de Pencheni de confirmacione eoolesie de Winterburne quam Adeliza mater sua dedit." IDSALL, OK, SHIFFNAL. 271 and freely (solidam et quietam), — Hugo de Cumbrevilla and his two Brothers Roger and Eeinald de Insula being witnesses; — This (I do) that I may partake in all the benefits of your Church." With this curious and not uninstructive document, I close my notice of Walter de Pinkney, and pass to those who were with less doubt the eventual heirs, and, as I think, the sons of Adeliza de Lisle and Reginald de '^Dunstanvill, These were the two Brothers Robert and Alan de Dunstanvill, the former of whom, dying in course of time without issue, left his estates to the children of his younger Brother. The latter, Alan, having in the first instance no paternal iuheritance, seems to have obtained certain grants in Sussex and Shropshire, which I have already ascribed to the favour of Henry I. I win first speak of Robert de Dunstanvill, and endeavour to show by his attestation of various Charters how true he was to the cause of the Empress and her Son Henry. On July 25, 1141, it must be he, who as Robert Fitz Reginald witnessed that famOus Charter whereby the Empress, grateful for a temporary success, created Milo de Gloucester Earl of Hereford.^" This Charter passed at Oxford, as did two others nearly contemporary, one to Geoffrey Earl of Essex, and one to St. Benet's of Hultn (Norfolk). The first of these is attested by Robert Fitz Reginald, the other by Robert Fitz Reg : probably the same person.^'- About the same time, but at Devizes (Wiltshire), an'd as Robert de Dunstanvill, he attests two Charters which the Empress ex- pedited in favour of Shrewsbury Abbey,^^ Another Charter of the Empress dated at Devizes, and granting to the Monks of Radmore (Staffordshire) has the same attestation.^' In 1153, he attests a Charter which Henry, as yet only Duke of Normandy and Earl of Anjou, granted to Bristol Abbey : ^* but on that Prince's accession to the throne, he appears constantly at Court both in England and Normandy, at the siege of Brug also in 1155, and attesting charters which passed then and after- wards to the Shropshire Houses of Shrewsbury and Haughmond, and to the Flintshire Abbey of Basingwerc. In 1156 (2 Hen. II), he stands exempted, by Writ Royal, from " Lewes Chartulary (Cotton. Vespas. ¥, xv), fol. 169 b. ™ Selden's Titles of Sonowr, p. 537. 2' Dugdale^s Bcuronage, i, 201 ; Monas- ticon, iii, 87, No. xiii. 22 Salop Chartulary, Nos. 40, 50. ^^ Monasticon, v, 446, No. i " Ibidem, vi, 366 ; iii. 272 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. the quota of Danegeld assessed upon him in Wiltshire, Hampshire, Dorsetshire and Surrey, also from his share of the Donum of the last two Counties. In this same fiscal year, he had had a grant from the King of the Royal Manor and Hundred of Heytesbury (Wiltshire), reputed to pay a blanch ferm of £40. per annum to the Exchequer.^^ The Sherifi" of Wiltshire, till September 1167, annually deducted that sum from his own debts to the Crown, alleging Robert de Dunstanvill as the recipient thereof, in the usual form. But in September 1168, Robert de DunstanviU being dead, his heir Walter de DunstanviU is similarly entered as entitled to the Manor.^^ Of him however presently. — It should here be noted that Robert de DunstanviU's interest in Surrey arose by purchase. He gave for Shalefeld (Shalford) and Aldeford 100 merks and ii greyhounds to Robert de WateviU, a great Feoffee in the Honour of Clare. Hence, in 1165, Robert de Dunstanvill is returned as holding i Knight's-Fee in Surrey, of that Honour.^'' I must now speak of his works of piety. Being Guardian I suppose of his Nephew Alan, he gave to Lewes Priory the Church of Bercham (Sussex), of the Fee of said Alan, a grant which the latter afterwards increased by giving an annual rent of 30*. He (Robert) also gave to the same Cluniac House the Chapel of Gretham.^^ Lastly, he gave to the Priory of Farleigh (Wilts), a Cell of Le'v\'es, the land of Cutiford, a grant which, after his death, was confirmed by his Nephews. He died, as I have said, about 1168, without issue; but before we proceed to his Successors, we should speak of Alan de Dun- stanvill his younger Brother, who died long before him. This 25 Sot. Pip. 2, 3 & 4 Hen. II, pp. 57, 78, 116. " In terris datis.— Et Eoberto deDunstanTilla,xl, U, bl, in Hehtredebiria cum hundredo." When the King granted away a Manor together with the Hundred, or with the issues of such Pleas within the Manor as were of the jurisdiction of the Hundred-Court, the land was said to be given " blanch " (hlanca) ; and when, on the contrary, the King retained the Hun- dredal jurisdiction, and simply gave the land, it was said to be given "by tale" {numero). These terms came into use because it was currently estimated that the values of a Manor with and without Huudredal Jurisdiction were as the values of blanch (i. e. refined) money and com- mon money (i.e. money counted by the piece, without reference to its purity). (See Stapleton's Sotidi Normaimim, i, xv). "^ Mot. Pip. passim, sub armis. , 27 Liler Niger, i, 294. ^ Monasticofi, v, 14 ; iii ; where the grant is confused with, but must be un- derstood as distinct from, another by Eoger de Caisneto. IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 273 Alan seems to have held 8 Knights'-Fees in the Honour of Arundel, by favour of King Henry I, and before 1135. Though thereby questioning a high authority, I hesitate not to say that he was also Lord of Idsall, which he probably acquired by a similar patronage. In July 1141, he attests at Oxford a Charter which the Empress granted to Haughmond Abbey, his fellow- witnesses being several of them connected with Shropshire.^^ He granted to Wombridge Priory half a ferdendel (or virgate) of land, which Eilric held in Leies (afterwards Prior's Lee), with all the children of the said Eilric.^" Lee was then a member of IdsaU, of which Manor Alan de Dunstanvill is thus proved to have been Lord. This grant, as well as a further one of nine acres in Leia, passed before 1156, and both were confirmed by a Bull of Pope Urban in 1187, as the grants of Alan de Donstanvill.^^ Either in conjunction with his wife, or for the weal of her soul, this Alan granted to Lewes Priory the land of Netimbre (Newtimber, Co. Sussex), and this Charter was confirmed, during the reign of Stephen, by William de Albini Earl of Arundel, of whose Honour the said land was held.^^ I can say nothing more of this Alan de Dunstanvill than that in 1156 he was deceased. He left two Sons at least, — Walter and Alan, the latter probably under age. He had also a daughter Alice, who married Thomas Basset. Of Walter de Dunstanvill, eldest son and heir of Alan, we have innumerable notices. He first occurs at Michaelmas 1156, as having been excused, by writ of Henry II, his quota of the Dane- s' Harl. MSS. 2188, fo. 123. The other witnesses are David King of Scots, E (Eobert) Bishop of London, A (Alex- ander) Bishop of Lincohi, W (William Pitz Gilbert) the Chancellor, E (Eichard) de Belmes Archdeacon, Eainald Earl of Cornwall, William Pitz Alan and W (Wal- ter) bis Brother. 30 . 31 Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Lega Frioris, No. xiv, and Appendix, No. iiij. The former is a confirmation by Walter de Dunstanvill I, son and heir of Alan. 32 Lewes Chartulary, fo. 126 dorao. This Confirmation purports to be that of William Earl of Lincoln, but is addressed to his Barons and men of the Honour of Arundel. — The mistake of the transcriber is ob- vious. Dugdale, taking extracts from this very Chartulary, as I think, writes the Grantor as WilUam Earl of Arundel without note or comment (Ashmol. MSS. vol. 39, fo. 62). The witnesses of the Earl'sCharter are Hugh, Prior of iVeMAam, Eoger and Hermann Chaplains, Ealph Fitz Savario (deceased 1157), Geofirey de Tresgoz, Amaury de Bellafago, Wilham de Dunstanvill and Walter his Brother, Peter Alan's Dapifer, Harold Priest of Burcham and Eobert his Brother, and Helias Nephew of Ealph Pitz Savaric. 274 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. geld assessed on the County of Sussex. The sum thus excused was £S. Again; in 1158, he is excused 14s. 6d., his share of the donwm of the same County. In 1156, he had also been assessed £\. 6s. Zd. for the Danegeld of Shropshire, which debt, being left in arrear, was excused by the King in 1157. In 1158, the King further excused him a sum of 16s., his proportion of the donum of Shropshire.^* In 1162, when the Danegeld was again levied, Walter de Dun- stanvill was assessed at and excused 27s. 6d. in Shropshire, and 58s. in Sussex.^^ In 1165, he is returned as holding one fee of old feoffment under Adam de Port, of Herefordshire.^^ I cannot identify this Fee. His Sussex Tenure of eight Fees in the Honour of Arundel was returned by the Earl under name of Alan de Dunstanvill (Walter's Father), — the Earl, as I have before explained, quoting a Feodary taken thirty years previously. Walter himself makes no return of his Shropshire Tenure in capite. In 1167, the Demesne of Walter Dunstanvill paid a fine of one merk, inflicted by Alan de Nevill, who had been holding Pleas of the Forest in Shropshire.^'' In 1168, it appears that having been assessed eight merks (on eight Knights' -Pees held of the Honour of Arundel) to the Aid for marriage of the King's daughter, he had refused to pay more than five merks, alleging that the other three merks were in excess of the just demand.^^ In other words he asserted his tenure under the Earl of Arundel, to be by service of five, not eight Knights'-Fees. At or about this time, he became the heir of his Uncle Robert, succeeding thereby to Heytesbury, and other estates in Wiltshire, Surrey, and elsewhere. He is accordingly entered among the Wiltshire Grantees of the Crown as having the Manor and Hundred of Heytesbury, of £40. annual value. This entry con- tinues on the Wiltshire Pipe-Roll till Michaelmas 1170, inclusive. It is then suspended altogether for two-and-a-half years, i. e. till 33 Mot. Fip. 2, 3 & 4 Hen. II, pp. 61, 182. 3^ Ibidem, pp. 43, 89, 170. ^ Bot.Fip. 8 Hen. II, Salop and Sussex. ^ Liler Niger, i, 151. 3? Mot. Pip. 13 Hen. II, Salop. 38 Madox lExcheqner, 405, k ; lAher Ruber, fo. xlix. These 3 merks were stiU in arrear in 1170, and the debt subse- quently disappears from the Kolls without any appearance of its ever having been liquidated. — In fact Dunstanvill gained his point ; for a Feoda/ry of the Honour of Arundel, drawn up in 1242, shows his Grandson as holding, by service of five Knights' -Fees only,inBergham. {Testa deNemU,^^.2S,2, 223). IDS ALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 275 March 1173. This break in an otherwise uniform account^ indicates I doubt not a contemporary forfeiture of "Walter de Dunstanvill, but it begun rather earlier^ and ended rather sooner than would tally with any supposition that the disgraced Baron was associated with the Treason of Prince Henry or the Norman rebellion of a somewhat later date. At Michaelmas 1173^ the Sheriff of Wilt- shire recognized his tenure of Heytesbury during the preceding half-year, and accordingly deducts j620. blanch from his own liabi- lities at the Exchequer. In following years the usual entry allow- ing Walter de DunstanvilFs full tenure of Heytesbury, is continued. At Michaelmas 1177, the King having himself sat in judgment on those who were accused of trespassing on the Royal Forests, had amerced Walter de Dunstanvill in £100, — an enormous sum, and greatly in excess of other amercements inflicted on some principal persons in Shropshire. Walter had already paid £50 of this fine, and before Michaelmas 1178, he discharged the balance in two sums of £20. and £30, paid to the Sheriffs of Shropshire and Wiltshire respectively.'^ Besides his possessions in England, Walter de Dunstanvill had large estates in Normandy, situated apparently in the Bailiwick of Dieppe and Arques. He seems to have mortgaged his land of Roumaisnil in that quarter, to one Peter de Bures, who, having been Vicomte of Dieppe and Arques during the war (1173-4), was himself indebted to the Crown in vast sums of money. In part payment of such debts, Peter de Bures transferred Walter de Dun- stanvilFs mortgage to the King. Hence, on the Norman Exchequer- Roll of 1180, the said Walter appears as owing the King £70. for Peter de Bures, which sum he formerly owed to said Peter, on his (Walter's) land of Roumaisnil.*" I should here notice that the Wiltshire Manors of Come, Colerne, and Will, which had been of the Domesday Fief of Humphrey de Insula do not appear to have continued in his ordinary suc- cession. They had been in possession of Reginald Fitz Roy, better known as Reginald de Dunstanvill Earl of Cornwall, and on his death (a.d. 1175), had escheated to the Crown. — The Sheriff of Wiltshire continued to account for tallages, scutages and ferms assessable on these Manors in 1189 j but at Michaelmas 1190, Walter de Dunstanvill rendered account through the Sheriff "of one hundred merks for his fine of the land of 3' Eot. Pip- 14 to 24 Hen. II. '"' Rot, Normannim (Stapleton) i, 67. 276 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAIi. Cumbej and Colerne, and of Will." *^ He had in fact recovered part of his inheritance, and these Manors went to his Successors. In 1192, Walter de Dunstanvill appears to have been of the Retinue of John Earl of Moreton.*^ Whether he was also im- plicated in the subsequent treason of that Prince I cannot deter- mine. That he was no favourite of King Richard is certain, but there is some obscurity, and something too of contradiction iu the documents which bear upon this question. Those documents shall presently speak for themselves. Another matter of uncertainty is the precise period of his death ; and this I propose to investigate at length. Though the case is one in which a definite conclusion can hardly be established, it involves some points of collateral interest. — To men iu those days, and in the position of Walter de Dun- stanvill, there were other deaths than that of physical dissolution. There was what may be termed a civil death, the consequence of forfeiture or political disqualification ; and there was the death quantum, ad sceculum, as it was termed, when a man, as men often did, retired from the world to a Monastery. By one of these deaths, died Walter de Dunstanvill in 1194, but by wliich, let a comparison of documents decide if adequate so to do. The County of Wilts appears to have been visited by Justices Itinerant in October 1194, i.e. about six months after the King's return from captivity. — A Record of this Iter is preserved. It contains an Inquisition as to several matters in the Hundred of Heytesbury. From this mutilated document I thiak that I gather the following facts ; viz. that Walter de DunstanviU's Manor of Hectredesburi, worth £40. per annum, was in the King's hands ; — that Wido de Diva had so seized it for the King duriug some part of Easter Term preceding; — that the stock thereon had been escheated; that the Manor without such stock was worth £23. per annum, — and that William de St. Mary-Church (then the King's Escheator) had made a more recent seizure thereof. It would also appear from another entry « Sot. Fip. 2 Eic. I, "Wilts. ^ On May 13, 1192, he attests with Ingeram de Pratellis a Charter of John, Lord of Ireland and Earl of Moreton, dated at Reading (Monasticon, vii, 1143 ; ii). On the following day, at London, the same two persons attest a Charter of that Pi-ince to the City of Dublin {Faedera, i, 55.) About the same time a Charter of the Earl in favour of the Metropohtan Church of Eouen is tested by Walter de DunestanTiUe, Gilbert Basset, and many others, — Abbots, Earls, and Barons (Mot. Normannice, II, clix). IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 277 that Walter de Dunstanvill was not deceased ; for he seems to have appeared in Court, and to have deposed that a former companion or follower of his, then a fugitive and accused of murder, had left his company before the said crime was perpetrated.*^ That Walter de Dunstanvill suffered forfeiture before his death will also appear in another way. More than thirty-five years after this Wiltshire Iter, his Widow, claiming her dower in Shalefeld (Shalford, Surrey), asserted that he (Walter) had held that Manor " all his life, nearly to the last of his days, until King Richard, in the ninth year of his reign, of his own will and without judicial sentence, disseized him of that Manor and of all his lands."** This Plea involved a false computation as to the regnal year of King Richard in which the alleged disseizin took place. Substituting the fifth for the ninth year of the King as the date of the disseizin, I have no doubt that the further fact (viz. that Walter de Dun- stanvill survived his disgrace a very short time) is correct. At Michaelmas 1194, the Sheriff of Shropshire accounted 20s. for the Scutage of Walter de Dunstanvill in that County; and William de St. -Mary-Church, as the King's Escheator, accounted £21. 4s. for his Scutage in Wiltshire. ^^ This was the Scutage for the King's Redemption, which was assessed at 20s. on each Knight's Fee. Walter de Dunstanvill had therefore been a Tenant in capite of 22i Knights'-Fees, thus charged. At Michaelmas 1195, William de St.-Mary-Church, as Escheator, accounts for a full year's/erm of certain Manors which were Walter de Dunstanvill's. Hectrediber, Brocton and Cumb, all in Wilt- shire, and Bercham in Sussex, are thus enumerated ; and in one instance (that of Cumb) it is expressly said, that " the King has the Manor in his hand, together with the Heir."*'' Here then we have evidence, not only of the summary forfeiture, but also of the death of Walter de Dunstanvill. Before I proceed to speak of the succession of Walter de Dun- stanvill, I should say something of a number of Charters wherein his name occurs, and which further inform us of his connexions, possessions, and character. About the year 1167-8, Henry II, being then at Le Mans (in Maine), concedes and confirms to the Church of Ferlea (Parleigh, Wilts.), and the Monks there serving God, the land of Cutiford, '3 Abireviatio Flacitorum, pp. 15, 16. ^■' Dodsworth, vol. 42, fo. 149, quoting . Plea-RoU now lost. ■>' Hot. Pip. 6 Eic. I, Salop, and TLscaetm in Wilts, enrolled therein. ■'s Eot. Fip. 7 Eic. I, EscaeUc. 36 278 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. which Walter de Dunstanvill and Alaiij his Brother, had reasonably conceded and given to the said Monks, in pure alms, for the health of their own souls and for the soul of Robert de Dunstanvill, their Uncle. Wherefore the said Monks were to enjoy the said land as Walter de Dunstanvill, and his Brother Alan, and the same Robert, their Uncle, had given and by their Charters confirmed it.*'' A Charter by Walter de " Donstanvill" himself gives to Lewes Priory the land of Niewetimbre, for the health of his soul and the souls of his Father and Mother, who had before given the same. He also gives the Church of Winterburn, the tithe of his demesne of Scaldeford (Shalford, Surrey), the Church of Bernham, with the tithes of Hammes and the Chapel of Gretham (all in Sussex).** Another Charter names the land of Niewtembre only, but has the same witnesses and is confirmed by " William, Earl of Arundell, the third," in a separate deed.*^ The Charters of Walter de Dunstanvill to the Priory of Wom- bridge, in Shropshire, were numerous. I hardly can pretend to notice them in the order of their dates. In perhaps the earliest of the series,- — " Valter de Dunstanvill," addressing all the faithful of Holy Church and all his men, English and Norman, informs them that he has given to thff Priory the land which his Father had given, viz. that which EUric de Leis held ;— with all the children of the said EUric, for the health of the souls of his Father and himself.^" ^7 Harl. Chart. 43, C, 23.— Tested by Kotrode Archbishop of Eouen, Jooeliue, and Hilary, Bishops of Salisbury and Chichester, Earl WiUiam de MandeTJlle, William Malet Dapifer, William de Curci and WiUiam de Hasting. ■•' Lewes Chartulary (ut supra) fo.l26. — Tested by Robert de DunstanTiU, Richer Priest of Torring, Herbert Brother of Earl Reginald, Peter Pitz-Tored, Bald- win de ErolaTiU, Robert de Torvill, Henry Archdeacon of Chichester, Master Jordan, Hamo de Bosoo, Ralph de Schireburn, Gilbert, Aldred, Norman, Ralph de Big- genever, Grerard Cursor. — If the first witness of this deed be, as is most probable, the TJncle of the Grantor, then the deed will hare passed before 1168, and Robert de D'instanviU will have enfeoffed his Nephew and Heir in Shalford before his own death. Robert de Dun- stanTiU has also been mentioned as the original Donor of the Chapel of Gretham. ^» Ibidem, fo. 127.— Tested by Roger Rusteg the Seneschal of the Earl, Robert de Vilers, and Manasser AguUlon, who was dead in 1194, a hint, by the way, as to the great errors which pervade all received accounts of the succession of D'Albini Earl of Arundel. *" Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prions, ^c, No. xxviij. This Charter is tested by the Abbot of Haemon, Alan the Clerk, Peter Eitz Torret (Toret), ;Robert Eitz Osbert, Hugh Fitz Warin, Roger de Saint Martin. It passed, I think, before the year 1181, which seems to be the date of a general Charter of Confirmation granted by Henry II to Wombridge, wherein this grant is verbally recited. IDSALL, Oil SHITTNAL. 279 In another Charter " Valter de Dunstanvill" confirms his Father Alan's grant of half-a-Ferendel which Eilric held in Leies ; and he adds, for the health of the souls of himself, his wife, and parents, fourteen acres, to be held by the Canons together with the said land.51 The next grant of Walter de Dunstanvill to Wombridge, seems to be that of Aynulf's Lee ; but the two deeds which he executed in this matter, have been so inaccurately transcribed in the Wom- bridge Chartulary, that I will venture to say nothing more of the premises conveyed, than that they seem to have been within the Lordship of Idsall, and to have constituted a part of that estate which the Canons of Wombridge afterwards enjoyed under the comprehensive name of Prior's Lee. By the first of these transcripts he is represented, as Walter de Dunstanvill, to give for the souls' health of himself and Predeces- sors " Leias Amulsi " to the Priory ; he wills also that his body shall be buried in the aforesaid place of St. Leonard (that is in the Priory Church of Wombridge, dedicated to St. Leonard) if it should befall him to die in England. ^^ The second Transcript shows him as granting "Amusne's Legam " in the same way, but with a different set of witnesses to the Deed.53 His other gift to Wombridge Priory is the Main subject of three separate deeds, transcribed in the Chartulary. — Each deed has its peculiar significance. — By one, he gives for the soul's health of himself, his Wife, Hawiz de Praheus, and of his Predecessors and Successors, his " Ibidem, No. xiT. The Testing Clause of this Charter seems to have been mis- understood by its Transcribers. The witnesses are Alan de Dunstanville (pro- bably the Grantor's Brother), Eoger de PrettevUle, William de Hedlega, Peres Derliton (probably De Eiton), Eadulf Panton, Roger de Preston, Walter de DunstanvUl Clerk, Walter de WatteviU, Thomas de Leis, Robert de Linton (pro- bably Lintot). I should incline to date the Deed about 1188. *^ Ibidem, No. i. The witnesses are Peter Pitz Thoret and Philip and Bartho- lomew his Sons, Reginald de DauviU and Pharamus de Traci, William de Headley, Walter de Lega and Leonard his Brother, William the Clerk and Robert de Lintot, Oliver, and Robert de Grrenhul, Master Richard of Ideahal, &c. ^ Ibidem, No. ij. The witnesses are William Earl of Ferrers, Thomas Basseth and Alan Basseth, Peter Fitz Thoret and his Sons Philip and Bartholomew, Regi- nald de DauviU, (Pharamus) de Traci, and John his Brother, William de Herez, Robert de Lintot, William Paternoster, Walter de Lega and Leonard lais Brother, Master Richard (of Idsall, I suppose), William de Cutona, John de Hemmes, Robert de Belmes, &c. There can be little doubt that this deed passed between 1191 and 1194. 280 IDSALL, OR SHTI'fNAL. Mills of Ydeshal saving the multure of his own house^ and of others who ought to have free multure therein. He also gives twenty acres of his wood of Lehes near the land of Thomas de Lehes^ as he and his free men shall provide.^* Another deed, with a similar movent-clause, gives the two Mills which he had in his Manor of Ydeshal, with all the suit of his men in the said Manor, and with free water-course from every and all sources, and means of repairing the mill-stanks whenever necessary, saving the multure of his own house. And for this the Canons were to find a Chaplain who should celebrate daily service in their Church of Wombrugg, for the souls' -health of himself, his wife, his Ancestors and Successors, for ever.^^ In the third phase of this grant, Walter de Dunstanvill, Lord of Idshall, mth the same movent clause, grants to the Priory two Mills which he had in his Manor of Ideshall, viz. the Mill of Ideshall and the Mill of Patesford, with sites of both, and suit of his free tenants, &c. with the same condition as to a Chaplain officiating daily for the souls of himself, his wife Hawise, &c. for ever.^^ I close these extracts from the Wombridge Chartulary with refer- ence to a deed, before set forth ;■ — wherein Walter de Dunstanvill, with his Knights, attests the Charter of Griffin de Sutton to that House." And he seems to have been interested in the concerns of other Religious Houses in Shropshire. — He attested the Certificates of Eoger de Powis and John le Strange (I), wherein those great men recorded their remembrance of the first William Fitz Alan having granted Wroxeter Church to Haghmon Abbey. These Certificates, as I have before said, must have been drawn up about the year 1175 ; and, between that period and 1190, Walter de Dunstanvill, being " Ibidem, No. xxTij. The witnesses are Abbot Leonard of Dublin, Abbot Eichard of Haemon, Abbot Walter of LilleshuU, Eobert PriorofWenloke, Walter deDun- BtanviUe Clerk " my kinsman " (oognato meo), Thomas Basseth "my nephew," Bugeran de Praheus, Peter Ktz Thoret and B. (Bartholomew) his Son, Ealph Pantulf and William his Son, Peter de Heiton, &c. — The same limits may be assigned for the date of this deed as of the last. '* Ibidem, No. xxvi. The witnesses are as those of the last deed, omitting the Abbot of Dublin and William son of Ealph Pantulf, but adding Eoger de "Stalevill" (probably Fralevill) and Alan de Dunstanvill, and giving Peter de "Eyton" with an intelligible orthography. *'' Ibidem, No. xlvi. The witnesses are Walter Abbot of LileshuU, Eichard Abbot of Hamond, Eobert Prior of Wenlok, Walter de Dunstanvill Clerk, " my kins- man," Eoger deFrala- Villa, Thomas Bas- set " my nephew," Eobert (read Eoger) Corbet of Hedley, Peter de Eiton, &c. *^ Supra, page 112, note 16. IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 281 Lord of Adderley, in Shropshire, came to an agreement with Ralph, Abbot of Salop, as to some boundary ; ^*' — the particulars of which agreement shall be given hereafter, A Charter by which this Walter de Dunstanvill made provision for his Harper, Oliver, is so relative to his Seigneury at Idscall and to his other Charters, and so instructive in itself, that I must needs give it in full and in the original Latin. ^^ It is as follows : — Sciant omnes et presentes et futuri quod ego Walterus de Dun- stanvilla dedi et concessi Olivario Citharedo meo pro suo servicio tutelam terre Rogerii de Halechtuna ad totam vitam siiam cum uxore Rogerii quam predictus Olivarius assensu meo desponsavit, et tutelam heredis predicti Rogerii et ipsum heredem ad consulendum ad voluntatem sepedicti Olivarii. Et hanc predictam tutelam con- cessi liberam et quietam de tac et de tol illi et hominibus suis et de omnibus serviciis excepto quod ille mutabit unum spreverium sinsulis annis ad suum custum vel unum ostorium ad custum domini et tunc homines domini parabunt muiam in qua ponetur, Et cum ista predicta tutela dedi et concessi predicto Olivario pro homagio suo et pro servicio suo in expectatione sue Warisonis nominatam illam virgatam terre quam Achi et Swein de Knolla tenuerunt et omnia assarta que ego illi dedi de Longa Ruddigga usque ad Sumer- lonam sicuti Smelebrock iUa dividit et quieta de tac et de tol illi et hominibus suis et de omnibus serviciis et consuetudinibus in feudum et in hereditatem cum omnibus pertinentiis suis in bosco et in piano tenendam de me et de heredibus meis ille et heredes sui red- dendo inde annuatim ille vel heredes sui mihi vel heredibus meis in die pasche quedam calcaria vel vi. d. Hanc vero donacionem et con- cessionem quia volo ut ille rate et inconcusse permaneant illas pre- sentis scripti auctoritate simul et sigiUi mei impressione flrmiter corroboravi. Hiis testibus Alano de Dunstanvill.^" Hawis' de Pratellis.^^ Thoma Basset.*^ Alano Basset. ^^ Waltero persona de Idesal.82 Petro filio Thoret.«* Reginaldo de Daivill.^^ Baldwino de Eredevill. Alano filio Galfridi.^^ Gisleberto de Bernevall.^^ Willielmo =8 Salop Chartulary, No. 21. *' Charter in possession of the Eer. John Brooke of Haughton. ™ The Grantor's Brother probably. "' Now, or afterwards, wife of the Grantor. *2 Tlie Grantor's Nephews. ^ The Grantor's Cousin. ^* Lord of Moreton, Eyelith, Hem, Hinnington, &c. ^ A Knight holding under the Grantor at Winterburn, Wilts. ^^ Probably Alan la Zouehe, Lord of Tong. ^i" Barnevill is a Norman vill, midway between Arques and Eouen. 282 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. Clerico. Rodberto de Lintot.*^ Alano nepote suo. Bartholomeo fiilo Petri de Morton.^' Willielmo juvene de Hedleia.™ Alano de Hedleia.'^'i Willielmo Pater-NosterJ^ Henrico Buberel et MarcandOj et multis aliis. This Walter de Dunstanville is said to have " married Ursula a daughter and Coheir of Reginald de Dunstanvill Earl of Cornwall^ and to have obtained in her right the Lordship of Ideshale."''^^ We have already seen that he acquired IdsaU hereditarily from his Father^ nor is it probable that the Earl of Cornwall ever had any interest there. And though the Manors of Cumbe (Castle-Cumb), Colerne, and Wili^ in Wiltshire^ having at one time been the Earl's, were afterwards given to Walter de Dunstanvill, yet I cannot account that circumstance to be evidence in proof of the alleged match. Those Manors seem to me to have been restored by the Crown to Walter de DunstanviU, as his own hereditary right rather than in the right of any wife. Be this as it may, and supposing that Walter de Dunstanvill had another wife or wives previous to his marriage with Hawise de Preaux, it is certain that by any such wife or wives he had no issue surviving him, and that his only Son, another Walter, was the Son of Hawise, and a mere infant at his Father's death. Without attempting to ascertain who was that wife of Walter de Dunstanvill to whom he alludes in his second Charter to Wom- bridge, we have it on Hawise des Preaux own testimony that she became his wife after the accession of King Richard I (Sept. 1189), and we have also seen that within the next five years Walter de DunstanvUl had suffered forfeiture, under which he shortly died. — I have hinted a possibility that during such short interval he became a Member of some Religious Community. If so it was unquestionably the House of Augustine Canons at Wombridge ^ Lmt6t was a vill in the Bailiwick of Arques, where also lay Dunstanvill's Norman Fief. «' Sou, that is of Peter Ktz Thoret, the previous witness. '" Eldest son, and afterwards heir of William de Hadley Lord of High Ercall. '' The preceding witness had an Uncle and a Brother named Alan. The Uncle was Lord of Hadley and High Hatton, and Patron of Wombridge Priory. '2 Of Drayton, near IdsaU. '^ Dugdale {Baronage, p. 591) quotes Vincent, Corr.p. 130, and JJolPip.SRic.I, Salop, in support of these facts. The Pipe EoU howerer lends them no corroboration whatever, and I am much mistaken if Vincent drew his information from any sound authority. I think that both Vin- cent and Dugdale were, in this matter, dupes of a most scandalous imposture and forgery, which I shall, in due course, endeavour to expose. IDS ALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 288 which afforded him a retreat ; and there too I suppose him, accor- ding to his own desire already expressed, to have been buried. The foliowing notice of his presumed Monument expresses the opinion of one who is well entitled to be heard on this or any other subject connected with Shropshire Antiquities :'''' — " In 1825," sajs my authority, " the upper part of a very ancient monument, consisting of the cumbent effigy of a cross-legged knight in mail armour, with surcoat, sword in scabbard by his side, gauntlets on ;hands (the left holding the scabbard of, and the right on the hilt of, as if about to draw, the sword), spurs on heels, head resting on a cushion and the feet on a lion, was removed from Wombridge, where it had lain in the church-yard ever since the demolition of the old church, and where it went formerly by the appellation of 'old Dansyfylde,' but previous to its removal by that of ' old DangervUle,' to the south aisle of the Abbey Church, Shrewsbury. On its removal it was thought to represent the Walter de DunstanviUe who died 25 Hen. III."?* My aathority then refers to the Charter of the first Walter de DunstanviUe, which expresses the Grantor's wish to be buried at Wombridge, and concludes the Effigy to be his. — In that view I most entirely concur. Having undertaken to give an account of this Barony and Family of DunstanvUl, I should before I pass to the immediate succession of Walter (I) , say something of his Brother Alan and his Sister Alice. Alan de Dunstanvill follows Walter in attesting several deeds of their Brother-in-Law, Thomas Basset, and his Son Gilbert, which deeds passed before the year 1181. In 1185-6, Alan de Dunstanvill appears as having to wife the Coheiress of Emma de Langetot, which Emma, then sixty years of age, was of the race of " Chedney and Joceline Crispin." Her lands were in Buckinghamshire. The wife of Alan was then aged thirty.''^ This Alan seems to have been largely enfeoffed in Cornwall ; probably during the time when the Earldom was held by Reginald de Dunstanvill. In 1187 he, Alan, was returned as holding twelve Fees in capite in that County," Passing some minor notices of his name it would appear that he long survived his elder Brother, for, on 5 Sept. 1216, King John empowers his beloved and faithful Alan de Dunstanvill to seize the lands of William Basset which are of his Fee, the said William being with the King's enemies.'^^ — '■' Mr. George Morris of Shrewsbury, — who contributed this notice to the Col- lectanea Topographica ef Genealogica (vol. V, p. 176), and by whose permission I transcribe it. ?* History of Shrewsbiiry, vol. ii, Addi- tions, p. 532. Dugdale probably originated this mistake by ascribing the grant of Aynulf's Lee to the second Walter de DunstanvUle (Baronage, p. 591). '* De Puellis et Dominahus, p. 21. T! Idler Buber Scaccarii, fo. xlix. '8 Claus. i, 286. William, son of John son of Osmund Basset, married Cecily 284 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. These lands appear to have been in Cornwall. — It is, I presume, from this Alan de Dunstanvill that the present Barons De Dunstanvill and Basset allege a lineal descent, but Tehidy (Co. Cornwall), from which they take their title, remained with the elder branch of the family long after the era of Alan de Dunstanvill. Alice de Dunstanvill, sister of Walter and Alan, was married, before the year 1160, to Thomas Basset, usually styled of Heden- don. He died about February 1181, but she was surviving in 1186.— Their issue was three sons, and a daughter, wife first of Albert de Gresley, who died about 1179, and secondly, of Wido de Creoun. — The Sons of Thomas and Alice Basset were Gilbert, Thomas, and Alan. Each of them attained a great position and has been reputed of Baronial Rank. Gilbert, the founder of Burchester Priory, has usually been styled of Hedendon. He died in 1205 leaving a sole daughter and heir, Eustachia, then the wife of Richard de Camvill. Thomas Basset, usually styled of Colinton, died in 1220, leaving three daughters his coheirs. Alan Basset, usually styled of Wycombe, seems to have lived till 1232, and left three sons, who, each in turn, enjoyed his honours, but had no male issue to continue their line. It was necessary to state thus much in order to explain various matters which came to be litigated during the life of Walter de Dunstanvill (II). His Father Walter (I), is said to have disposed of several Manors to his relations, e. g. to have given to his Sister Alice in frank-mar- riage the Manor of Shalford (Surrey), to have petitioned King Richard to grant to Thomas Basset his Nephew, the Manors of Culinton and Witeford (Devonshire),''' and to have himself granted to Alan Basset, another Nephew, that Manor of Winterburn which we have so often mentioned. daughter of Alan de Dunstanvill, and had with her lands in Cornwall. These were given in franJc-marriage by Alan. The Lady deceased before February 1208, when her Father was living. She is therefore improperly said by Writers on the Peerage to have been " sole heir'' of Alan. She can only have been so in her issue. 79 Testa de Nevill, fo. 838. Thomas Basset after his Uncle's death, and for the soul of his said Uncle, gave to Wombridge Priory some land at Wich-Malbank (Cheshire). His deed is attested by Gil- bert Basset and Brice Pantulf, &c. It passed between 1094 and 1206. It was confirmed by Eanulf (BlundevU) Earl of Chester, and after Thomas Basset's death (1220) by Philippa Malbank his widow, daughter and coheir of WiUiam Malbank. (Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Wyche ; Nos. ii, iij, iv). IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 285 We will now follow the events of the minority of Walter de Dunstanvill (II), according to their order. — On Dec. 12, 1194, King Richard, then at Chiuon, confirms to his faithful Knight Alan Basset, the donation which " Walter de Dunstanvill made him of Winterburn, as said Walter's Charter, which Alan had, did testify." The Royal confirmation was again repeated Aug. 32, 1198.^0 Gilbert Basset had, before his Uncle's death, been suing him in the King's Court for Scandeford (Shalford), as the marriage portion of Alice, Gilbert's Mother ; and King Richard, as was afterwards alleged, rendered the same (Shalefeld and Aldeford) to Gilbert, before Walter de Dunstanvill (I) had married Hawise des Preaux. King Richard's Charter on the subject was fully confirmed by King John on 20 March, 1200,^1 Gilbert Basset fining twenty merks for such confirmation.^^ Nevertheless the Widow of Walter de Dunstanvill (I), afterwards claimed dower in that Manor, and the right of Gilbert Basset's heirs thereto was otherwise disputed. At Michaelmas 1196, William de St.-Mary-Church, accounted £21. 4s. for the Scut age of Normandy, being the sum chargeable on twenty-one and one-fifth Knights'-Fees of Walter de Dunstan- vill, in Wiltshire. — The Sheriff of Shropshire, similarly accounted 20s. for Scutage of one Fee of the same Walter in that County. — Further, the wife of the said Walter had been deprived of Ydeshale about half a year, and William de St.-Mary-Church paid to the Crown, a sum of £5. 6s. for rents received by him, in the interval, out of that Manor ; and 13s. Ad. for other perquisites thereof.^^ At Michaelmas 1197, the Sheriff of Shropshire, on similar accounts, paid 20s. for the third Scutage of King Richard, — £Q. 3s. for one half year's issues of Ydeshal, and £8. 5s. 2d. (less certain arrears and charges) for the issues of a second half-year.^* At Michaelmas 1198, the Sheriff discharges his arrears of this ferm ; and accounts for £\Q. 10s. 4d., the gross receipts of the current year, as certified by Thomas Noel, and Hugh de Chaucumb.^^ Also in this year, I find that Geoffrey de Say, Bailiff of Arques (in Normandy), accounted to the King £40. for issues of Walter de DunstanviU's lands in that Province. ^^ «• Faedera, i, 67. *' Rot. Chart. Regis Johannis, p. 41. «= Rot. Cane. 3 John, p. 275. II. 83 84 85 _Ko;. pip_ 8^ 9^ 10 Ric. I. 8'' Rot. NormanniiB (Stapleton), cxxxi. 37 286 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. For the two years ending Michaelmas 1200, Stephen de Turnham was Fermor of Ydeshal. His debt of £16. 10*. 4rf. for each year remained in arrear till April 8, 1204, when it was discharged from the Rolls, in consequence of a fine of 1000 marks which he offered the King to be quit of all accompts and arrears, in respect of escheats and wardships held by him up to that time.^'^ These arrears included a debt of £30. due from the said Stephen, as Fermor of Heytesbury up to Midsummer 1200.^^ From the latter period till March 1201, Robert de Berneres seems to have fermed Dunstanvill's "Wiltshire and Sussex Manors. He subsequently accounted for various sums, which had thus become due on Heytesbury, Brocton, Cumb and Bercham.^® About April 1201, WiUiam Briwerr proffered to the King a fine of 300 merks to have custody, and marriage of the heir of Walter de Dunstanvill, saving the dower of said Walter^s Widow.^" This Fine seems in the first instance to have been accepted; for on the Levy of a Scutage in 1201, William Briwerr had received £12. 6s. M. from the Knights of Dunstanvill's Wiltshire Fief" However Briwerr's fine was eventually cancelled ; for about June 1201, Gilbert Basset proffered the double sum of 600 merks for the same Wardship. This Fine was received ; — and at Michaelmas 1201, Gilbert Basset's name appears as accredited, in the usual way, with the current half-year's ferm of Heytesbury .^^ In April 1205, Gilbert Basset has respite for a portion of his Fine then due ; ^^ but on Dec. 24, in the same year he was dead ; for then the Tenants, both of his own lands, and of the land which he had in custody with Dunstanvill's Heir, are enjoined to answer to John Fitz Hugh, and Bartholomew a Clerk, whom the King had appa- rently appointed his Receivers in this matter.^* About February 1206, Thomas Basset proffered 200 merks, and all arrears of his Brother Gilbert's Fine, for this wardship.^^ And it is clear that he had it ; — for on March 3 following, the King orders John Fitz Hugh to ascertain whether Scaldeford (Shalford) had belonged to Walter de Dunstanvill (I), and, if it had, to give it up to Thomas Basset, as Custos of the heir.^^ 87 »8 89 jiot, Pip, 2 to 6 John. * Ollata, p. 1 33. A previous fine, re- corcfed on the Oxfordshire Pipe EoU of Michaelmas 1200, is quoted by Dugdale. Thereby Thomas and Alan Basset prof- fered 500 merks for this Wardship, but had it not. {Baronage, i, p. 591.) 9' Sot. Cane. 3 John, Wilts. »2 Oblata, p. 169. 93 Claus. i, 29. 9< Fatent, p. 57. » OUata, p. 349. 95 Clam, i, 66. IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 287 On March 15 following, King John restores to Gerard de Cam - ville the Manors of Scaldeford and Anfald, which Gilbert Basset had held after his fine for custody of Walter de Dunstanvill's land. Gerard is to hold those Manors till it be cleared up in the King's Court {coram Rege), whether said Manors ought to remain to the heir of Gilbert Basset or to the heir of Walter de Dunstanvill.^'^ In Easter Term, 1206, it was settled in the King's Court that Scandeford should remain to E-ichard de Camvill and Eustachia, his wife, by concession and will of the King, till the son of Walter de Dunstauvill (apparently represented on this occasion by his guardian, Thomas Basset) should be of age.^^ Meanwhile, and, as I think, before the death of King Richard, Ingelram de Pratellis (or des Preaux) had married Hawise, Relict of the first Walter de Dunstanvill. This Ingelram was a younger son of a powerful Norman family. He had been in the Retinue of Dunstanvill and was probably related to Hawise. He after- wards appears in the suit of King Richard, and among the special Favourites of King John. On her marriage with him, Hawise de Dunstanvill appears to have changed her Christian name. She is on all later occasions called Sibil. ^' Her dower became matter of much litigation, but as early as Michaelmas 1199, I find Ingelram de Pratellis acquitted of his Scutuffe in Salop (assessed on the Fee of Walter de Dunstanvill), by writ of the King's Justiciar.^"" Under similar writs, of the King, he was exempted by the Sheriff of Shropshire from the second, third, fourth, and fifth Scutages of John, as assessed in the years 1201, 1202, 1203, and 1204. To the sixth Scutage, that of 1205, he was assessed two merks for one Knight's-Fee. In 1206 he was exempted from the seventh Scutage of the same reign .^^^ In June 1211, Ingeram de Pratellis was returned by the Sheriff as a Knight of Shropshire, holding the dower of his wife of the King in capite, by the service of one Knight's-Fee. His land was estimated as annually worth £\Q}^ A similar, and nearly contemporary, return of Knights holding '? Claus. i, 67. Gerard de Camvill was Father of Richard, which Richard had already married Eustachia only daughter and Heir of Gilbert Basset. — It is singular that this matter should have been kept in abeyance, when the Charters of both King Richard and King John had confirmed Shalford to Gilbert "8 Abbreviatio Fladtorum, p. 47. 5' For this change or pluraUty of names Tide supra, p. 116, note 31. 100 101 Sot. Pip. 1 to 8 John. ii» Tesia de Nevill, p. 55. 288 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. in capite in Shropshire, says that Ingelram de Pratellis holds one Pee in Hideshale, with the Mother of Walter de Dunstanvill.^"^ At Michaelmas 1214, Ingeram de Pratellis was exempted from the Scutage of Poitou, then assessed at the rate of three merks on each Knight's-Fee.i°* Previous to this date Walter de Dunstanvill (II) had attained his majority, and it is fitting that we should mark the first opening of his career. — On April 22, 1213, having married a daughter of William Fitz Alan, lately deceased, the King gives him 100 merks, and, as I presume, out of Fitz Alan's estate. The money was paid to Roger, a Knight and Companion of said Walter.^"" About Dec. 1213, he occurs as a Surety in a sum of twenty merks, for a Fine proffered by Isolda Biset in Wiltshire.^"^ In February 1214, he went with King John to Poitou,^"'' and the same year is Surety for a Fine proffered in Sussex by Robert le Sauvage. On Feb. 7, 1215, being styled the King's "faithful and beloved," he has a grant of Market and Fair, to be held in his Wiltshire Manor of Heytesbury.^"^ On Oct. 9, 1215, having been apparently under some suspicion of disloyalty, the King commands his Constables of Bristol, Marl- borough, and Devizes, not to injure him or his lands, and to restore aught which they might have taken therefrom.^"' On Dec. 10 following, Henry Fitz Count (Son of Earl Reginald) and the Sheriff of Cornwall are ordered to give him reseizin of Tiggedun, of which said Henry had disseized him.^^" On July 23, 1216, his final secession from King John's allegiance is apparent. Thomas de Samford is then ordered to give his lands of Cumb, Brocton, and Heytesbury to Geoffrey and Oliver de Butevill for their support in the King's service.^^^ '"^ Liber Ruber, fo. exxxvij. Another return made between 1210 and 1212 shows Walter de Dunstanvill to be the reputed Tenant in capite of Heytesbury, Cumbe (Castle Comb), Colerne, and Brae- ton, and Engeram de Pratellis to hare some interest in Colerne. (Ibidem, fo. cxxxij, Tit. Wiltesh.) '"^ Eot. Pip. 16 John, Salop. '"^ MiscB. 14 John (printed in Cole's Documents, p. 259). The name of Fitz Alan's daughter was Petronilla. ™ OUata, p. 512. i"? Clans, i, 166, 200. ™ Ibidem, p. 186. i™ Ibidem, p. 231. "" Ibidem, p. 241. — It does not appear how the elder branch of the Dunstanvills acquired its Cornish Estates, whether by feoffment of Earl Reginald, or of King John himself, whilst Earl of Moreton and Cornwall. "' Ibidem, p. 278. IDSALL, OR SHIPFNAL, 289 Before November 4, 1217, he had returned to the allegiance of King Henry III, and the Sheriffs of Shropshire, Cambridgeshire, Wiltshire, and Surrey are ordered accordingly ; — to restore his estates.^i^ About the same time he has Letters of Scutage addressed to the Sheriffs of Sussex and Wiltshire ; — that is, being, I suppose, in the King's service, he was discharged of Scutage himself, but empowered to collect it from such of his Tenants as were not similarly in attendance. ^■'^ At Michaelmas 1218, not having had Letters to the Sheriff of Salop exempting him from assessment to the first Scutage of Henry III, and being probably at this time seized of Idsall, owing to some variance with his Mother, he, and not Ingeram des Preaux, is charged two merks on one fee in Ydeshall on that Scutage. He paid the same in the year foUowing.i^* On Feb. 19, 1221, he had the usual Letters of ScM^a^e in respect of his personal service in the Army of Biham, but at Michaelmas following, the Sheriff of Shropshire entered the Royal exemption of the Idsall Fee as in favour of Ingelram de Pratellis.^i^ At the Shrewsbury Assizes of November 1221, the cause between Engeram de Pratellis and Sibil his wife complainants (querentes) and Walter de Dunstanvill, concerning SibiFs Dower in Ideshall was compounded. The lands which Engeram and Sibil held in dower on the day of concord were to remain to them. And Walter would give to them, in augmentation, six librates of land in Hammes (Sussex) and in Berkshire. And they would remit to Walter all their right in his remaining lands. And if the lands in Hammes (Sussex) and in Berkshire were not sufficient to realize an annual income of £&. then the deficiency should be made up out of lands in Wiltshire. This was the foundation of their agreement, and the parties were appointed to meet at Westminster on the octaves of Hilary (Jan. 20, 1222) to receive their respective Chirographs (formal Fines) ; and in the mean time, extent (valua- tion) of the lands concerned was to be made.^^^ The final Concord thus contemplated was levied at Westminster ''2 Ibidem, p. 341. Dimstanvill's Cam- bridgeshire lands were acquired with his wife, Petronilla Fitz Alan. Letters of safe conduct, enabling him and John Fitz Alan (his Brother-in-Law) to come to the Court, bear date Oct. 2, 1217. (^Patent, 1 Hen. III.) "3 Ibidem, p. 372. "■i Rot. Pip. 2 & 3 Hen. Ill, Salop. "6 CTfflM.i,475, andi?oi.PJp.5Hen.III, Salop. "^ Salop Assizes, 6 Hen. Ill, memb. 3. 290 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. on June 5, 1222, between Engeram de Pratellis, and Sibil his wife plaintiffs (petentes),' and Walter de Dunstanvill, Tenant of the Manor of Idechall with its appurtenances, which Engeram and Sibil claimed to be the dower of Sibil out of the free tenement which had been Walter de Dunstanvill's, the Tenant's Father. — And whereof there was suit at law, &c. — The Fine was, that Walter conceded to the Plaintiffs a third of the issues of all woods per- taining to the Manors of Ideshale and Aldredesle (Adderley) ; he also conceded Roger de Ideshale with his tenement, and Richard Was of Aldredesle with his tenement, and belongings (sequela) ; and the residue (of those Manors) was to remain to Walter. And Engeram and Sibil were to hold the Manor of Culne (Coleme, Wilts), and all the tenements which were of Walter's Fee in the same ; but the Manor of Sterte and twenty-five virgates in Cumb (Castle Comb), and two mills, one meadow, and one wood, and all the tenement of Wily (which Nicholas Fitz Thomas held for £8. per annum, at fee-farm, and by knight's service) and all the Manor of Heterede and of Brocton were to remain to Walter. Walter further conceded to Engeram and Sibil the Manor of Hammes in Sussex, except the homage and service of Hamo de Hammes,and except the meadow, which was of old appurtenant to the Manor of Bircham, which was to remain to Walter. Moreover Walter conceded the service of William de Selinton (due) on one hide in Bercham and the tenements of divers persons in Bercham and in Waldo. And Engeram and Sibil were to have all the Knight's Fees which they held before, viz. two fees of Hugh de Cumbwell in Cumbwell and in Cumpton, and one hide in Pacheshag and one fee which Adam de CardunuU held in Polton, and one fee in the same which the Abbot of Tewksbury held, and three parts of a fee in Brictefeld which William de Nevill held, and half a fee in Wily- Bechampton which Gilbert de Meleford held, and the foreign service of four hides (whereof five hides were equivalent to one fee) held by Richard de Lucteshull in Lucteshull, and the Knight's service pertaining to five hides in Bideston, which William de Bideston held. All these were to be held by Engeram and Sibil (for the life of Sibil), of Walter and his heirs, in name of dower. And it was to be noted that this concession was made out of lands and tenements whereof Walter, formerly husband of Sibil had given dower to the said Sibil. It was also to be noted that all rents, which Engeram and Sibil had previously in Bercham, were to remain to them, except the demesne, which they surrendered to Walter.^^^ "7 Fines Divers. Comitat. 6 Hen. Ill, No. 21. IDSALL, OR SHIPPNAL. 291 Before I continue my account of Walter de Dunstanvill (II), I will say what remains to be said of Ingeram de Preaux and his wife SibU.— On May 2, 1225, a King^s writ allows Ingeram some facility for conveying corn by sea from his Manor of Hammes in Sussex.^^^ In September 1226, he and his wife appoint Attorneys in a suit which they had against William Longespee and Idonea his wife, concerning a third part of the Manor of Shalford.^^' Idonea, wife of William Longespee, was sole daughter and heir of Richard de Camvill by Eustachia, sole daughter and heir of Gilbert Basset. — Hence her tenure of Shalford. Another appointment of Attorneys in November 1226, calls the Defendant, " William son of William Longespe," and states the claimed to be a third part of three carucates.-^^" At Michaelmas 1229, Ingelram de Preaux was deceased; and his heir was inadvertently entered on the Shropshire Pipe-Roll as owing two merks on one Knight' s-Fee for the Scutage of Keri. But this entry has a mark of cancellation affixed, and the reason thereof given thus, — "because Walter de Dunstanvill son and heir of Ingelram's wife, answers below." Accordingly an entry lower down on the Roll charges the said Walter with these two merks, but he had subsequent exemption by writ of the King.^^^ SibU de Preaux, now a second time a Widow, continued her suit against William and Idonea Longespee. — On May 16, 1230, the cause came to trial at Westminster. — " Sibil de Ferrers" (so written for Praers)^^^ " sued William de Longspee and Idonea his wife, for a third part of a Knight's- Fee in Shalefeld and Aldeford as her dower, whereof Walter de Dunstanvill, formerly her husband," (had been seized on the day when he had espoused her) . William and Idonea say that " Sibil ought not to have dower thereof, because said Walter was not seized of said land, so as to be able to grant dower thereof, neither on the day when he espoused Sibil nor ever afterwards ;— because that King Richard, before "13 Clans, ii, 35. ™ aaus. ii, 155. ™ Ibidem, 205. 12' Bot. Pip. 13 Hen. Ill, Salop. '22 It is singular to observe tlie amount of confusion which this one scribal error has produced. Mammg and Bray, in t\ie\x Sistory ofSmrrey, have developed it into a complex mis-statement. Kennett, in his Pa/rochial Antiquities, has annexed it to other mistakes with which he encum- bers the genealogy of Dunstanvill. 292 TDSALL, OR SHIPFNAL. Walter married Sibil, restored the said land to one Gilbert Basset, as the right and marriage portion of Alice Dunstanvill, Sister of said Walter, and Mother of said Gilbert, to which Alice the said Walter had given the same land in marriage. And (William and Idonea) produce the Charter of the King (Richard), which testi- fieth hereunto." — And Sibil comes into Court and says, that " the Charter ought not to injure her, forasmuch as Robert de Dunstanville, Uncle of Walter aforesaid (her husband), bought that land from Robert Wate\dle for 100 merks and two greyhounds, and held it all his life. And because he (Robert) died without heir of his body, the land descended to the aforesaid Walter as his Nephew and heir, which Walter held the same all his life, nearly to the last of his days, until the same King Richard, in the ninth year of his reign, by his own will and without judicial sentence, disseized him (Walter) of that and all his other lands. And to prove this Sibil puts her- self on the Country, &c. And the Court decides that a jury should make inquest thereon, &c." ^^^ Unable to trace the result of this suit, which I conceive must have been unfavourable to the Plaintiff, I return to Walter de Dunstanvill (II), who at Michaelmas 1224, is found to be exempted, on the Shropshire Pipe Roll, from both the Scutages of Montgomery and Bedford. On May 14, 1225, he is appointed a Commissioner to convey to Gloucester the tax of the Fifteenth then levied in the Counties of Salop and Stafford.!^ On March 27, 1227, he has a grant of Market and Fair at Heytesbury, identical as to days and duration with the previous Charter of King John.^^^ His acquittance of the Scutage of Keri in 1229 has already been noticed. In Easter Term 1230, he had a suit against Reginald deVaUetort and Johanna his wife and her coparcners, concerning land unspeci- fied : — but it should be noted that this Joan was one of the daughters and coheirs of Thomas Basset, Walter's Cousin ; which Thomas had, as was said, the Manors of Collinton and Witeford by gift of Walter's Father .i^s In 1230, 1231, and 1232, Walter de Dunstanvill was acquitted. 123 Dodsworth, vol. 42, fo. 149, quoting PZaciiad«-Ba»(;o,EasterTerm,14Heii.III, Surrey. — The original EoU is lost. 12< Claus. ii, 74. '=5 Ibidem, 179. 125 Dodsworth, toI. 42. fo. 150. IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 293 in respect of one Fee in Ideshale, of the Scutages of Bretagne^ Poitou and Elvein.i^? In 1235-6, towards the Auxilium for marriage of the King's Sister, this Walter paid three merks on one-and-a-half Knights'- Fees in Shropshire and 16*. %d. on one Lesser Fee at Tehidy in Cornwall.128 In 1238, he pays a fine of 20s. through the Sheriff of Shropshire for license to compound some law-suit. About 1240-1, he is returned among the Shropshire Feudatories as holding one-and-a-half Knight's-Fees in capite of the King. Ideshale alone is specified as the locality of the Tenure, but I presume that Adderley was included in the estimate of service due.129 On Aug. 21, 1241, Walter de Dunstanvill (II) was deceased, for then did the King, at Chester, receive the homage of Walter his son and heir ; and Mandate issued to the Sheriff of Shropshire to take security from the said heir for due payment of his Relief (jSIOO) ; — to give him seizin of his lands ; — and to certify the Sheriff of Wiltshire of such security being found, so that the latter, who also had the King's Mandate on the subject, should give further seizin of the lands which lay in his County ,^^° The memory of Walter de Dunstanvill (II), to whom I return for a moment, is not associated with works of piety. The Chartulary of Wombridge does not, that I can find, mention his name. A grant which he made to Shrewsbury Abbey was only his part of a bargain, whereby he recovered the Advowson of Idsall, as will appear when I come to speak of the Church. He so far benefited the Abbey of Haghmon as to allow the Canons a right of road through his land of Adderley when they were going to, or returning from, Wiche in Cheshire, where they had some salt-pits. This grant, in which he is styled Gaiter de Dunstanvill, probably passed soon after^his marriage to Petro- nilla Fitz Alan, for it purports to be for the health of himself, his '=? Rot. Pip. 14, 15, 16 Hen. Ill, Salop. 128 Testa de Nevill, pp. 46, 201. The Shropshire Assessment included Adderley, I suppose. The Honour of Cornwall, or Moreton (as it was sometimes called), consisted chiefly of lesser fees {minuta feoda). The value of these lesser fees was reputed to be two-thirds that of the II. greater {quorum tria faciunt duo) ; but when Scutage was levied at the rate of 2 merks (26«. 8d.) on the greater fees, I find the lesser usually assessed (as in the text) at 16s. 8d., which is below the exact proportion. 129 Testa de NeviU, p. 46. 130 Rot. Mnium, i, 351. 38 294 IDSALIi, OR SHIFFNAL. wife and heirs^ and for the souls of his ancestors and for the soul of William Fitz Alan (who died about 1210) .i^i One Record says that William Fitz Alan himself gave Iselham (Cambridgeshire) to his daughter Petronilla as her marriage por- tion (ad se maritandam) and that she married herself (se maritavit) to Walter de Dunstanvill.^^^ — The inference is that the marriage took place after Fitz Alan's deathj and we know it to have been completed before 1213, — exactly the interval in which I should suppose Walter de Dunstan- vill (II) to have attained his majority. I have no further notice of his wife Petronilla nor of his having left a Widow to survive him. — Neither have I met with any secular Deed or Charter issued in his name, except one referred to by Dugdale whereby he, as Walter de Dunstanvile, gave &c. to Alan Basset the whole Manor of Win- terborne. — Witnesses : Geoffrey Fitz Piers Earl of Essex, William Marshall Earl of Pembroke, William Earl of Warren, William Earl of Ferrers, Warin Fitz Gerold.^^^ Of his son and heir, Walter de Dunstanvill (III), succeeding, as I have shown, in August 1241, we have very full accounts. Of his relief (£100.) he paid J20. to the King at Winchester, before Michaelmas 1242, and the balance in 1243.^'* About this time he is returned as holding five fees in Bergham (Sussex) of the Honour of Arundel.^^^ In 1245, he was assessed 20*. in respect of one fee in Ideshal to the Auxilium ior laarriage of the King's daughter; so also in 1254, to the Auwilium for making Prince Edward a Knight.'^^^ In this latter year he was also returned among those who held twenty librates and upwards of lands in this County.^''' In 29 Hen. Ill (1244-5), he had a grant of Market and Fair in his Manor of Hydeshale.^'^ ™ Haughmond Chartulary, fo. 4. The witnesses' names are not given. "2 Mot. JHund. ii, 504. 1^ Glover's Collections, A, fo. 99. This deed passed about the year 1212, probably in the Court of King John, and when Walter de Dunstanvill attained his ma- jority. Had it not been for WiUiam Earl Warren's attestation, I should have hesi- tated whether to assign the deed to the secondWalter deDunstanviU or his Father, so much has it the appearance of an ori- ginal grant rather than a Confirmation. The latter, however, it clearly was. It was sealed with Arms — Fretty, on a dexter canton a Lion passant. 134 JRot. Pip. 26 & 27 Hen. Ill, Salop. 135 Testa de Nevill, 222, 223. >36 Sot. Fip. 29 & 38 Hen. Ill, Salop. 137 DtiJces' Antiquities, Introduction, p. vii. 138 Rot. Chart. 29 Hen. Ill, memb. 2. IDSALL, OR SHIFPNAL. 295 In 1255, his Tenure of the Wiltshire Hundred of Heytesbury is the subject of a full return, as also are his interests in other parts of the County.139 In 1357,he was called upon as one of the Barons-Marchers to assist Hamo Le Strange on the borders of Montgomeryshire. He had Military summons to meet the King at Chester on July 1, 1258, to oppose the hostilities of the Welsh, and in 1260 was ordered to become resident in the Marches for the better security of those parts."" In the same year he had quittance of the Scutage of Wales in respect of his Shropshire Fee.^*^ He had Military Summons to be at Hereford on January 9, 1263, to oppose the incursions of the Welsh, and again to be at Ludlow on February 9 foUowing.^*^ On the 14th of May 1264, he fought on the Rebels' side at Lewes, a transgression which was pardoned by Letters Patent issued in the name of the captive King on April 16, 1265."^ The following month, the King, being at Hereford, was simi- larly assumed to have appointed him Governor of Salisbury Castle.i** Whatever the pains visited upon his disloyalty no long or per- manent forfeiture was the result. He died on January 14, 1 270, and an Inquisition held forthwith at Castelcombe reported him to have so died, seized of the Wiltshire Manors of Cumbe, Colerne, Sterte, Hurdecote, and Heytesbury, — that PetroniUa his daughter was his next heir, and would be twenty- two years of age on February 22 following ; and that she was already married to Robert de Montfort. The Inquisitions of other Counties do not seem to be preserved, but on February 11, 1270, the King's Writ issued to the Escheator citra Trent, ordering him to give seizin of all Dunstanvill's lands to " Robert de Montfort, who had married PetroniUa, daughter and heir of the deceased.""' The Charters in which the last Walter de Dunstanvill's name "9 Mot. Sund. ii, 232, &e. "" Dugdale's Baronage, i, p. 591. "1 Rot. Fip. 44 Hen. Ill, Salop. i''2 Dugdale's Baronage, i, p. 591. i« i« Sot. Pat. 49 Hen. III. '■** Glover' s Collections, A, fo.Uh. The printed Calendar of Inquisitions gives this as an inquiry on the estate of " William de Dunstanvill." Dugdale has represented Petronilla's age to hare been twelve instead of twenty- two, which would have made her a Wife when only eleven years old, and a Mother before she was sixteen. 296 GENEALOGY OF DE L'ISLE Humphrey de Insula, Domesday Lord of ^^ Castle-Comb, Winterburne, and twenty- five other Manors in Wiltshire. Occurs 1085, 1091. Ealph Basset, Justice of England Occurs 1115, 1122. Gilbert Basset, supposed younger- Son of Kalph, Occurs 1130. Walter de Pinkney. Occurs circa 1145. Murdered circa 1147. Thomas Basset " of Hedendon ' Occurs 1158. Sheriff of Oxfordshire 1164. Liying 1179. Oliit circa 1181. • Alice de Dunstanvill. Swperstes 1186. Egelina (de: Courtney). '■ Gilbert Basset. Occurs 1182. Liyiug April 1205. Defunctus Dec. 1205. Thomas Basset- " of Cohnton." OUit 1220. :Philippa, daughter and coheir of William Malbanc. Basset of Wycombe. ■ Alan Basset "of Wycombe" and Wiuterbum. Occurs 1194-1232. Ist husband = Thomas de Verdon. OUit 1199. s.p. =Eustaohia=f=2d husband, Richard de Camvill. Married in daughter and sole heir. 1199. Henry de Newburgh, Earl of Warwick. Ohiit 1229. I. =p Philippa Basset. Had Livery 1220. I Alicia = William Basset. Malet. Imupta Defunctus 1220. 1229. I Wilham Longespee, son ^ Idouea de Camvill, of William Earl of sole daughter and heir. Salisbury. Of full age 1226. Slain in Palestine 1250. Willam Longespee =p Maud, daughter of = 2d husband, John Gifford OUit 1257. Walter de Clifford, of Brimmesfield. 297 DITNSTANVILL, AND BASSET. * * * * de Pinkney=T-Aclelina de Insula, daughter and sole heir^ I Selicta 1124. Living 1130. : Reginald de Dunstauvill. Defnnctus 1124. 1 Kobert de DunstanTill alias Robert Fitz Reginald. Occurs 1141. OUit circa 1167. s.p.s. Alan de DunstanriU, Lord of =f Idsall, &o. Occurs 1141. Defimetm 1156. 2 Walter de DunstanTill (I)=7=Hawi8e alias Sibil -r^p' husband, Occurs 1156. OUit circa 1195. de3 Preaux. Occurs 1194. Superstes 1230. Engeram des Preaux. Occurs 1199. ^Defnnctus 1229. Alan de Dunstanyill. Occurs 1185, 1189, 1216. : * * « * coheir of Emma de Langetot. Nata 1155. Occurs 1185. 2dhus-=* band Basset. Wido de Creoun. =p Ist husband Walter de Dunstanvill (II) =p Petronilla Albert de Infra cetatem 1206. Gresley. Married before April 1213. OUit circa In Poitou 1214. 1179. Obiit circa Aug. 1241. I Cecily daughter de Dun- of WilHam stauvUl. Fitz Alan Defuncta (II). 1208. =f= William, son of John, son of Osmund Basset. Johanna = Reginald de Basset. Had Livery 1220. Occiu's 1230. Valletort. Occurs 1230. Obiit 1246. s.p. Robert de =p Gresley. Natus circa 1175. OUit 1230. 3 daughters (unnamed). Walter de Dun- stanrill (III). Had Livery 21 Aug. 1241. OUit 14 Jan. 1270. : 1st wife, Dionisia. 2d wife Rohese. Svperstes 1279. 1st husband, Robert de Montfort: Living 11 Feb. ia|0, Oct. 1272. Befunctns 1274. : Petronilla de Dunstanvill = sole daughter and heir. Nata 22 Feb. 1248. Oociirs as a widow 1274. Occurs 1284. Defuncta 1292. = 2d husband, John de la Mare. Occurs 1292. OUit 1313-4. William de Montfort. Infra cetatem 1292. Sold Idsall 1309-10. 298 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. occurs are very numerous. From the Wombridge Chartulary I select the following. — 1. The Charter wherein Sir Walter de Dunstanvill is Grantee of Richard de GrenhuU in a Mill at Grenhull, and which passed between 1241 and 1249.1*'' 2. The Charter whereby "Walter de Dunstanvill first granted the said Mill to Wombridge Priory, and which seems to have passed between 1260 and 1265 .i« 3. The Charter whereby Walter de Dunstanvill Tercius again grants the same, and which probably passed between 1265 and 1269.i''8 4. The Charter whereby Walter de Dunstanvill grants to the same the assart which Gilbert Bluet once held of him, with an acre of wood near thereto, and house-bote, hay bote and free pannage in all out-woods belonging to the Manor of Ydeshall ; — at a rent of 3s.i*^ This and the three following deeds I should suppose to have passed about 1269. 5. The Charter whereby the same grants to the same a piece of land and wood near the assart of John Stiventon containing twelve acres. ■'^'' 6. The Charter whereby Walter de Dunstanvill Tercius grants to the same all his part .of that wood which was in dispute between him and Thomas Tuschet (Lord of Lee-gomery) }^'^ 7. Charter of the same to the same granting his side of a certain rivulet which ran between the wood of the Canons of Wombridge and the Grantor's wood of SnelleshuU (SnedshUl), also that wood which was in dispute between the Grantor and Grantees, and 146 Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Gren- hul, No. i. — Witnesses : Sir John Dun- stanTill (probably Brother of theGrantee), Sir Walter de Hugford, Sir Eiehard de Sanford, the Lord Prior of Wombridge, Sir Walter de Kemberton, Sir Yvo de Broeton. (Vide Supra, p. 92.) '■'7 Ibidem, No. xi. — Witnesses : Sirs William deHugford,Koger de Pyvelesdon, Walter de Pedwarthin, Knights; Ealph de Stanford (probably Sanford), John de Prese, Thomas de Broeton, Eoger Bees (Begesore) of the same, Kobert Corbet (of Moreton), John de Stiventon. 1''^ Ibidem, No. ij. — Witnesses : Sir Kobert de Halegtoue, Sir John Fitz Hugh, Sir Walter de Pedwrthyn, Sir John Fitz Aer, John de Ercalwe, John de Stiventon, Herbert de Wyte. "' Ibidem, TU.LegaFrioris etIdesTiale, No. iij. — Witnesses : Sirs John de Erca- lew, John Fitz Aer, John Fitz Hugh, Walter de Pedewardin, Knights ; Thomas Corbet of Hedleg, Robert de Staunton, John de Stivinton. 1^° Ibidem, No. iiij. — Witnesses : Sirs ' Wilham de Hugford and most of the last, also Robert Corbet of Morton, John de Stiventon Bailiff of Edeshall (IdsaU), and Oliver de la Knoll. '*' Ibidem, No. xlj. — Witnesses : same as No. iij (note 149), adding Michael de Morton and Herbert de Wjke. IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 299 license to make a stank and water-banks (agistiamenta aquse) on his land of Stamford in Watlingsti-ete, &c.^^^ In the nature of a Monastic Charter is the Convention, which in 32 Henry III (1347-8), this Walter de Dunstanvill, Lord of Ideshale, came to with Nicholas Abbot of Buildwas, and the Convent thereof. Thereby the Abbot, &c. conceded to Walter and his heirs the vill of Upton which they (the Monks) had from Alan de la Zuche. Walter and his heirs were in turn to pay the Abbot and his Successors a-half-yearly rent of 20s. at the Church of Ideshale, and he charges the said rent on the following of his free-tenants, viz. on Herbert de Wyke 17s. per annum, for a virgate which he held in Wyke ; on Richard de Castello 8s. for a virgate which he held at the Castle; on Thomas Golding 5s. for half- a- virgate in Wyke ; on the Prior of Wombridge 2s. for an assart in Lega ; on Robert the Provost 4s. for half-a- virgate in Wyke ; on John Mugleston 3s. for ten acres at Woodhouse ; and on Oliver de KnoUe Is. for a virgate in Knolle. Besides these rent-charges Walter quit-claimed to the Abbot, &c. a rent of 4s. which he was used to receive from said Abbot, &c. for the heath of Hathtone (Hatton); he gave them also pasture for 300 of their sheep (reckoning by the long hundred), being at their granges of Hatton and Ruckley, within these boundaries (except in corn and meadowland), viz. from the land of Hattone along the King's highway which leads from Bishopeswey to the vill of Upton, and thence along the same road to Stauntone, and so under Stauntone along the ditch which is called Sparkmore, descending down to Wornh (Worf ) and thence to Ruckley -bridge. A Charter of general confirmation to Lewes Priory is rubricated in the Cbartulary of that House as the Deed of this Walter. Thereby he concedes the land of Nytembre for the souls' health of himself, his wife Dionisia, and his Ancestors, who before gave the said land. He also concedes the Church of Wynterburn, the tithes of Scaldeford (Shalford), a pension of 30s. receivable by the Priory from the Rector of the Church of Bernham, and the Chapel of Gretham.15* '^^ Ibidem, No. six. — Witnesses ; ex- actly as No. iij (note 149). '^3 Hoi. Cart. 20 Edw. I, n. 41, per Inspex. The original is printed Mo- nasUcon, v, 357 ; v ; as inspected by Petronilla de Montford, Dunstanville's daughter, about the year 12V4. The witnesses belong to her Inspeximws. '5'' Cotton Vespasian, F, xv, fo. 126.— Carta Walteri tertii de Donstanvilla. Walter de Dunstanvill (III) may have had a kind of eeigneury at Wiuterburne and 300 TDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. Some Manorial Deeds of this Walter de Dunstanvill shall be given under Upton, to which Township they probably refer. I should here state, that, as by the last recited Charter, the name of one of his wives was Dionisia, so must he have been married more than once ; for the name of his widoiv and last wife was Rohese. The latter appears to have had her dower in Great Iselham (Cambridgeshire). She was living in 1279, when Master Giles de Bridport, her Tenant at Iselham, is returned as holding the Manor under her, whilst she had held it of the heirs of Walter de Dun- stanvill, and they of the heirs of Fitzalan.^^^ Petronilla, daughter and sole heir of the last Dunstanvill, was, at her Father's death, wife of Robert de Montfort, who thus in her right became Lord of Idsall and other great estates. These he enjoyed not long for he was deceased in the year 1274. In the interval, that is at the County Assizes of September 1272, Robert de Montfort was returned by the Brimstree Jurors, as a defaulter in due attendance. ^°^ As Robert Monteforde Lord of Ideshale, and for the souls' health of himself, his wife Petronilla, and all his children and Ancestors, he granted to Wombridge some small additions to Walter de Dun- stanvill's grants, in the wood of Wyke, and in the direction of Stirchley-wood.^^'' Robert de Montfort dying, as I have said, in or before 1274, his wife Petronilla had sole Livery of her estates. ^^^ It was probably during her widowhood, that Petronilla de Mont- ford inspected and confirmed her Father's agreement with Buildwas Abbey, as before recited.^^^ Her eldest son William de Montfort was, at the time of his Father's death, and for long after, a Minor. Petronilla very soon remarried to John de la Mare. Shalford, but clearly nothing more. This deed is attested by Sir William de Wys- tereston, Hugh * * turmi, Ealph de Stapeham, Henry le Plemeng, &o. whose names, not belonging to Shropshire, do not enable me to judge of its date. 15* Rot. Bund, ii, 497, 504. The entry which describes another Tenant as then holding under Walter de Dunstanvill him- self is a mere inaocaracy of expression. 15' Flacita Corona, 36 Hen. Ill, memb. 22 dorso. '*' Chartulary, Tit. Lega Prioris, ^c. No. 1. — Witnesses : John de Stiventon, Herbert de Wyke, Walter Marescall, Oliver de Knoll, Kichard Pater-Noster. '** Dugdale's Saronage, i, p. 591. 1™ Rot. Cart. 20 Ed. I, n. 41. The witnesses of Petronilla's deed were Sir Henry de Pembruge (of Tong), Sir Walter de Pedwardin, Sir John Fitz Philip (of Bohbington), Sir Hugh de Weston, Knights; Malcohu de Harley, Master John de Cherlton. IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 301 In 1284j under the name of Petronilla de la Mare, her liberties in regard to the Forests of this district seem to have been matter of inquiry.i^o At the time of the County Assizes, October 1292, Petronilla being dead, John de la Mare was questioned as to his right of having ^ssi^'e of bread and beer. Stocks, infangthef, a fair, a market, and free-warren in the Manor of Ideshale. His Attorney pleaded that John de la Mare was Tenant of the Manor by the Law of England ; that it was of the inheritance of "William de Montfort, without whom, as being under age, he would not answer. The Crown prosecution was therefore ordered to remain till William de Montfort should come of age. At the same Assizes " Petronilla de Montfort's " former Tenure in Ideshall was returned as worth £?>Q per annum}^^ In 3 Edw. II (1309-10), John de la Mare, of Bradwell (as he was called from his own estate in Essex), was still holding Idsall, by courtesy of England, when William de Montfort sold the Manor to Bartholomew de Badlesmere,^*^ who indeed purchased from him Adderley, and all, or almost all, his other estates. About four years later, viz. in 7 Edw. II (1313-14), died John de la Mare ;— and thus ends a history of nearly two centuries, which con- nected the Manor of Idsall with the name and race of Dunstanvill. I will follow the subject no later, except to remark that, coin- cidently with its change of Lords, the Manor appears to have been first described by its other name of Shiffnal. Thus Bartholomew de Badlesmere, in 9 Edward II, obtained a Charter to hold two Fairs in his Manor of " Suffenhale," and a contemporary grant of free-warren in his Manor of "Ideshale." ^^^ The Genealogy which I have given for Dunstanvill is so different from one which rests on other authority that I cannot quit the subject without stating some points at least in what I will for the present assume to be an authentic account. — '^ Calendar of Inquisitions, vol. i, p. 85. '^' Placita Corona, 20 Edw. I, memb. 23, 22. Mr. Dukea' account (pp. 141, 193) would make it appear that Petronilla was living at the time of these Assizes. John de la Mare had himself obtained the King's Charter of Pree Warren in 11 Edw. I (1283), and for the following Manors, viz. Idshall and Adderley (Salop) , Cumbe, Colerne, Sterte, Heytesbury, and II. Herdecote (Wilts), Iselham (Cambr.), and Bergham (Sussex), all his wife's Manors; also in Mioham (Surrey), Brad- weU (Essex), and Bergholt (Suffolk), which were his own {Mot. Cart. 11 Edw. 1, No. 24). 1*2 Dukes' Antiquities, page 194. >« Mot. Cart. 9 Edw. II, No. 57. The same document shows Badlesmere to be Lord of Adderley, Castlecomb, Colerne, Heytesbury, Sterte, and Herdecote. 39 30:3 IDSALL, OR SHIFl'NAL. This is a MS. Pedigree of Dunstan-rill, at the British Museum, marked — "P. 4." It is apparently the work of a Herald, and belonged to, or was written by, one of the Wriothesleys, three of whom bore office in the College of Arms in the reigns of Edward IV, Bichard III, and Henry VII. The principal points in which this Heraldic Pedigree differs from or agrees with the one I offer are these, viz. that Kainold (Reginald) de DunstanviU married Atheliza daughter of Reginald de Warren, Brother of William 2d Earl Warren ; — that said Rainold was Baron of Castelcomb, that he granted in Waston to Tewkesbury, and that he died 3 April, 2 Hen. II (1156) ; — that Atheliza his wife died 1 May, 4 Hen. II (1158) ; that she was -buried at Tewkesbury, and that her heart was buried at Castel-Acre (a Cell of Lewes, in Norfolk) ; — that the son and heir of Rainold and Atheliza was a second Rainold de DunstanviU who died at Wilton in 30 Hen. II (1184), and who by his wife Isabella daughter of R * * * of Tholouse had a son Walter de Dunstanyill, Baron of Castel-Combe, whose wife was Ursula daughter of Reginald Earl of Cornwall ; that the second Walter de DunstanviU, son of Walter (I) and Ursula, married Matilda daughter of William Earl MareseaU, and had by her a son and heir, the third Walter; — that Walter de DunstanviU (III) married IsabeUa daughter of Thomas de Clare Earl of Grloucester (a person whose existence is not elsewhere recorded), and that their only child Petronilla, married to Robert Montfort, had by him a Son and Heir, WiUiam, who "sold by fine his lands and possessions to Bartholomew de Badlesmere in 3 Edw. II." Wow there is something in this account which indicates that the Compiler had, to a certain extent, consulted the same authentic documents as those which I have quoted in my own narrative. There is something also which impUes » reference to other authentic documents, not indeed specified by the CompUer, nor ever seen by me, but which for the present we wiU presume him to have used honestly. But this Pedigree involves a third class of assertions, directly contradictory of facts which I have advanced on what appeared to me sound authority ; and these assertions are supported by written documents, — by professed copies of original Deeds. A better primd facie guarantee of honesty could not be offered. Here, then, are Wriothesley's Vouchers — The &e&t is a Mandate of King John — " John, D. G-. &c., to the Sheriff of Wiltshire, greeting. Whereas Reginald late Earl of ComwaU, by fine levied in our Court at Westminster, in the 8th year of the Lord Richard late King of England, acknowledged that a moiety of the Manor of Colern and a third part of the Manor of Addersley in your County, were the right of Walter de DunstauviUe and of Ursula his wife, daughter of the said Earl, Father and Mother of Walter de Dunstanville now living, and whose heir he (Walter II) is, as a gift in frank marriage, the which moiety Sir Richard MarischaU now holds, and the which third part aforesaid WiUiam Beauehamp occupieth, — We command you, &o., that you make known to the said Richard and William that they are to appear before our Justices on the Morrow of All Souls (Nov. 3) if they have aught to say on their parts why execution of the aforesaid moiety and third part should not be made according to the aforesaid Concord. And you are to have there the names of those summoned, &e." To say that this document does not remain on any existing Boll of John's reign, to raise a question whether it may not have formed a part of one of the lost RoUs, to criticize its want of date and other technical informalities, is but to trifle with the truth. It is a detestable forgery, for Reginald Earl of Cornwall, whom it aUeges to have been Recognizor in a Kne levied in 8 Rie. I (1196-7), died in 1175.™ Whether Wriothesley himself adopted or concocted this document is a matter of small importance to us now, — a question only as to the credulity or dishonesty of a 1'* Almost certainly, too, Walter de DunstanviU (I) was dead before 8 Bic. I (1196-7). IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 303 very ancient Herald. It suggests however the idea that Vincent and Dugdale may have derived their information, about the marriage of Walter de Dunstanvill (I) and Ursula, from this, or some other equally spurious and too hastily adopted, authority. The mention of Addersley in the forged Charter is also curious. The Forger seems to have had some indistinct knowledge of a place so named having belonged to Walter de Dunstanvill, though he did not know that it was in Shropshire, and that Walter was lord thereof before 1190. Another Wriothesley Voucher exhibits " Reginald Earl of Cornwall as releasing an annual rent of £10, which he had out of the Manor of Combe, to Walter de Dun- stanville his son-in-law in frank marriage." Nothing is given whereby we may test the genuineness of this document. It is rather plausible than otherwise, for Reginald Earl of Cornwall was sometime Lord of Castle-Combe, and Walter de Dunstanvill, after the Earl's death, obtained the whole Manor. The third Voucher runs thus : — " The Market of Combe was conceded to the first Walter de DunstauviU by King Henry II, as is plain by Letters Patent having a cord of red silk (ut patet per litteras patentes habentes rubeam sericam)." A grant of Market under Letters Patent of Henry II would, I believe, be a solecism ; but, passing that question, I find that Cumbe did not belong to Walter de Dunstan- vill (I) till after the death of Henry II. The fourth document says, that " the Market of Colern on Fridays was granted to Walter son of the aforesaid Walter, by King Henry III." The Charter Rolls of that King do not, I think, corroborate this statement. However, it may be true. The fifth Voucher is a deed — " Know all men, &c., that I, Walter Secundus de DunstanviUe, for a marriage to be had between Robert de Dunstanvill my Nephew, son of John mj Brother, and G-raoia de Bohun, sistei^of the venerable Lord, Earl of Hereford, have given, &c., to the said Grracia £50. of rents issuing out of the Manors of Colerue and Heytesberye in Com. Wiltes, to hold all her life in name of dower. The witnesses are Robert de Dunstan- viUe my younger Brother, Roger de Budeston, Reginald de Fyloppe." This Charter is in itself suspicious, and more so from its appearance in bad company. The testing clause is introduced in a manner not in use in the thirteenth Century. It was very unusual for a Grantor to be so minute in describing relation- ships, however such a practice might suit the convenience of later G-enealogists. — I doubt much whether the second Walter de Dunstanvill had two, or even one Brother. The sixth and last document informs us that — "The Market of Heytesbery was conceded to Walter de Dunstanvill and Dame Matilda his vrife, daughter of William Maresoall Earl of Pembroke, by King John m his 16th year, as appears by Letters Patent and Charter marked thus " — (a mark is here added indicating the original documents implied). Here again we have a genealogical statement quite unusual to a grant of Market. Moreover, it is almost certain that the Earl of Pembroke of this period had no sucli daughter as Matilda, thus announced. However, in this case, as a consequence of a date being given, we are enabled to refer to the enrohnent of King John's Charter.— It is found to have passed at Marlborough on Feb. 7, in his sixteenth year (1215). It is enroUed both on the Close and Charter Rolls.i«»— Not a word does either Copy of the Grant say about Matilda or any other wife of the Q-rantee ! Claws, i, 186 ; Rot. Chart, p. 205 (Hardy). 304 IDSALL, OR SHIl'FNAL. We may here dismiss this tissue of falsification and forgery. That very ancient School of Heraldry which originated such documents is perhaps extinct. Grenealogy and Heraldi-y, apart from their moral and historical uses, are degraded studies.™ How can that be of moral use which perverts truth, and ministers to the worst form of family pride ? How can that be an available element of History which poisons the very fountains of History itself ? The Manor of Idsall involved many Townships or Members, held by Tenants of various rank and importance. Before I speak of any of these I will give accoant of — EVELITH— which, though locally situated within Idsall Manor, is not known ever to have been a member thereof. Its Domesday status is very uncertain. Our next subsequent notice of it would make it a separate Manor, or associate it with Hatton rather than Idsall. We have still later and stronger indications that it was an out- lying Member of Moreton (now Moreton Corbet). If this were the case at Domesday, Turold will have been its first Norman Lord and Hunnit and Uluiet his Tenants ; but that Eecord makes no mention of any outlying member of Moreton. Such an omission is however by no means negative of the connexion.^^'^ The Tenure was perhaps at Domesday a complex or a disputed one. In a case of such uncertainty it is better to follow the rule suggested by situation. I therefore treat of Evelith under IdsaU. I have set forth under Hatton the Deed whereby Adam Traynel of Hatton granted to his Nephew Ivo, "his Manor of Ivelith as well in Ivelith as in Hynynton, at an annual rent of a red rose." — I have treated this Deed as one of debatable antiquity, but to which I was myself inclined to assign a very ancient date, viz. the earlier half of the twelfth Century. In the end of that Century, we have several notices of Evelith ™ for some remarks on the falsification of written documents I refer to Mr. Blake- way'a Preface to the Sheriff's of Shropshire (page vi) ; also to the same Author {Sis- tory of Shrewsbwry, vol. i, p. 309, note) for a statement of the moral uses of Genealogical research. "*' It is the general rule of Domesday to mention by name any such outlying members of a Manor as may have lain in another Hundred. As regards More- ton andEvehth this rule would not apply; for, whether we consider Evelith a member of Moreton or of IdsaU, it was equally within the district described in Domesday as Basohercli Hundred. IDSALL, OR SHIl'FNAL. 305 or its owners ; but none of them connected in any manner with the said Deed. — This, by the way, is a further reason for attributing to that Deed a greater antiquity. I will now notice indifferently, except as regards chronology, the circumstances which exhibit Evelith as a member of Moreton rather than of Idsall. Hunnit with his Brother (Ulniet) held Mortone in Saxon times. At Domesday they still continued to hold it, but under Turold its Norman Lord. I have mentioned, under WUley, that several Manors which were thus held by Hunnit and Uluiet at Domesday were after- wards held by Toret (another Saxon) and by Toret's descendants.^^^ Thus it was with Moreton and with Evelith, for Toret and his representatives will appear to have held Moreton under Turold or his representatives ; and Evelith was eventually, if not primarily, held in the same feudal ratio. Toret the Saxon, living in the time of Edward the Confessor, noticed in Domesday , and surviving in the early part of the 12th Century, was undoubtedly the progenitor of a family which took its name of Toret or Fitz Toret from him. Whether Peter Eitz Toret who lived in the last half of that Century was the grandson or great- grandson of Toret, I will not attempt to decide. His son he can hardly have been.^^' From the year 1160 to the year 1194, the name of Peter Fitz Toret is constantly occurring in connexion with Shropshire places or Shropshire men ; but in far the greater number of instances this Peter appears as a follower, a witness to the deeds of, or as a Knight of Walter de Dunstanvill (I) Lord of Idsall. But it is more than probable that he was Dunstanvill's Tenant, not indeed at Evelith, '^ Supra, page 49. "i' nothing has been a more fruitful source of genealogical paradox than the mistaken idea which some Writers seem to have entertained with regard to the personal nomenclature of the twelfth Cen- tury. The Norman Aristocracy of that period adopted a system which, though in idea patronymic, was in practice anything else. In short, if I may coin the words, it was equaUy avonymic or proavonymic, or something higher stUl. Thus (and merely for example), if we hear of Corbet before Domesday, and of Alcher or Odo at Domesday, and then hear of Eoger Fitz Corbet in 1160, or of Robert Fitz Aer (Alcher), or Roger Fitz Odo in 1165, — and if we forthwith con- clude that the last three were sons of the first three, we shall probably be only in degree less mistaken than those who might conclude that Peter Corbet, or Hugh Fitz Aer, or WiUiam Fitz Odo, of the fourteenth century, were also Sons of the same ori- ginal founders of a race. — The term "filius" or "Fitz," as gene- rally used in the twelfth Century, means " descendant of," not " son of;" — but in some exceptional cases a strictly patrony- mic nomenclature, like that of the Welsh, seems to have obtained among the Normans. 306 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. but at Hem and Hinnington and perhaps elsewhere. Of that we shall have to speak hereafter. Here it should be noticed how that in some late appearances of Peter Fitz Toret he is accompanied by Philip and Bartholomew his sons, how also, in the latest of aU, Bartholomew alone is his Father's attendant. The inference is that Philip died in his Father's lifetime and without issue, for Bartholomew certainly succeeded to Peter. As I have thus far been able to connect Peter Fitz Toret with DunstanvUl, Lord of Idshall, rather than with Evelith, so now shall I show Bartholomew Fitz Toret rather in association with Evelith than with Dunstanvill or Idsall. On April 23, 1200, Emma Fitz Roger is suing, at Westminster, Bartholomew Fitz Peter, the Tenant, for one carucate of land in Ivelithe, under writ of mart d'ancestre. The Recognizors making default, the cause was adjourned till the King's Justices should be in those parts. ^''° I find no conclusion of this suit, but during the next thirty-five years one Gerard Fitz Toret is frequently occurring in this neigh- bourhood either under that name or as Gerard de Ivelith. He, I doubt not, was a younger Brother of Bartholomew, and also his Under-Tenant at Evelith. He has already been mentioned as attesting grants of Roger la Zouche and Philip de Burwardsley to Buildwas, and also a Brockton deed of William Cocus. Furthermore, Bartholomew de Moreton (that is Bartholomew Fitz Toret or Fitz Peter) and Gerard de Yvelith attest a grant which Richard, son of Richard Corbet (Bartholomew's Son-in-law), made to Buildwas Abbey before 1225 j^'''- and in 1229 both witnesses again appear in company, and, as Knights, superiatending a Convention to which Madoc de Sutton was a party. ^''^ Bartholomew Fitz Toret appears to have deceased before 1235. ''" Sot. Cmiee Segis, vol. ii, p. 199. Two of the Eecognizors named as De- faulters were Eobert de Belmes and Nicholas de Boliuchall (Boningale) . '?' Monasticon, f, 358, No. ix. The additional witness is supplied from the original Boll. ''^ Charter in possession of Mr. Greorge Morris. This Conyention, as weU as the last-named Buildwas Deed, are also at- tested by Geoffrey de PoleviUe, a Knight, and whose concern in this neighbourhood I cannot particularize. I cannot howeTCr help connecting the name with that of Baldwin de FrolavUl, or FredeviU, and Eoger de Freteville, or Frala-Tilla, whom we have seen with Peter Fitz Toret and his Sons attesting Walter de Dunstanvill's Deeds of the previous Century. IBSxVLL, OR SHIITNAL. 307 I omit to say here much that still remains to be said of his Ancestry and Succession both in this and other Counties. His Shropshire estates passed with his daughter to Richard Corbet of Wattles- borough, her husband, and in course of time to Robert Corbet their Son. Robert Corbet, Lord of Wattlesborough, &c. in right of his Father and of Moreton Toret (afterwards Moreton Corbet) and Evelith, in right of his Mother, had succeeded before 1255. His connection with Evelith made him frequently a visitant here and probably an occasional resident, for he certainly held the estate partly in demesne. We have seen him attesting the Charters of Walter de Dunstanvill (III) Lord of Idsall, and his name appears in other Deeds concerning this neighbourhood. At the County Assizes (September 1272), the Brimstree Jurors reported that John Ivelithe had broken open the Grange of Robert Corbet. The accused was outlawed.^^^ The Tenure- Roll of 1284, commonly known as " Kirby's Quest," says under Brimstree Hundred that " Robert Corbet holds one virgate in Yevelye of the Lord of Moreton ' Tubaud,' but that the Inquisition (from which the Roll was framed) did not mention whom the said Lord (of Moreton) held under." — That the Scribe who wrote this entry meant to present by " Moreton Tubaud," the place at first called Moreton Toret and afterwards Moreton Corbet, is evident, and his ignorance of the seigneural Lord is compensated by the entry under Moreton itself, where it is said that, — " Robert Corbet holds the vill of Moreton with its members, viz. Preston in Pymhill Hundred [i. e. Preston Brockhirst), and Ivelithe in Brimstree Hundred, under Reginald de Chetewinde, and he (Reginald) holds under Richard Fitz Alan.""* A Tenure-Roll of Bradford liundred, made not three years later than the last, repeats the same statement, substituting " Ivelynton " for " Ivelithe," " Roger de Chetwene " for " Reginald," and adding that "Richard Fitz Alan holds (over Chetwind) of the King in capite by half a Knight^s Fee, and that the Manor is geldable."^^^ I have said, under Willey, that the usual representative of Turold's Domesday Interest is found to be De Chetwynd in the next succeed- ing period. Here is an instance of that fact, as well as of the ''' Fladta Coronce, 56 Hen. Ill, Salop, memb. 23. 17* Kirby's Quest. — Bradford Hundred -(where Moreton was). i?5 Tenure EoU, in my possession. 308 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. further observation that Hunnit was relatively succeeded by the descendants of Toret. At the Assizes of October 1292, Robert Corbet was questioned as to the right of Free -Warren exercised by him at Ivelyth. He adduced a Royal Charter of Free- Warren in Morton Corbet and Wattlesburghj and averred that Ivelith was an appurtenance of Moreton. But Hugh de Louther (the Crown Prosecutor), asked that Judgment should be given for the King, because that Ivelyth was not named (in the said Charter), and was distant from Moreton as much as ten leagues. The Court decided that the aforesaid land of Ivelyth should be deprived of Warren (dewarrenetur) , and found Corbet to be in misericordid}'^^ An Inquisition on the death of Robert Corbet of Moreton, was ordered by writ of Nov. 14, 1300. The return is sadly defaced, but is sufficiently legible to show him as having held " Ivelith under John de Chetwynd.""7 A Chapel existed some time at Evelith. Its site was pointed out at the close of the last Century .^'^^ — A field adjoining the spot where the Manor House formerly stood is still known as the " Chapel Yard." HINNINGTON. This was undoubtedly a member of the Domesday Manor of "Iteshale." It was subsequently held under the Lords of Idsall, by the same men who held Evelith under the Chetwynds. Perhaps Hunnit or Hunninc, the usual predecessor of Toret and Corbet, was also their predecessor at Hinnington. The latter name, anciently written Hunnington, indicates almost as much. If so, this is one of a very few instances where a Saxon of so late an era as the reign of the Confessor, can be supposed to have given its name to any Shropshire locality. Adam Traynel's very early grant to his Nephew Ivo, conveys the Manor of Evelith, as if Hinnington were part and parcel thereof. That Deed however, probably in consequence of its great antiquity, can be coupled with no other known fact, either as regards the succession of Traynel or of Hunnit. '^^ Plaeita Corona, 20 Edw. I, memb. 23. The Charter of Free Warren adduced by Corbet was granted on March 20, 1284 {Sot. Cart. 12 Edw. I, memb. 49). It extended only to his demesne lands in Morton-Corbet and Watlesburg. '77 Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I, No. 45. 178 Blakeway MSS. JDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 309 I have alluded to the very frequent attestations of Pitz Toret and his descendants, which are found in Dunstanvill Deeds. These may chiefly be attributed to Peter Fitz Toret's tenure of Hinnington and Hem, under the Lords of Idsall. That Baldwin de Hinetun, who, with John his Son, attests the Charter of Walter, Son of John de Hemes, to Buildwas, was probably Fitz Toret's Under-Tenant at Hinnington .^''^ — The said Charter passed before 1202, and in the succeeding period I find John de Hinitun attesting a deed which will be given under Upton. I find no other mention of Under-Tenants here, but the Inquisition taken on the death of Robert Corbet of Moreton, in 1300, says expressly that he held Hemme and Hynyton under John de la Mare.^^" And a later Inquisition, taken May 7, 1310, on the death of Thomas Corbet of Moreton, is still more explicit. He died seized of the " Hamlets of Hemme and Hynyton, within thfe Manor of Ideshale, which were held of Sir John de la Mare, Lord of Ideshale, by half a Knight's-fee." i^i THE HEM. Nearly all that can be said of the Tenure of this Hamlet has been implied under Hinnington. Like Hinnington, it was held under the Lords of IdsaU, perhaps by Hunnit in the first and Toret in the second instance, but more certainly by Fitz-Toret and Corbet in the third and fourth. Johnde Hemes, and Walter his Son, who granted to Buildwas in the 12th Century, were probably Peter Fitz-Toret's Under-Tenants here. Their being also Under-Tenants of Traynel at Hatton, is only another phase of that inexplicable connection which associates and at the same time confases the relative histories of Hatton, Hem, Hinnington, and Evelith. We have further seen John de Hemmes attesting between 1192 and 1194 (with Peter Fitz Thoret and his Sons) a Grant of the first Walter de Dunstanvill, that is, as I take it, the Under Tenant attesting with the Mesne Lord a grant of the Seigneural Lord of Hem. I have little to say more of the family of these Under-Tenants, which seems to have decreased in importance. At the Assizes of 179 Supra, p. 170. I '" M'«"^!o»«, 3 Edw. II, No. 22. 18" Inquisitions, 29 Edw. I, No. 45. | II, ■^^ 310 IDS ALL, OB SHIFFNAL. January 1256^ one John de la Homme sat on the Brimstree Jury. At the Assizes of September 1272, John le Knicht was found to have disseized Henry Dud of a messuage in Hemme, and William de Ruton (Ryton) was a Recognizor on the trial but had made no appearance. WYKE. This was a member of Idsall. Abont the year 1219, Walter de Dunstanvill (II) conveys to Shrewsbury Abbey, among other rents, one of \2d. payable by Alan the Chaplain, his Tenant in Wyches.182 Walter Mareschall and Robert de Wikes were perhaps Tenants here between 1220 and 1230. The next Tenant who occurs is Herbert de Wyke a person of some importance and apparently Bailiff to the Lords of Idsall ; for I take him to be identical with " Herbert, formerly Bailiff of Ydeshali" who attests a Wombridge Charter between 1227 and 1240 ;i^^ and Herbert Seneschal of Ideshall is found attesting a deed of very little earlier date. In 1248, Walter de Dunstanvill (III) had three Tenants in Wyke whose Quit -Rents he assigned to Buildwas Abbey in part exchange for Upton. These were Herbert de Wyke who paid 17*. annual rent on a virgate, Thomas Golding who paid 5«. on half-a-virgate and Robert the Provost, who paid 4«. on half-a-virgate.^^*- For the five years ending October 1254, Herbert de Wyke was Agistator of the Royal Forest of Morfe and the Haye of Wellington. He attests deeds of this period as Herbert de Ideshal, and, under that name, sat as third Juror of Brimstree Hundred at the Assizes of 1256. Soon after this he died ; for when, in February 1262, the Justices of the Forest visited Shropshire they summoned Herbert son and heir of Herbert de Wyk (or de Ydeshal) to answer for the five years in which his Father had been Agistator }^^ From this period for the next twenty years, I find Herbert de Wyke and Walter Marshall of Wyke frequent witnesses of local deeds. Two of these bear date Oct. 21, 1270, and Aug. 9, 1279. In 54 Hen. Ill (1269-70), Walter le Mareschall of Wyke and Edith his wife were suing John de Stevinton under writ of novel "2 Salop Chartulary, No. 378. I '54 (j^^rf 20 Edw. I, No. 41. '^ Chartularj, Tit. Upinton, No. clxii. | '^^ Placita Forestm, 46 Hen. Ill, S? lop. IDS ALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 311 disseizin, for a tenement in Wyke.is^ In November 1271, Herbert de Wyke occurs as a Verderer of the Royal Forests, and at the Assizes of September 1272, he and Walter Marescall were Jurors of Brimstree Hundred. This Jury reported, inter alia, that Alice, wife of "Walter Cartesr of Routhton, had challenged, in the County Court, Thomas, son of Herbert de Wyke (probably the Juror^s Brother) and Robert de Duddelegh, for murder of said Walter her husband. She had also accused the Abbot of Buildwas of har- bouring the murderers. Ahce not appearing at the Assizes the Abbot and Duddelegh were acquitted, but it was shown that Thomas Fitz Herbert was dead.^^''' Between 1280 and 1292, Herbert de Wyke was succeeded by his Son John, who sat as 12th Juror of the Hundred at the October Assizes of the latter year, and occurs as a witness of various local deeds, and as a Juror on several Inquests of the next twenty-four years ; after which Elyas de Wyke, a Clerk, seems to occupy his position. Meanwhile, that is on Feb. 23, 1293, a Fine was levied at Stafford between Master John de Kenleye, Clerk, complainant (querentem), and Robert de Clone, and Mabel his wife, deforciants, of a messuage and twenty acres in Wyk, whereof was plea of convention. The Deforciants, relinquished the same, — to be held by the Complainant, of the Lords of the Fee. For this he gave £5}^^ On Jan. 27, 1297, this same Master John de Kenleye was Complainant in a fine levied at Westminster, whereby Roger de Orleton, and Rohese his wife, surrendered to him a messuage and twelve acres in Ideshale, whereof was plea of warranty ; — to hold of the Lords of the Fee. For this the Complainant paid TRILWARDYNB. The name of this Hamlet or Tenement is now lost. Its situation, however, may be nearly identified, by comparing the diflPerent re- lations in which it is mentioned. Between the years 1220 and 1250, Robert de Trdwardyne, with his name spelt in various ways, is a witness of local Charters, more particularly of those which relate to Brockton. On July 13, 1253, a Fine was levied at Westminster between '88 Pat. 54 Hen. Ill, dorso. '^ ■ ™ Pedes Mnmm, 21 & 25 Edw. I, ^^ PlacitaCoronce. SeHen. Ill, Salop, Salop. memb. 23 reeto. 312 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. Petronilla, Widow of Robert de Trillewardyn plaintiff (petentem), and Robert de Trillewardyn Tenant^ of a third part of forty acres in * * shal (probably Idshal) which Petronilla claimed as reason- able dower out of the estate of her former husband. Petronilla renounced her claim, and Robert conceded to her nine acres in the same vill (viz. three acres in Rudingfeld, three acres in Winterfeld, and three acres in the field towards Wyk), to hold to Petronilla for her life, at a rent of one penny.i^° This second Robert de Trillewardyn occurs occasionally as a witness during the next sixteen years ; but on Sept. 39, 1369, he would appear to be deceased, for then did Edith, daughter of Robert de Trillewardine, lease to Wombridge Priory all her land within and without the vill of Brocton, for twelve years, reserving to her- self a house and orchard and certain stipulated shares of the produce of the said land.^^^ A great part of the district of which we are speaking had, in ancient times, been within the jurisdiction of the Royal Forest. — The Perambulation of 1300 recognizes the following vills and hamlets as disforested, viz. the vills of Prioreslegh and Wodehous (Woodhouse), amoiety of Dreyton (near Shiffnal),Haghton (Haugh- ton). La Cnolle (still traceable in Knowle-Wood), Trillewardyn, Wyk a moiety of Hem, the wood of Kembrithton (Kemberton), a third part of Sutton (Maddock), a moiety of Brockton, &c. — Hence we approximate to the locality of Trilwardyne. We have seen Master John de Kenleye a purchaser of land in Wyke and Idsall in 1393 and 1397. On June 8, 1301, Thomas Skybrass and Burga his wife grant to the same John and his heirs their capital messuage and forty acres of land at Trillewardyn in the Manor of Ideshale, which formerly belonged to Ralph de Ken- leye, Father of Burga, and which constituted her share of his inheritance ; — to hold of the Grantors and their heirs, rendering to them yearly a red rose, and accustomed services to the Lords of the Fee.iss * ™ Fedes Finium, 37 Hen. Ill, Salop. '" Cbartulary, Tit. Brocton, No. xxviij. The agreement is attested by John de Stivinton, John de GrenhuU, Master Eanulph de Coleham, Clerk ; Adam Pol- lard of Lee, Eobert his Son, Walter Coous of Lee, &o. "2 Salop Cbartulary, No. 279. Since writing the above, I learn that two fields of the Haughton Farm are still known as the "Big" and "Lesser TUlerdine." They are nearly in a line between Kuowle Wood and the Wyke, and precisely where I should suppose the Hamlet of Trilwardyne might have been. ^^ Charter in possession of The Rev. John Brooke, of Haughton. — It is dated at Dublin, and attested by four Justices IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 313 PRIORS LEE. The House of Augustine Canons^ founded at Wombridge as early as the reign of Stephen, acquired its first interest in the Lordship of Idsall under grant of Alan de Dunstanvill. His giftj described as the land of Eilric de Leis^was subsequently- increased. His Son Walter gave Aynulf's Lee (less intelligibly written as " Leias Amulsi") to the Canons. These two grants, with soroe later additions, constituted, I sup- pose, the estate afterwards known as Priors Lee. The Canons once established in such a position, were not slow to improve it. They acquired various parcels of land and other rights in adjoining Townships. Some of these have been already instanced in our account of the succession of Dunstanvill. Others again will have to be noticed under their proper localities. One or two shall be mentioned here. — About 1260, Thomas, Son of Roger Guest, of Lega, gave the Priory a noke of land, in the vill of Lega, which John de Mocleston once held of him.^'* About ten years later, and apparently in completion of a previous grant of Walter de Dunstanvill (III), Alice, widow of Gilbert Bluet, quits all right which she had for life in an assart in the Manor of Ydeshall. For this the Priory paid her 20^. in hand, and allowed her an annuity of 2s. for her life.^'' Again, about ten years later, Thomas de Brocton (of Brockton juxta Sutton Madok), gave the Priory an annual rent of 5s. Qd., which Robert, called Pollard, of Priors Lee and his heirs were bound to pay on half-a-virgate in the said vill of Priors Lee. The Canons were to apply this income as follows, viz., 2*. to the work of the fabric (the conventual buildings), 2s. to the lights in their Church, and Is. 6c?. to the Convent of the said House, to keep the anniversary of the Donor for ever.^'^ of the King's Bench there. Two seals, ori- ginally belonging to the deed, are gone. The writing is remartably fine. ''* Chartulary, Tit.LegaPrioris,'So.i.Yi. Attested by Madoo de Sutton, Walter de Kembricton (he was Eector of Idsall), Oliver de Knoll, and Roger de Hadeleg. ''° Ibidem, No. T. — ^Witnesses : Adam Pollard, Kobert his Son, Alan de Hale- heton (Haughton), Walter Cocus, &c. "^ Ibidem, No. xlis. — Witnesses : John de Stivinton, John Son of Herbert de Wyk, William de Devises, Biehard CoUe, Eobert de Clone, &c. This grant was after- wards confirmed by John, Son and Heir of Thomas de Dreyton (read Brocton, and compare, supra, p. 98, note 20). — Wit- nesses ; John de Stivinton, John Herbert of Wyk, WiUiara Pater Noster, WiUiam Hode of Drayton, Richard Cocus of Legh, and Roger Cocus. 314 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. Previous to the Dissolution, and in 37 Hen. VIII (1535-6), the Prior of Wombridge returned, among the annual receipts of his House, the following : Rents of 7 Messuages in Priores Lees .... £8. 19s. 4s. receivable from Henry de Savinton (Shavington), 2s. from Leonard de Leges, Is. from Alan the Chaplain, 4s. and 2s. from Robert Fitz Adam and Thomas le Hog for their respective Fees in Shavinton, Leges, Wyches, i/ ^^^ Tlaciia apud Wesim. Michaelmas Term, 3 & 4 Heu. Ill, memb. 1. 252 Pedes Mnium, 4 Hen. Ill, Salop. Mr. Blakeway, weighing apparently the genuineness of Earl Roger's Foundation- Charter to Shrewsbury Abbey, says ad- versely, that " there are no traces that either the Churches of Keraberton or IdshaU ever belonged to the said Abbey, except that it enjoyed to the last a pen- sion of 30s. issuing out of that of IdshaU" {History ofShrewshury, vol. ii, p. 14, note) . I believe that none of the objections to Earl Eoger's Charter are much better founded. 43 334 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. and Stanton ; also 3s. per annum from the Abbot of Buildwas for common-pasture which he enjoyed in the Manor of Hydeshale.^*^ In 1291;, the Church of Ydesale was valued at £20. per annum over and above the Pension of 30s. which the Abbot of Salop received therefrom. ^^* In 1341, the Assessors of the Ninth of wheat, wool, and lamb, in the Parish of Id sail, recited the Taxation at which the Church stood as one of 20 marks (£13. 6s. 8d.), but reduced their assessment to £12. 9s. The reasons which they gave for the difPerence were, because the Abbot of Buldewas had in the Parish a certain Grange, called Hatton, in which were three carucates of land and many sheep; and this tenure, though included in the Taxation, was not rateable to the Ninth; because also the glebe- lands, rents and services of Tenants, tithes of hay and pasture, oblations, and other small tithes of the Church, went to constitute the greater sum {the Taxation), and did not belong to the Ninth now granted to the King; lastly, because the corn had been destroyed by sundry storms.^^^ In 1534, the Abbot's pension of 30s., issuing out of Idsall Church, is duly returned among his current receipts. The Church itself, then a Vicarage, of which William Moreton was Incumbent, was valued at £16. 5s. lOd., out of which sum 16s. 8d. was pay- able for Procurations, and 2s. 6d. for Synodals. The Rectory, fermed at £10. per annum, belonged to Battlefield College, as did also the Tithes of Dawley (originally a Chapelry of Idsall), which were fermed at £3. 6s. 8d. 2«« EAKLY INCUMBENTS. Walter, db Dunstanvill,^^'' the first Rector of Idsall, of whom we have any notice, was also Rector of St. Michael's, Salop, a piece 2«3 No. 378. Tested by John Fitz Alan, ViTian de Eoasall, and Eobert de Gryroa, The date is of course 1219. 264 jpgpg Nicholas' Taxation, p. 248. ^** Inquisitiones Nona/rimi, p. 184. The " 3 carrucatea of Hatton " probably in- cluded Upton. ™ Valor BcclesiasUous, iii, 188, 187, 195. The Eectors of St. Andrews of "Yddessall" also paid a pension of 13*. 4i. to the Bishop and Archdeacon, a Senage of 4s. and a triennial Procuration, ave- raging 8s. lOrf. per annum, to the Bishop. They, that ia Battlefield College, had lands at Aston, described in the same Record aa Aston juxta " Shuifnall." Up to this period (1534), I do not remember that the name Shiffnal was ever applied to the Church. ^^1 Mr. Blakeway {History of Shrews- hury, vol. ii, p. 417) suggests that he was a Son of Reginald Earl of Cornwall, cling- ing, I auppose, to the old idea that the latter was sometime Lord of Idsall. — Even if we assign him such a parentage it does not appear how he could be Cousin IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 335 of preferment which he can only have obtained by favour of the Crown. He occurs as Rector of St. Michael's before the death of Henry II (1189), who will therefore have been his Patron. He was Cousin (cognatus) of Walter de Dunstanvill (I) of Idsall, and as such attests one of his Charters. Others he attests, simply styling himself " Clerk" or " Parson of Idsall." " As Master Walter de Dunstanvill" and "Master Walter" he appears to have attested Charters of Hugh de Novant Bishop of Coventry, one of which will have passed about 1188, the others on Nov. 24, 1190.''^^ — He was living in 1206, and, as Master Walter de Dunstanvill, then stands first witness of a matter referred to high ecclesiastical arbitration by Pope Innocent III.^^^ — His successor ^™ (immediate or otherwise) at St. Michael's, was appointed by King John, on January 18, 1215 ; and the vacancy which four years afterwards we know to have existed at Idsall, may have originated at the same period, for during the interval no Law- Courts had been sitting, such as might have decided any pending cause of darrein presentment. On gaining the right of Advowson in 1219, Walter Lord of Idsall seems to have presented one Philip, for Philip Parson of Ideshal had, on 29 July 1221, Letters Patent of Protection till the King should be of age.'*''^ In the middle of the thirteenth Century — Walter de Kemberton is a frequent witness of local Deeds. In one of these he is expressly styled Rector of the Church of Ideshall. Master John Joye was Rector here in 1269 ; on August 29th of which year he came to an agreement with the Prior of Wom- bridge, ahandoning a claim which he had been urging on the Prior for Tithes of certain live-stock which had apparently been only to Walter Baron of Idsall. He would have been his Brother-in-Law, i.e. Brother of the apocryphal, if not fabulous, Ursula, of whom we have already spoken. The family of Dunstanvill was numerous. — There was a William de Dunstanvill, with a younger Brother Walter, in Stephen's reign, and both of these may have again been Brothers of Robert and Alan. If so, our Clerk, being son of either said Wil- liam or Walter, wUl have been also first- Cousin of Walter Baron of IdsaU. 268 Wombridge Chartulary, Tit. Brocton. Nos. cj, cij. ^' Madox Formalare Angl. No. xlvi. 270 « Master Richard of IdshaU," who occurs before 1190 and after 1220, and often in the interval, and who was Father of at least two sons, Peter and Nicholas, does not seem to have been Rector of the Church. His apparent importance how- ever requires some specific mention of his name, and I think that he must have been an Ecclesiastic. 271 Patent, 5 Hen. III. 336 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. used and fed within the Parish of Idsall accidentally, but belonged to another district. The special privileges granted by the Pope to Wombridge Priory seem to have exempted it from this liability. "^'^ Master Adam le Gust/^^ " Rector of the Church of Idshall," attests a Charter of Fulk le Strange, already cited, and which appears to have passed in June 1300. In Trinity Term 1305, "Adam Gest, Parson of Ideshale," would seem to be under prosecution of John de la Mare, Lord of Ideshale, on two matters, one for cutting down trees of the said John, the other for some trespass in regard to Deer. To the first charge Adam replied that he was only taking house-bote, to the other that at the time of the alleged offence he was Seneschal of the said Lord of IdsaU.274 Master Adam Gest died Sept. 11, 1328, and on Sept. 16 follow- ing. Master Thomas de Clopton was admitted to the Rectory on presentation of Dame Margaret D'Oumframvill, Lady of Badlesmere.^'''^ In 1329, and, as I suppose, ignoring the last ^'presentation, the King presented — Robert Swynnerton to this Living, the Patronage whereof belonged to the Crown by reason of the Barony of Bartholomew de Badlesmere being in manu Regis?"^^ — This however seems to have been revoked, for on December 17, 1330, I find the Bishop readmitting Sir Thomas de Clopton, Priest, but on the presentation of King Edward III. On March 5, 1331, Thomas de Clopton resigned, having exchanged preferments with Simon de Clopton, Incumbent of Walton. Accordingly on the same day the Bishop admits — Sir Simon de Clopton, Subdeacoii, at the King's presentation.^''^ 272 Chartulary, Tit. LegaPrioris,'So.'&. =73 Mr.Blakeway quotes Prynne (iii, 593) for a Protection granted in 22 Edw. I (1293-4) to Master Adam de West, Parson of Ideshale. ^^* Abbreviatio Flacitorwm, p. 254. 275 Lichfield Register, B,fo. 206 b. The Patroness of Idsall Church on this occa- sion wasMargaretjWidow of Bartholomew Lord Badlesmere, who, having been taken prisoner at the battle of Borough-Bridge, in March 1322, was executed for High Treason. His Widow is said to liave been by birth a De Clare, to have been impri- soned in The Tower for some time after her husband's death, and on her release to have gone into a Nunnery ; but she is also said to have had Idsall assigned to her in part of her dower in 1331. — One or other of these statements must require modification from the fapt of her being styled Dame Margaret D'Umfram- ville in 1328. 27« Patent, 3 Edw. Ill, p. 1, memb. 34. 277 Lichfield Register, B, 208 b. The presentation of Simon de Clopton is also on the Patent Uolla of 4 Edw. Ill (part 2, membs. 12 & 24). IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. 337 On March 6, 1331, the said Simon had license to study for four years. He died August 20, 1349 ; and on Sept. 10 following, the Bishop admitted — Richard Garlatjnd, Clerk, at presentation of Sir "William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton and Constable of England.^^^ PABEIO OP THE CHUECH. Shifihal Church is a large building of several dates. It has a nave with aisles and a south porch, north and south transept, and central tower, and a chancel with a south aisle or chapel, called the Moreton Chancel. Part of the south transept, part of the north wall of the chancel, and the chancel arch, which is eastward of that under the east wall of the tower, are of a transitional style between the Norman and Early-English, and probably belong to the end of the twelfth century. The chancel arch is round, and the mouldings are some- what iiemarkablej in one of them, the Early-English dog-tooth ornament appears. The south porch, which has a Parvise or upper story, is of Early-English character ; perhaps with a slight tendency to theDeco- rated, but I doubt not, belonging to the thirteenth century, though probably to the latter half of it. The outer door has a trefoiled arch. The bay of the aisle corresponding with the porch has a stone-ribbed vault, and is lower than the rest of the aisle, its pier arch too is not so high as the others. The nave, chancel (with the exception already noticed), and central tower are of the Decorated style ; I should say somewhat early in the fourteenth century. The north aisle has had some very late windows inserted. The central tower is very plain, and has a large stair-turret at the north-west angle. The tower stands on four piers of which the two eastern ones do not range with the eastern wall of the transepts, so that it is not so large as a tower fitted to the actual intersection : notwithstanding this, it is still massive rather than the contrary. The east window of the chancel, and those on the north and south, near the east end, have a peculiar character, and seem Early in the style. The west window I think must have been modernized. The chancel has some good Sedilia. ^f" Eegister, B, 224 a & b. William I of his wife Elizabeth, Sister and Coheir of de Bohun was Lord of Idsall in right | Giles last Baron Badlesmere. 338 IDSALL, OR SHIFFNAL. The Moreton chancel, now screened off as a vestry, is of a later Decorated, and exhibits flowing tracery in its windows. The north transept is entirely of Perpendicular work, of the fifteenth century; and the south transept has windows and parapet of the same style. The portion of the south aisle between the porch and the transept is of very late work ; I should say of the sixteenth cen- tury ; it is much wider than the western part of the aisle, or than the north aisle. The Church is on the whole in good preservation, and both the Transitional, the Early-English, and the older Decorated portions may be studied with confidence, as retaining their principal features unaltered. J. L. Petit. \- '^m^- T _ _ f fi ^ m ""'^ ^ 1* fiSu -* ii -— -^ ■■ "iiji I r CHANCEL, SHIPFNAL. FINIAL AND DEVICE OVER THE WESTERN FACE OF CHANCEL-ARCH, SHIFFNAL. 339 INDEX OF PLACES. *^* The name of each Place, which haa formed the subject of a distinct notice, is printed in Capital Letters. Reference to the page, or pages, of such distinct notice is made by the larger res. The abbreviation v. stands for " vide," ». for "note." A. Abergavenny, 75. Actleton, 63, 64, 65, 67, 74, 76. Acre (Palestine), 72. Acton Burnell, 135. Adderley, 281, 290, 293, 301 rt, 302-3. Alberbury, 3, 12. AiBBiaaioN, 88, 89, 149-166, 174, 181, 185, 245, 246, 250 «, 263, 264. Chttbch, 154, 158-166. , Beamish Hall, 246 n. Aldeford (Surrey), 272, 285-287, 291. AiNODESTEETT Htjndred, 1, 36, 39, 61, 62, 80, 168, 174, 267, 260, 261. Alveley, 74, 113, 115, 116, 258-9. Apley (Castle), 325. Arley (Staffordshire), 32. Aelscot (Broseley), 10, 15, 18, 19, 22, 28 «, 36-37. Arques (Normandy), 275, 281 /(, 282 u, 285. Arundel (Sussex), 267. , Honour of 201-2, 267-8, 273-4, 294. Ashby de la Zouohe (Leicestershire), 180, 204, 206, 211, 213. , Church of, 204, 206, 211. , Overton, 211. , Suarteclyve, 211. Ashfield (Priors Ditton), 7, 65, 72. Ashley upon Tern (Staffordshire), 8-11, '14,15,17,18,24,25,26,27. Astall, 70 n. Astley-Abbots, 45, 68, 74, 100, 157, 241. Atchley (Ryton), 87. AvooheHe, v. Hawtesley. Axbridge (Bath and Wells Dice), 252. Ayleston (Leicestershire), v. Elstow. Aynulf's-Lee, 91, 279, 313, v. Priors-Lee. Badges, 12, 61-80, 93, 125 n, 130, 143, 147, 148. Chuech, 65, 75, 76-80. Bambure (Norfolk), 216. Bardeley, 63, 70, 73, 74, 75. BameviU (Normandy), 281 «. Barnwell Priory (Cambridgeshire), 105 «. Bascheroh Hundred, 174, 258-9, 261, 304 ». Basingwerk Abbey (N. Wales), 271. Castle (N. Wales), 207. Battlefield College, 334. Beckbury, 50 n, 68, 70, 71, 73, 76, 78, 91, 93, 134, 146 n, 190. Church, 77. Bedestone (WUts), 268,' 290. Bedford, 292. Bercham, Bernham, orBergham (Sussex), 274 n, 277, 286, 290, 294, 301 n. Church of, 272, 273 », 278, v. Bernham. Bergholt (Suffolk), 301. Bernham Church (Sussex), 278, 299. Qy. Bergham ? Berriugton, 190. Betton (Abbots), 200-1, 206 o, 207, 216. Bicton, 87, 88 n. Biham (Lincohishire), 152, 289. BiUingsley, 7, 19, 20, 21, 37. Bishopeswey (Shiffnal), 299. Bishops-Castle, 36. Bishopston, v. Bishton. BisHTON, 154, 166-167, 168. Blackfordby (Leicestershire), Chapel of, 204, 206, 211. Blackmere (Whitchurch), 121. Blaketoriaton (Devon), 216. Blankmunster, v. Whitchurch. 340 INDEX OF PLACES. Blymhill (Stafifordshire), 25, 26,187,207, 218, 263. BobbiDgton, 258-9. Bold, 51, 190. Boningale, 88, 149, 157. Chapel, 148. Borough-Bridge, 336 n. Bosoobel, 187 n. Boscomb (Wilts), 236. Bosle, V. Broseley. Bosworth (Leicestershire), 237. Bradford Hundred, 134, 135, 307. Mill, 4. Beamet (Broseley), 7, 8, 10, 18, 19, 36-37. Bradwell (Essex), 801. Bray (near Windsor), 35. Brecknock, Honour of, 177, 213, 220 u, 236. Bredon (Leicestershire), 211. Brenchesle (Herts), 235. Brewood, 181, 185, 187 «, 201, 203, 218, 221. J — , Stryfwode, 237. Bebwood Foeest, 149 n, 151, 185- 190. , Bishops Wood, 185. , Black Nunnery of, 187, 188 «, 190 m. , White Nunneby of, 179, 180, 187-190. Brictefeld (Wilts), 290. Brictelegh (Devonshire), 213. Bridgnorth, 23, 24, 27, 40, 63, 70, 72, 75, 82, 117 «, 132, 155, 167, 186, 188,190, 241, 271. Castle, 64, 89, 150, 151. , Liberty of, 1. , St. John's Hospital, 147. Brimmesfield (Gloucestershire), 222-3, 296. Brimstree Hundred, 1, 61, 69, 73, 88, 168, 258-9, 260, etpasdm. Brinton (Staffordshire), 25, 207. Bristol, 235, 288. Abbey, 271. , St. Mary's Church, 251. Brittany, Little, 3, 152, 210, 211, 213, 214 », 216, 219, 293. Brootone (WUts), 268, 277, 286, 288, 290. Brockton (Staffordshire), 264 4 Bbockton (Sutton Maddock), 8, 9, 14, 15, 39, 41, 43, 44, 62, 68, 81, 91, 92 «, 93-103, 109, 114, 116-119, 121-131, 137, 141, 143 «, 145, 146, 806, 311, 312, 313. , Avenals, 94, 122. , Bedlesdun, 129. , Bromcroft, 94. , Bwbemere, 120. , Hemme, 118, 120, 125, 127, 127 ». , Kembriehaismere, 130. , Kerswalle-Moor, 118. , Medebroo (Mad-brook), 124, , Moor, 122. , Parroc, 124. , Wodecrofte, 126. , Wunedon, 94. Brockwode, 230. Brome (EUesmere), 82. Bromley, Gerrards (Staffordshire), 15. Bboselet, 1-39, 40, 61, 124. , Chukoh or Chapel of, 22, 23, 28, 80, 33-36, 42, 77. , Baredis (in), 16. , Dene, 31, v. Dean. , Denesti, 16. , Dune, The, 31. - , Hargreve, 16. -, Hurste, 16. -, Longefurlong, 16. -, Palmers-Croft, 31. -, Kudinge, The, 31. -, Switfield, 16. Browns-over (Warwickshire), 62. Brug, V. Bridgnorth. Erug, Little, 82, 152, 153. Buildwas Abbey, 14, 86-87, 91, 169-173, 175, 177, 188 », 202-204, 217, 221, 238, 241, 247, 268-4, 800, 306, 309, 810, 318, 319, 327. Buroham (Sussex), v, Bercham. Burohester Priory, 284. Burford, 62. Burnham (Essex), 198. Burton (Wenlock), 19 », 44, 57 n, 69, 75 ». Burwarton, 258-9. C. Calais, 226, 255. Calverhall, 333. INDEX OF PLACES. 341 Calvretou (Notts), 188. Canterbury, Church of, 196, 198. Carlisle, 245. Castle-Cumbe (WUts), 268, 275-6, 277, 282, 287-8, 290, 295-6, 301 «, 302-3. Castle Holgate, Barony of, 178 n, b. Hol- gate. Castle, The (Idsall), v. IdsaU. Cantlop, 154. Catteiey jnxta TJpleden (Herefordshire), 233, 236. CAuaniET, 1 «, 43-46, 69 n. ChatMll (Staffordshire), 15. Chatwall, 190. Chelmarsh, 258-9. Chester, 109, 293, 295. , Diocese of, 76. , Honour of, 245. Chesterton (Warwickshire), 152 ». Cheswardine, 8, 57, 113, 118. Chetwynd, 46, 48. , Pee of, 48, 49. Chich (Essex), 199, v. Saint Osyth's. Chichester, 194, 195. ChiHington (Staffordshire), 185. Chinon, 285. Chirk Castle (Denbighshire), 110. Christ-Church (Hants), 270. Church Lawford (Warwickshire), 184. Clare, Honour of, 272. Clarendon, 228, 232. Clayerley, 157, 159, 167, 258-9. Clent Hundred, Worcestershire, 258-9. ClertenweU Nunnery (London), 200. Cleobuiy-North, 73, 74, 75, 76, 258-9, 261. dopton (Lincolnshire Dioc), 161. Cocking (Sussex), 267. Cold Hatton, 172 «. Cold Weston, 75, 316 ». Colinton (Deronshire), 284, 292, 296. Colerne (Wilts), 268, 275-6, 282, 288 », 290, 295, 301 », 302-3. Come or Cumb (Wilts), v. Oastle-Cumbe. Compostella, St. James' of, 216. Contone (Wilts), 268. Corf (Dorsetshire), 215. Corfham, 122. CormelHes, Honour of, 225. Corve (Monk Hopton), 6, 40. CospoED, 88, 150, 160 n, 168, 169, 173 «, 174, 247, 258-9, 262-264. II. Costesei (Norfolk), 215, 216. Cound, 250 n. Coutance (Normandy), 269 n. Covelham (Winton Dioc), 35. CoTeA (Staffordshire), 27, 30. Cublesdon (Staffordshire), 240. CumbreweUe (Wilts), 268, 290. Cumpton (Wilts), 290. Cupton (Warwickshire), 143. Cutiford (Wilts), 272, 277. D. Dawley, 58, 89, 116, 314 «, 328, 331, 334. Deaij, The (Broselej), 38. Deuxhill, 1. Devizes (Wilts), 271, 288. Diddlebury, 135. Dieppe (Normandy), 275. Dol (Brittany), 211. DoNnteioif, 41, 88, 157, 167, 173-185, 187, 192, 201, 213 «, 214 «, 218, 221, 238, 241, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 321. Chuech, 181-184, 192, 199, 247. , Chelfesford, near, 175 n, 238. , Wood of, 174, 178, 179,180-1. Donington-Wood, 205. Dorchester, Church of, 204. Dorrington (Muckleston), 15 «. DoTaston, 113. Drayton, Little (in Hales), 46, 47. Deatton (Shiffnal), 46 m, 282 «, 312, 325-326. , Market, 47 «. Droitwich (Worcestershire), 174 ». DubUn, 15, 214, 276 », 312 », 324 m. Dudley Priory, 52. Dudmaston, 41. Dunethe (Ireland), 153. E. East-bourne (Sussex), 269 n. EcoleshaU Castle, 140, 186. Edgmond, 83, 140 ». EUardine, 8, 109, 114, 116, 118, 120, 128. Ely, Church of, 254 ». , See of, 197. EUesmere, 158. Elstow (Leicestershire), 41, 101, 221, 225, 233, 236, 239, 240. Elvein (North Wales), 152, 293. Ernewode, 229. 44 342 INDKX OF PLACES. Easeleg, v. Ashley. Esthampton, 154. Eston (Norfolk), 216. Eton, Little (Piohford), 46. Etone, 167-168, i;. Hatton. Eudon George, 258-9. Evesham, 20, 57, 243. EvBHTH, 169, 170, 242, 281 », 304- 308, 309. Chapel, 308. EwDNESS, 146-147. Ewyas Harold (Herefordshire), 156, 159. Exeter, Church of, 199. Eye (Suffolk), Honour of, 216. P. Eairford (GHouceatershire), 215. Faleise (Normandy), 5. Ealley (Lino. Dioc), 61. Earleigh Priory (Wilts), 272. 277. Earlow, 98. Earnebergh (Bath and Wells Dioc.), 251. Eeokenham (Worcestershire), 27. Eord (Aston Botterell), 316 «. Erome (Herefordshire), 20. Eulburn (Cambridgeshire), 218, 219. a. Gannok (Diganwy, North- Wales), 152. Q-asoony, 99 ». Gilbert, Mount (The Wrekin), 132. , , Forest of, 118, 314 », 315, 318, 325. GUlock (Herefordshire) , 228, 230, 233, 236. Glazeley Church, 11. Gloucester, 292. Gloucester, Honour of, 215. Goring (Sussex), 267. Grenhull, v. Grindle. Great Iselham (Cambr.) «. Iselham. Gretham (Sussex), Chapel of, 272, 278 », 299. Gretton, 53, 55, 242. Geindle, 85, 00-02, 137, 172, 298. Haddon (Derbyshire), 240. Hadley, 226, 282 n. Hales-Owen, 135, 258-9, 260. Hamme (Herefordshire), 20. Hammes (Sussex), 289, 290, 291. Hardham (Sussex), 267. Harlaston (Staffordshire), 226, 240. Harley, 58. Hamage, 40. HAEEiNaTON, 86 «, 91, 122, 131-137, 141. Hastings, 268. Hatfield-Peverel (Essex), 104. Hatton (Shiffnal), 87, 88 «, 168, 169- 173, 217 », 241, 247, 264, 299, 304, 309, 327, 334. , Chapel of, 173. , Tuy-brook, 169, 170, 172. Hatton Crasset, 173, 264. Hatton Traynel, 173, 264. Haughmond Abbey, 8, 68, 82, 83, 150, 271, 273, 293. Eorest, 118. Haushton (Shifflial), 312, 317, 320- 325. Chapel, 325. — MiU, 322-3. Hawkesley, 168. Hedendou (Oxfordshire), 284, 296. Hem (Shiffnal), 281 », 306, 300-310, 312. Herberbury (Warwickshire), 152 », 153 «. Herdecote (Wilts), 301» ijs, v. Hurdecote. Herdwyke (EUesmere), 145. Hereford, 295. , Diocese of, 76. , St. Guthlac's Priory, 147-8. Herthull, 91. Heytesbury (Wilts), 272, 274-5, 276-7, 286, 288, 290. 292, 295, 301 «, 303. Heywode (Staffordshire), 140, 189, 190. Higford, 134, 146 », 147, 148, 258-9, 326. High Ercall, 190, 282 n. High Hatton, 282 n. Higley, 17, 190. HnmiHGTON, 169, 172, 281 «, 306, 308- 309. Hodnet, 168. Holgate, Castle and Barony of, 4, 50, 178», 196, 198, 204. Hopton, 168. HlJMPHEESTON, 154, 181, 190. Huningeham (Norfolk), 216. Hurdecote (Wilts), 295, 301 «, lu. I. Idsall or Shiffnal, 46 », 90, 91 », 174, 217, 221, 242, 250 », 258, 266-338. INDEX OF PLACES. 343 Idsaix Chttech, 265-6, 299, 330-338. Manor, 172, 205. Parish, 88, 103, 173, 331. , Aston, 334 n. , Bamd, The, 324. , Castle, The, 299, 318-9. , Flethay, 324. , Hotunalle, 321. , MiBs of, 280. , Patesford Mill, 280. , Park, 314, 328. , TJlet-hay, 321. Ingardine, 190. Ireland, 153, 196, 197. Iselham (Camhridgeshire), 294, 300, 301 », Iteshale or Idshale v. Idsall, J. Jerusalem, 71, 72, 138. K. Kemberton Church, 258-9, 266, 312, 314«, 331, 332, 333 «. Eenilworth Castle, 243. Kenley, 53, 54, 55, 242. Keri, 152, 291, 292. Ketley, 314 ». Kidderminster (Worcestersh.), 64 n, 215. KilsaU, 178, 181. Kinaston, 113. Kinver (Staffordshire), 186. Knockyn, 113. EifOWLE (Shifinal), 281, 299, 312, 317- 318, 320, 322-4. , Hopemon-field, 319. , Horeston, 319. , Long-Rudigg, 281, 317. , Smelebroo, 281, 317. , Sumerlone, 281, 317. , Wood, 281, 317. Lacy, Honour of, 206. Lambeth, 140, 199. Langley, 101, 102. Lawley, 49, 314 ». Lee Broothurst, 154. Lee, Leia, Leies, Lega Aynulfi, Lega Prioris, v. Priors Lee. lee-gomery, 298, 329. Lee Parva, ». Leonards Lee. Leonards Lee, 314-317, 833. , BlaokpuU, 317. , Blakesicheshurst, 317. -, Lestewike, 317, 326, 329. Lewes (Sussex), 295. Priory, 268, 270, 272-3, 278, 299. Leye (Worcestershire), 228, 230, 232. Lichfield, 138, 186, 220, 237 », 244. , Church of, 90. , Diocese of, 76, 332. , See of, 166. Lidley, 14. LilleshaU, 174, 314 n. Abbey, 68, 98, 102, 167, 176, 201, 204, 205, 211, 212, 222, 241. Limberg Magna (Lincolnshire), 245-6. LiNiET, In, 39-42, 69», 97, 98, 99, 101. ; Chapel of, 42. Linley (Herts), 58 n, Lint6t (Normandy), 282 n. Lizard, The, 203, 205, 211. Grange, 205, 221, 222. London, passim, , The Tower, 336 n. Longford, 46, 47. Longnor (near Cundover), 122. Longnor (Staffordshire), 21, 37 ». Long Stanton, 72. Lopinton Church, 138. Luoteshull (Wilts), 290. Lude Muchegros (Herefordshire), 245. Ludlow, 295. Lye, The, 68. Lynne (Ireland), 153. M. Madeley, 73, 93, 124 ». Church, 35, 77. Mahnesbury (WUts), 269, 270. Manchester, 159. Mans, Le (Maine), 277. Mapledurham (Hants), 215. Marches of Wales, v. Wales. Marlborough (Wilts), 288, 303. Matada, Castle (in Blvein), 129 m. Mayden Bradley (Wilts), 218. Meadowley, 175, 176 », 177-8, 193 », 204, 207. Melton in Wappenham (Lincolnshire Diocese), 61. Mercia, 103. Mere (Staffordshire), 244, 245 n. 344 INDEX or PLACES. Micham (Surrey), 301 «. Middlewioh (Cheshire), 174 «. Mochnant above Rayader (N. Wales), 110. Mochnant is Eayader (North Wales), 108, 110. Montgomery, Castle and Honour of, 17, 95, 96, 100, 101, 121, 134, 143, 144, 152, 292. Moreton, Honour of, 293 n. Moreton (Corbet), 49, 281 », 304-6, 307-9. Morf, Forest of, 37, 38, 310. Mortlate (Surrey), 195. MorviUe, 33«, 77, 196. Church, 266 n. Mukleston, 160. Munslow Hundred, 1, 19, 41, 43, 61, 168. N. Nantwich (Cheshire), 174 n, v. Wich- Malbank. Neachley, 181. Neenton, 258-9. Ness (Strange), 57, 113, 118. Newport (Novum Burgum), 41, 72, 140. , Deanery of, 89, 141, 148, 158, 173, 250. Nevrtimber (Sussex), 273, 278, 299. Nordley (Astley- Abbots), 41. Norley-Eegis, 258-9. Normandy, 195, 196, 213, 261. North-Molton (Devon), 213, 216. North-Tudeworth(WUts),232, 233,235-6. Northwich (Cheshire), 174 n. Norton (Condover), 102. Norton (Stockton), 146. Norton (Grloucestershire), 230. Norton and Mere (Staffordshire), 244, 24,5 n. Nottingham, 7, 8, 104, 196. Nymed (Devonshire), 216. 0. Oldbury, 135. Overton (near Aston BottereU), 316 ». Oxford, 271, 273. Pachesag (Wilts), 290. Pageham (Sussex), 195. Pakynton (Leicestershire), 211. Palestine, 58, 59, 60, 296, 323. Pattingham (Staffordshire), 149. Pembridge (Herefordshire), 225, 226-231. Pepingbury (Herts), 235. Pershore Monastery (Worcestersh.), 260. Peterfield (Hants), 215. Petworth (Sussex), 267. Petworth (Sussex), Honour of, 213, 267. Piohford, 46, 55, 83, 151, 154, 155, 157. Ploughley Hundred (Oxfordshire), 33. Podmore (Staffordshire), 15. Poitou, 152 iis. 214, 288, 293, 297. Poltone (Wilts), 261, 269, 290. Portsmouth, 219, 237. Posenal, 40. Powis, Kingdom of, 108, 109, 110, 111. Prees, 90. Prestatton (N. Wales), 207. Preston (Brockhirst), 49, 307. (on the WUd-Moors), 316. Priors-Ditton Church, 9, 40, 67. Peioes Lee, 273, 279, 280, 299, 312, 313-314, 319, 322, 330. Pulborough (Sussex), 267. Pychecote (Bucks), 248. PymhiU Hundred, 307. PyrehiH Hundred (Staffordshire), 9. Q- Quat, 258-9. Quatford Church, 149. K. Kadmore (Staffordshire), 271. Eadnor, Honour of, 225, 227. Reading, 138 », 153, 276 «. Eeoordiue Hundred, 174. Ehedon (Brittany), 211. Ehuddlan, 154, 207, 245. Eichards Castle (Herefordshire), 33 «, 62, 69. Eidware Mauveysin (Staffordshire), 9. Eoche Andeley (Normandy), 263. Eodington, 47 ». Eohan (Brittany), 210. Eomesley, 75 n, 258-9. Eouen, 64 n, 213, 281 n. , Church of, 276 ». Eoumaisuil (Normandy), 275. Eowton (High ErcaU), 8, 109, 114, 116, 118, 120, 128, 190. EuoKLEY, 169,175, 203, 217 », 218, 220, I 221, 238, 246-247, 299. INDEX OF PLACES. 345 Rudge, 68, 190, 258-9. Eushbury, 5X, 55, 57. Euthall (Priors Ditton), 123, 124. Btton, 62, 80-92, 137, 146«, 150, 153, 157, 159, 247, 331. Chitkch, 88-90, 154. Kyton (Warwickshire), 80. S. Saint Albans, Church of, 199. Saint Benet's of Hulm (Norfolk), 271. Saint Osyth's Priory (Essex), 182, 199, 200. Saint Pabus' (Prance), 219. Saint Paul's (London), 196, 199, 200. Saint E«migius' at Bheims, 194. Saisdone Hundred, v. Seisdon Hundred. Sahsbury Castle, 232, 295. Samihest (Southants), 215. Sandford, 128 n. Savigni, Church of, 203, 204. Seisdon Hundred (Staffordshire), 258-9, 262. Severn, Eiver, 14, 115. Shakerley, 176, 178, 180, 181. Shalford (Surrey), 272, 277-8, 284-5, 287, 291, 299, 300 n. Shavington, 333. Sheriff-Hales, 321, 331. Shiffnal, 46 «, 259, 265, 314, 319, 325, V. Idsall. Shipley, 258-9. Shirlot Forest, 6 n, 37, 38, 39, 52, 58, 63, 70, 73, 75. Shrawardiue Castle, 9, 14, 17 », 84, 85, 93, 94, 95 «, 98, 100, 143, 144, 168, 172. Shrewsbury, 9, 32, 190, 193, 194, 198 », 202. Abbey, 40, 41, 63, 64, 68, 74, 106, 181-2, 200, 201, 212, 216, 217, 247-252, 265», 266, 271, 293, 310, 312, 315, 326, 330-334. Castle, 84. , Saint Chad's Church, 46. , Saint Mary's Church, 61. -, Saint Michael's Church, 335. Shuston (Staffordshire), 37. Sidbury, 258-9. Silvington, 19. Snedshill (Shiffnal), 298. Souldem (Oxfordshire), 32, 33. Stafford, 139, 264 », 311. Stafford, St. Thomas' Church, 139. Stamford (Watlingstreet), 299. Standon (Staffordshire), 15. StanleiHundred (Warwicksh.), 258-9, 262. Stanton Harecourt (Oxfordshire), 237. Stanwey, 178, 179, 242, 244. , Nether, 242, 243, 244. , Orer, 243. Stanton (Shiffnal), 299, 319, 326, 327, 334. , Sparkmore, 299. Sterte (WUts), 268, 290, 295, 301 n. Stirchley, 250 », 314 », 315. Church, 148. Wood, 300, 315. SioOKTON, 93, 121 », 142-148. Chtoch, 147-148. , Little, alias Bodi Stockton, 145-6. , Much, alias Church Stockton, 146. Stone- Acton, 14. Stottesden Hundred, 1, 168, 258-9, 260. Manor, 70, 227. Stratton (Leicestershire), SoJee of, 224, 225, 236. Strettou Castle and Manor, 83. Sundom, 82. Sutton (Maddock), 8, 39, 64, 92 n, 93, 97, 103-142, 145, 146, 147, 190, 312, 318-9, 321. Chueoh 01' (St. Maey's), 89, 112, 120, 136, 137-142. , Berdelei Wood, 115. Haye, 119. , Mill of, 119, 122. Wood, 119, 124. Swavesey (Cambridgeshire), 210, 218, 219. SwiNNBT (Broseley), 38-39. T. Tedstill, 190. Tehidy (Cornwall), 284, 293. Tewkesbury Abbey, 269, 302. Thomey Abbey (Cambridgeshire), 105 n. Thenars (Poitou), 211. Tibberton, 314 «, 325 ». Tiggedun (Cornwall), 288. ToNa, 21,41, 103, 174, 176, 177, 183, 185, 191-257, 281 «, 327. Chtooh, 91, 192, 200, 212, 217, 247-257, 315, 330. 346 INDEX OF PLACES. Tong, Honour of, 177 », 192, 326. , The Brand, or Barnde, 220 », 223. , Brodmore, 223. , HoUy Park, 221. , LePas, 220«. , Luttleford, 220 n, 223. , Merdich, 204, 205, 206. , The Mere, 205. , MiU, 210, 237. , The Pole, 223. , Scherley, 220 n. , Shaw, 220, 326. , Trenswall, 220 n. , Timlet Bridge, 221 ». , Tylemonalode, 221, 238. Tong-Castle, 211, 253, 254. Tong-CoUege, 240, 253. Tong-Norton, 207, 220, 236, 326. Tong-Wood, 211, 222. Tonraine, 70. Trayford (Sussex), 267. Tbiiwabdotb (Shiffnal), 311-312, 321, 326. Tudeworth, v. North Tudeworth. Tweedmouth, 102. U. TJllingwyke (Herefordshire), 230, 233, 234, 235, 236, 239, 240. Fppington, 132, 133, 135, 137. Chapel, 138. TJPTON (Shiffnal), 217 «, 218, 220-1, 247, 299, 300, 309, 315, 319, 320, 326- 329, 330, 334 ». , Binstun, 327. , BlakenhuU, 327. , Brunestree, 327. , Haghul, 328. V. Verlay (Normandy), 47 ». Verona, 138. W. Waldo (Sussex), 290. Wales, 198, 202 «. Wales, Marches of, 107, 195-7, 295. Walkerslow, 7, 21, 87. Walle under Heywood, 55. Waltham (Hants), 197. Walthamstow (Essex), 253 m. Walton (Lichfield Dioc.), 336. Warwick, 227. Water-Byton (Staffordshire), 21. Watling-Street, 204, 205, 206, 299. Wattlesborough, 307-8. Wellington, 83. , Haye of, 310, Wells Cathedral, 36. Wenlook, Church and Parish of, 33, 35, 42, 59-60, 76, 79. , Deanery of, 34, 59, 77 «, 78. , Liberty of, 1, 2, 19, 22, 23, 36, 41, 48, 56, 59, 61, 69. , Manor of, 36, 39, 43. , Much, 10, 77. Priory, 4, 6, 17, 36, 42 n, 43, 44, 52, 59-61, 63, 68, 69, 78, 79, 80 ,«, 101, 198. Wenlock, Little, 77. Wentnor, 154. West-Bradley, v. Bradley. Weston, Cold, 316 «. Juxta Cammel (Bath and Wells Dioc), 184. (under Lizard), 86, 187, 264 n. (under Eed-Castle), 113, 116. (sub-Edge, Gloucestershire), 225, 227, 228, 230, 232, 233. Westminster, passim. Wheathill, 35. Whiston (Albrighton), 88, 154, 157. Whitchurch, 122, 333. WMttington, 3, 11, 12. Wioh, 174, 259, 284 ». Wiches, The (of Cheshire and Worcester- shu-e), 174 re, 284 », 293. Wich-Malbank (Cheshire), 284 n. Wigmore, 227, 228, 229, 231. Wigwig, 46, 47. Wilbrighton (Staffordshire), 207. Wilderhope, 55. Wileby (Herefordshire), 20. Win (Wnts), 268, 275-6, 282. WiiiBr, 1, 23, 45-61, 120, 305, 307. Chueoh, 59-61, 77. Wflley (Hertfordshire), 58 re. Wily-Bechampton (Wilts), 290. Winchester, 227, 229, 263, 294. Wmdsor Castle, 31, 199, 214. Forest and Park, 31, 35. Wmterbm-ne (Basset, Co. Wilts), 268, 281, 284, 285, 294, 296. ■ Church, 269, 270, 278, 299. INDEX OF PERSONS. 347 Wistanetow, 198. Witeford (Devonshire), 284, 292. Wombridge Forest, 118. Wombridge Priory, 40, 85, 91, 92, 112, 114, 115, 117-122, 129, 130, 131, 132, 138, 137-140, 141, 146, 273, 278-280, 282-3, 284 », 298, 300, 312, 313-315, 317-318, 319, 323, 326, 329, 336. Church, 139, 203, 313. Grange, 317. Woneston (Gloucestershii-e), 225, 235 n. Woodcote, 266. WooDHOUSE (Shifihal), 299, 312, 319- 320. Woodstoci, 201. Wootton, 142. Worcester, 64, 118, 154, 186, 245, 259. Worcester, Church of, 260. Worfe (Eiver), 70, 87, 93, 172,221, 299. Worfield, 64, 76, 258-9. Wotton (Lichfield Dioc), 184. Wrictton, 7, 19, 21, 37. Wrookwardine, 122, 319, 320. Wroxeter Church, 280. Wycombe (Bucks), 284, 296. WxKB (Shiffnal), 299, 300, 310-311, 312, 321, 329, 334. Wyneston, v. Woneston. Wythiford, Little, 177. Y. Yale-Castle (North- Wales), 108. York, 158, 160, 239. INDEX OF PERSONS. *4f* In the following Index, Names which belong to Official Lists are classified in order of succession, not alphabetically. Where such Lists have been already given, in the body of the work, the Index makes general reference thereto, but does not repeat the individual Names, unless they have occurred in some other connexion. A. Aaron, Jew of Lincoln, 176. Aaron, John, Rector of Broseley, 35. Achi (T. R. E.), 258. Ackleton, Thomas de, 71. Acton, Jolm de, 10. Adam, Priest, 67 «. Sacerdos, 175 n. AguiUon, Manasser, 278 «. Alan, Chaplain (Wyke), 310, 333. Alan, Clerk {testis), 218 n. Alberburi, Fulco de, 14, «. Fitz Warin. Alberic, 149. Albini (of Belvoir), WiUiam d', 205. * Albrighton, Adam le Serjant de, 157. , Elyas de, 157. , Incumbents of, 160, 161, 264. Albrighton, Nicholas, Priest of, 112», 158, 160. , Ranulf de, 157, 243. , , Alice, wife of, 157, 243. -, Eichard de, 157. -, Bobert Fitz Agnes de, 157. -, Siward de, 157. -, Thomas de, 157, 183. -, Walter, Clerk of, 157. Albus, John (of Cotesford, Oxon), 33. Alcher, 212». Aldenham, John de, 31. \ Alditone, Robert de, 71. Aldred, 278». Alfwin (Upton), 327. Algar, 149. 348 INDEX OF PERSONS. Algar, Earl of Mereia, 149, 258 quater. Alimund, Adam, 323 «. Almoner (of Henry II), Brother Eoger, the, 138 n. Alsi, 258. Aluric, 258. Angevin, Kobert, 133 n. Apley, John de, 317 «. Ardene, Eanulf de, 32, 33. Arlscott, Eobert de, 37. Arras, Kalph d', 18, 37. Arroasia, Canons of, 204, 205, 206. Arundel and Chichester, Earls of, Mont- gomery, V. Shrewsbury, Earls of , D'Albini, 278 «. , , WU- Ham (I), 202 », 273, 274. Wil- liam (in), 278. Arundell, Adam de, 11. , Eoger de, 206 n. Ashby, Walter de, 205. Ashley, Adam de, 15, 16 his, 32. , Eobert, ProTOst of, 15. , , John and William, sons of, 15. , William de, 14, 32. , Adam, sou of, 31. Astall, aeoffrey de, 176. , PhUip de, 70 ». , Eiohard de, 70 «, , Eobert de, 183. Atterlegh, Eobert de, Eector of Tong, 180 », 251. Atte-Townsend, Adam, 119. Audley, De, 164 «. , Nicholas de, 244. Azor, 258 bis. B. Badger (of Brockton), Family of, , 93, 130-131, 131 n. , Eiohard de, 99 «, 125 », 130. , Eiohard de (II), 130. , Eoger de (son of William), 94 », 95, 99 », 119 «, 127, 130, 131, 298 «. , Thomas de, 130. , William de, 15, 94 n, 102 n, 112 », 119 n, 124 n, 125, 126 «, 130. — , WUham de (son of Eoger), 130, 131. Badger (of Brockton), WiUiam de (III), 130. Badger, Alan, Eector of, 72, 78. , Incumbents of, 78-80. , Philip Pitz Stephen de, 63-69, 74. , , * * * *j Grandfather of, 64, 65. , PhiHp de (II), 65, 72, 73, 74. , Philip de (III), 65, 74, 75, 78, 87. , Philip de (IV), 65, 76, 79. , Phihp de, Clerk, 65, 75, 78. , Eeginald de, 65, 68. , Ei(!hard de, 65, 75 ». I Margery, wife o^ 65. , Eobert, Domesday Tenant of, 61, 62, 63. , Eoger de, 65, 68-71, 126 ». , , Phihp, son of, 65, 71. , Eoger, Clerk of, 67 », 70 «, 78. , Eoger de (of CleoburyNorth),76. , Stephen, Father of PhiHp de, 64, 65. ,Thomasde(I),18,65,71,72, 73,76. , , Margery de Beysin, wife of, 65, 71, 72. , , Avice, daughter of, 65. , , * * * *, daughter of (wife of Henry Mauveysin), 65. , Thomas de (II), 65. , , Anabel, wife of, 65, 76, 78, 79. , Waiam de, 62, 63, 66, 130. , WiUiam de (II), 65, 79, 93. Badlesmere, Bartholomew de, 301, 336. , , Margaret, wife of, 336, v. Umfi-avill. , Giles de, 337 ». , Elizabeth, sister of, 337 «, V. Northampton, Earls of. Bagot (of Blymhill), John (I), 203, 207, 264 ». , John (II), 12, 25, 26, 186. , , Margery, wife of, 12, 218, V. Burwardsley. , , Margery, daughter of, 12, V. Corene. , , Philippa, daughter of, 12, V. Bromley. , , * * * *, daughter of, 12, V. Ipstones. , WiUiam, son of John (I), 263, 264 m. INDEX OF PERSONS. 349 Bagot (of Blymhill), Eoger, John, and j Bectbury, Hugh de (I), 15, 70, 71, 91 bis. Thomas, brothers of John (II), 264 «. Bangor, Bishop of, Hervey, 196. , , David, 199. Bardulph, Hugh, Dapifer, 138 n. Bartholomew, Clerk of King John, 286. Baskerville, Hugh de, 23. Baskerrille (of Herberbury), Ralph de, 152. , , Burga, daughter of, 152. Basset, Family of, 296-7. , Ealph, Justice of England, 296. , Gilbert, supposed son of, 296. Basset Thomas (of Colinton), 279 n, 280 71, bis, 281, 284, 286, 287, 292, 296. , , Ahoe, daughter of, 296, v. Malet. , , Johanna, daughter of, 292, 297, V. Valletort. , , Philippa, daughter of, 296, V. Warwick. , , Phihppa, wife of, 284 m, 296, V. Malbank. Basset, Thomas (of Hedendon), 273, 283, 284, 296. , , Alice de Dunstauvill, wife of, 273, 284, 285, 292, 296. , — , * * * *, daughter of, 284, 297, V. Creoun and G-resley. , Gilbert (of Hedendon), 276 », 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 291, 292, 296. , , Bgeline, wife of, 296. , , Eustachia, daughter of, 284, 287, 291, 296, v. CamyiU. Basset (of Wycombe and Winterburn), 284, 296. , Alan, 279 «, 281, 284, 285, 286«, 294, 296. , Basset, Osmund, 283 n, 297. ■, , John, sou of, 283«, 297. • , — • -, , William, sou of, 283, 297. , , , , Cecily, wife of, 283 », 284 m, 297, v. Dunstauvill. Bath and WeUs, Bishop of, 251-2. , , Robert Bur- nell V. Bumell. Baucis, William de, 66 n. Beauchamp, William de, 64, 110. II. 94 «, 102 «, 103 «, 115 », Us, 124 », 125, 126 », 131, 132, 134, 170, 217 «. , , AUna, wife of, 133, 134. , Hugh de (II), 130 «, 131, 133, 135, 136, 178, 223 n, v. Hadinton. , , Muota, daughter of, 133, 135, 136. , , Johanna (or Ida), wife of, 133, 136. , , Thomas, son of, 136. , John de (I.) 18, 71, 131, 132, 220 », 328 «. , John de (1344) 79, (1308-9) 329 ». -, John, eon of (Clerk), 79. — , Philip de, 28, 86, 119 n, 132, 155, 322 re, 329 », 330 ?». , Eiehard, Chaplain of, 70 ». , Thomas de, 86. -, Warner de, 50. Bccket, Thomas k, u. England, Chancel- lors of. Belcher, Ralph le, 264 ». Bella-fago, Amaury de, 273 ». Belmeis, alias Beaumes, Family of, 206 «, 208-209, 241. Behneis, of Donington and Meadowley, 175-180, 185, 208-209, 241. , Hugh de, 179, 180, 209, 238 ». , , Heleue, wife of, 180. , , John, brother of, 179, 180, 209. — , , , John, son of, 180, 209. . , Johnde, 155,178-9,209, 244,246. , Richard de (I), 175, 176, 183 «, 206«, 208, 218, 238,241. , , Philip, brother of, 175 », 208. , Richard de (II), 176, 208. , Roger de, 177, 178, 209. , Walter de, 71, 176, 177, 178, 181, 208, 218, 220 n. , , Johanna, wife of, 177, 178, 208. , WiUiam de, 169, 175, 208, 241. Belmeis, Lords of Tong, 175, 185, 213 n, 218 ». , Richard (I) de (Bishop of Lon- don), 174, 175 », 182, 191-201, 202, 206, 208, 247, 266. , , Avelina, sister of, 208. 45 350 INDEX 01? PERSONS. Belmeia, William son of Avelina de, Dean of St. Paul's, 200, 208. , * * * sister of Bishop Richard (I) de, wife of * * * de Langford, 208. -, Ralph de Langford, son of. Dean of St. Paul's, 208. , Walter de, brother of Bishop Richard (I) de, 201, 208. , William de, (presumed brother of Bishop Richard I), v. Beimels, of Donington. -, Phaip de (I), 175, 201-206, 208, 211, 212, 218, 221, 247. , , Matilda, wife of, 203, 205, 208. V. Meschin. — , , Richard (II), brother of. Bishop of London, 201, 204, 205, 206 », 208, 273 ». , — , Robert, supposed brother of, 203, 208, vide infra, Robert (I). , PhiUp de (II), 176, 203, 204, 206, 208, 211, 212, 217, 241. , Ranulf de, 203, 206 », 207, 208, 210, 212, 217, 218. , , Adehcia, sister of, 208, 210, 211, 212, 217. , WilUam de, son of Adehcia, 212 «, V. La Zouche. , , Philip, brother of, 212 », «. La Zouche. Belmeis, Younger branch of, holding lands at Tong, Stanwey, &c. 241-24.6. — , Henry de, 179 », 180, 181, 209, 238 », 246. 246. -, John, son of, 209, 246. -, , Tecia, wife of, 209, , Hugh de (Valet of Henry III), 21, 86 Us, 87, 157, 167, 178, 179, 209, 243-246. , , Isolda, wife of, 209, 244, 246. , Robert de (I), 176, 203, 208, 241. , , WUham, supposed son of (Canon of St. Paul's) , 206», 208, 241. -, Robert de (II), 206 », 208, 241- 242, 279 », 306 ». , Robert de (III), 209, 242-243, 244. , ■ ■ — , Matilda, wife of, 209, 243, 244. , WiUiam de, 208, 223, 242. Belmeis, Alan de, 178. Belmeis, Philip de (c. 1223), 177, 218. Benefford, Gerard de, 246. Beuthall, Philip de, 24. , Philip le Mouner de, 24. , Robert de, 23, 24. , , Hugh, brother of, 23,24. , WiUiara de, 15. Bere, De la, 257. Bermingham, 255, 257. , Henry de, 239. , MatUda de, 226, 239. Bernehoud, Robert, 319, 328. Berner, 258. Berneres, Robert de, 286. Bemevall, Gilbert de, 281. Besselawe, Roger de, 133 ». Betterton, Robert de, 223. Beysin, Adam de (I), 7, 12, 18, 22, 71 lis. , , Mabel, wife of, v. Bur- -, Margery, daughter of. 12, 18, 19, «. Badger. , Adam de (II), 12, 18. , John de, 13. , , Anna, second wife of, 13> v. Latymer. , , Elizabeth, daughter of, 13, V. Cherlton. , , Margaret, first wife of, 13, o. Mortimer. , Robert de, 13, 18, 19-21, 26, 245. , , Isabel wife of, 13, 21, 243, 244-5, u. Bret and TurberviUe. , Richard de, 11. , Robert de (of Arlscott), 37. , Thomas de, 13, 25, 31. , Walter de (I), 13, 21, 37, 55 », 329 ». , , Alice, wife of, 13, u. Burnel. , Walter de (II), 13. , , Alice wife of, 13. , Warin de, 18, 19, 22, 36, 37. , , Margaret, daughter of, 37. Bideston, Wilham de, 290. Bidun, Walter de, 66 n. Bigedune, Wilham de, 66 n. Biggenever, Ralph de, 278 n. Binelard, John de, 236. Biset, Manasser, 64. INDEX OF PERSONS. 351 Biset, Henry, 215. , John, 233. , Isolda, 288. Bishton (or Bishopeston), Family of, 166-167. . Henry de (1221), 181. , Henry de (1253-6), 167. , , John son of, 87, 155 », 167. , , Eobert son of, 167. • , , , John son of, 167. , John Clerk of, 28, 155 n, 167. , John de Aula de, 167, 179 n. , Peter de, 167. Bles, Bichard des, 67 ». Blie, Geoffrey de, 212 n. Bluet, G-ilbertj 298, 313. , , Alice, wife of, 313. , Henry, 319. Blund, Eanulf le, 67 «. , Thomas, 96. BlymhiU, Master Thomas de, 86. , William de, 180 n. Bobbington, John Fitz Philip de, 300 n. Bobur, Koger, 37. BoUnghale, Henry de, 169. , Hugh de (1203), 70 ». , , Nicholas, Brother of, lOn, 170, 306 ». • , Hugh de (1228-38), 220 «. , Hugh de (1250-70), 28, 38, 130 », 167, 178, 183, 223 «, 330? -, Walter de (Monk of Build- was), 217. Body, Eobert, 145, 146. , • ■ — , Hawise, wife of, 146. Bohun, Enjuger de, 216. , Savaric de «. Savaric. , William de v. Northampton, Earl of. Bon- Valet, Walter, 15. Bordeaux, Oliver de, 237. Bosco, (Jeoffery de, 20. , , Margery, wife of, 20. -, Hamo de, 278 n. -, Thomas de, 23. Bosleie, Bernard de, 2 n. Boterell, William (of Alceater), 6. Boterell, Thomas (of Aston), 21, 316. Botiller, Hamo le, 38. , John le, 42. Bottesfeld, William de, 73. Bottesfeld, John, Brother of William de, 73. Brabant, WiEiam de, 197. Bradley, Warin de, 16. , Warner de, 10. Braose, WilKam de, 177 », 192, 213, 214. Bray, Adam de, 32. Breant, Willifpi de, 218. Brerleoton, Heliis de, 67 n. , Thomas de (of Staunton, Shiffnal), 319. Bret, John le, 144, 145. , Philip le, 13, 19, 21. , , Isabel, daughter of, 13, 19, V. Beysin. Bretun, William le, 10. Brewood, Elaek Nuns of, 187, 188», 190», 221. , Isabel Launder, Prioress of, 188 n. , White Nuns of, 180, 187-190. , , Prioress of the, 177, 178, 179, 183, 239. , , , Alditha, 189. , , , Cecilia, 189. , , , Agnes, 189. , , , Joan deHuggeford, 189. 189. 190. — , , Alice de Harlegh, — , , Beatrice de Dene, ■ — -, , , Margaret, 190. Brictstual, 80. Bridport, Master Giles de, 300. Brimstree, William, Beadle of, 155. Brimton, Adam de, 10. Brisebon, Nicholas, 43, 44. , , Hugh, son of, 44. —, , Koger son of, 44, 121- 122, 140. Brittany, Little, Earls or Dukes of, 3, 210, 219. Brittany, Earl of, Alan, 210 «. , -, , Geoffrey, father of, 210 m. ter of, 211. -, Alan la Zouche, 210 ». -, Conan le Petit, 211. -, , Constance, daugh- -, .Arthur Plantagenet, 212, 213. 35S INDEX OF PEllSONS. Britton, Ealph, Clerk, 119 n. Briwere, "William, 98 «, 213, 286. Brockton (Long Stanton), John de, 37. Brockton (Sutton), Agnes, daughter of WilKam de, 102. , Henry de, 100. , , Sibil, wife of, 100. , Henry de (Vicar of), 141, D. Sutton. , Hugh, Chaplain of, 115 n, 141. , , Eichard, Brother of, 115 «, 141. , Ito de, 92», 95, 99», 119», 120 », 127, 130 «, 131 », 298 ». , John, Clerk of, 119, 121, 137, 146. -, Osbert of, 126. -, Richard Fitz Edith of, 131. , Eichard Ktz Ivo of, 146. , Eichard, Prieat of, 125. , , Margaret, daughter of, 125, 126. , Eobert de, 126 m, 133 ». , Sibil de, 126. , , John son of, 126, 129 n. , , , Agues wife of, 126. , Thomas de, 95, 119 «, 120 », 131, 298 n, 313, 329 n. -, John son of, 122«, 313 ». Broke, Eichard de la, 117 n. Bromfield, Master Adam de, 53. Brompton, Brian de, 51. , -, Margaret, daughter of, 51, V. Harley. Bromley, Benedict de, 15. , Geoffrey de, 12, 15, 25, 26, 27. , , PhUippa, wife of, 12, 25, 26, 27, V. Bagot. , John de, 13. , Eobert de, 13. Broseley v. Burwardsley. , Incumbents of, 33, 34-36. Brug, Dean of, 54. Brug, Prior of St. John's at, 147. Bruges, Eichard de, 133. , , SibU wife of, 133, v. Mussun. , , Great Grandson of, 133, — , Master Eobert of. Clerk, 332 ». Brun, Henry, 33. , Eichard, 83. , Eoger, 10. Bruniht, 61, 93. Buberel, Henry, 282. Buildwas, Alan de, 175 n, 264 n. Buildwas, Abbot and Conyent of, 14', 88m, 160, 171, 172, 173, 175, 183, 202-20-1, 217, 221, 238, 250, 263-4, 311, 316, 327, 334. , Stephen, Abbot of, 39. , Nicholas, Abbot of, 172, 220, 299. , Stephen, Abbot of, 264. , Monks of, Adam, Geoffrey and Brother Eoger, 175 n. Burcham (Sussex), Harold, Priest of, 273 n. , , Eobert, Brother of, 273 n. Bures, Beatrice de, 189. — , Peter de, 275. Burgo, De, 164. Burgo, Bertram (I) de, 84. , , Helisant, wife of, , Bertram (II) de, 84. , Bertram (III) de, 84, 88. , Philip de, 84. , — — , Alice wife of, 84, v. Stretton. Burhred, 1. Buri, Eichard de la, 133. Burnell, Family of, 97. , Hugh, 13. , , Alice, daughter of, 13. , Philip (1291), 101. .Eichard, 101, 102, 127, 128, 131 «. , , Alianore, wife of, 127, 128 », v. Sanford. , Eobert (Bishop of Bath and Wells), 97, 99, 100, 101, 133, 134, 137 «, 323. , William (1278), 236. , William (of Langley), 102. . , Edward son of, 102. , , , Margaret Lee, wife of, 102. Burwardsley, Anian de, 22, 23, 24. , Denys de, 24. , , Adam son of, 24. , , Eoger son of, 24, 38. , John de, 17, 24, 32. , , John son of, 22. , Philip de (Brother of Warin), 5, 12. INDEX OV PEKSONS. 353 Burwardsley, Philip de (son of Warin), 9-12, 14-ia, 32, 71, 103 », 125 k, 128. , , Emma, wife of, 12, 14, 18, 22, 28. , Eoger de, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, 25. -, Warin de, 6-9, 12, 17, 18, 22, 40, 69, 115m, 126«, 128. , , Alice, daughter of, 9, 12, 18, 21, 22, 24; 37, v. Byton. Mabel daughter of. 7, 9, 12, 18, 19, 22 », 36, «. Beysiu. , — — , Margery daughter of, 9, 12, 18, 25-29, 218. ». Bagod. , William de, 15. -, William Ktz Warin de, 3, 4, 5, 12. 15 ». -, William son of Baldwin de, -, William, Parson of, 16, 34. Buterill, Geoffrey and Oliver de, 288. C. Cadeleg, Eobert de, 169. Cadugane (Sutton Maddoct), 112 n. Caisneto, Eoger de, 272 ». Caleweton, Walter de, 35. Camyill, Gerard de, 32 », 287. , , Nichola de Hay, wife of. 32 b. -, Eiohard de, 284, 287, 296. -, , Eustachia, wife of, 284, 287, 296. 296. -, Idonea, daughter of, 291, Canterbury, Archbishop of, 274. , Anselm, 195, 196. , Ralph, 198. , Wmiam Curboil, 199, 200, 201. , Theobald, 331 ». , Thomas, 331 «, v. England, Chancellors of. —, Baldwin, 138, 332. , Hubert "5^alter, 188 «. , Boniface, 332 n. , John de Peoham, 182», 332. , Thomas Fitz Alan, 140. , Dean of, 197. Cantilupe, 166 ». , John de, 209, 225-6, 233. Cantilupe, Margaret, wife of John de, 209, 233, V. Zouche. ■ , William de. Junior, 215. , , Milisent, wife of, 215. Cantreyn, John de, 23, 24. CauTile, William, 38. Carbonel, William (of Ashford), 67 «. Cardiffe, William, 212 n. Cardinal, John the (1206), 138 ». CardunuU, Adam de, 290. Carles, Family of, 89. , Hugh, Eector of Badger, 79. ~, John, 180 ». , Nicholas, 80, 155 », 157, 244. , , Burgia, wife of, 157, 244. — , Eoger, 88, 155, 157, 160, 179 n, 238 », 317 «. , William, 90. Carmarthen, Peter de, 324. , , Alice do Kenley, wife of, 324, V. Kenley. Carpenter, Eobert, 66 ». Carpenter, Wilham, 16, 32. Carter, Walter (of Eouthton), 311. , , Alice wife of, 311. Castello (of Holgate), Herbert de, 203, 204, 205, V. Helgot. , , Nicholas, brother of, 203. Castello (of IdsaU), Eichard de, 299, 318-9. , , Emma (de Haughton), wife of, 318, 321, v. Haughton. CaudreU, Eadulf, 212 «. Caughley, Philip de, 44, 45. , ■ ■, Margery de Presthope (wife of), 44. -, Ealph de, 16, 24, 28, 37 bis. 43, 44, 45. -, Eichard de, 15. Chabbenore, Thomas de, 217. Chamberlain, Eobert, 66 ». Champeneys, William, 157. Chancellors, «. England. Charles, Eeginald, 324. Chatculne, William, Clerk of, 15. Chauoumb, Hugh de, 285. Chavel, Engeram, 218. Chedney, 283. Cheud, Samson de, 67 «. Cheney, William de, 89. Cherleton, Alan do, 209. 354 INUEX OF PERSONS. Cherieton, Elene la Zouohe, wife of Alan de, 209. , Sir John de, of Powis, son of Alan de, 324, 325. -, Alan de, of Apley, son of Alan de, 324, 325, 326. , John de, Rector of Wrock- wardine, 324. -, Master John de, 300 n. Cherlton (of Uppington), Adam de, 133. , , Alice wife of, 133, u. Mussun. Cherlton, Eoger de, 13. , , Elizaheth wife of, 13, V. Beysin. Chernese, Reginald de, 317 ». Chester, Bishop of, v. Lichfield. Chester, Eanulph (I) Earl of, 205 n. — , , William, Brother of, V. Meschines. , Eanulph Blundevill Earl of, 284 ». Chesthull, Richard de, 133 n. Chetwynd, Family of, 48, 55 n, 307. , Adam de, 48. , Reginald de, 307. , Roger de, 307. , John de, 56, 57. , John de (1300), 308. Chichester, Bishop of, 195. , , Ralph, 194. , , Hfllary, 278 n. , Archdeacon of, Henry, 278 n. Chop, or Job, of Haughton, Robert, 321 «. Clare, De, 164 », 336 ». , Margaret de, v. Badlesmere. Clarembald, Clerk, 200. Cleton, John de, 99. i , , Alice, wife of, 99. Clifford, Walter Juvenis de, 67 ». , , Richard, brother of,67». , , Rosamond, sister of,67». , Walter (III) de, 296. , , Maud, daughter of, 296, V. Longespee. Clinton, Ivo de, 55 «. Clodeshale, Richard, 79. , , Alice wife of, 79. Clone, Robert de, 311, 313 «. , , Mabel, wife of, 311. CodreU, Blias, 212 «. Coleham, Kanulf de, Clerk, 312. ColeshuU, John de, 324 ». Colle, Hugh, 326 n. , Richard, 313 n, CnuUe, Ralph de, 67 n. Cocus (of Brockton), 129-130. , Helias, 94 n, 112 », 115 », 119, 125, 126 «, 129. , Robert, 102 », 115, 123, 125 », 126 n, 129. , William, 94 n, 95, 119, 125, 129, 130. Cocus (of Lee), Richard, 313 ». , Walter, 312 n, 313 n. Cocus, Roger, 313 n. CodshaU, Master Thomas de, 119 ». Cold (or Colt), Alexander le, 96. Colington, Philip de, 67 ». Collet, Robert, 223. Constantino, Richard de, 53. , Thomas de, 22, 119 «. , William de, 206 n. Corbet (of Cans), Roger, 196 «. , Robert, 53. , Thomas, 22 », 55, 136, 137 n. , Peter, 154. Corbet (of Longden, &o.), Robert, 196 n. Corbet (of Wattlesboroughand Moreton), 49, 307. , Richard, 306. , Richard, son of Richard, 306, 307. , , (Joan) Toret, wife of. 307, V. Toret. , Robert, 122 n, 298 n Us, 307-309, 321. , Thomas, 309, 329 n. Corbett (of Habberley and Longnor),88 », 89. Corbet (of Hadley, Tasley, &c.), Robert, 226, 239, 240. , , Matilda, wife of, 226, 239. , Roger (I), 115 «, 280 n. , Roger (if), 119 n. , Roger (III), 122 », 317 n, 326 n, 329 ». , Thomas (I), 18, 22, 119 «. , Thomas (II), 122 «, 298 «, 323 n. Corbrond, * * * (husband of Juliana Mussun), 133. , Richard, their Great-Grand- son, 133. Corfhul, Roger de, 37. INDEX OF PERSONS. 355 Costenteine, William de, 206 a, „. Con- stantine. Coterel, William, 91. Courtney, EgeKna de, 296, o. Basset. Covene, Osbert de, 23. Covene, Ealph de, 12, 22, 23, 25-29. , , Margery wife of, 12, 25-29, V. Bagot and Drayton. , ' , Alice daughter of, 13, V. Penford and Sany. Coventry, Bishops of, v. Lichfield. , William, Prior of, 139. Crasaet, Henry, 1V2 », 264 , Eichard, 150, 263. , William {drca 1200), IVO, 263. , WiUiam (12V2), 173, 264. Creoun, Wido de, 284, 297. J , * * * Basset, wife of, 284, 297, V. Basset. Creswell, William de, 169. Crispin, JoceEne, 283. Cude, or Keede, Stephen son of William, 98, 99, 127, 128. , William, 98 », 127, 128. , , Fehcia wife of, 127. , , Sibil and Margery, daughters of, 128. Cuilli, Hugh de, 205. CumbreviU, Hugh de, 271. , , Eoger and Kainald de Insula, brothers of, 271. Cumbwell, Hugh de, 290. Curci, WiUiam de, 278 n. Cure, Osbert de, 67 n. , Philip de, 67 n. , William de, 67 n. Cursor, Gerard, 278 n. Cutona, WiUiam de, 279 n. Cutuel, Ealph, Clerk, 16, 34. D. Daniel, 66 ». Dapifer, Eobert (Sutton), 125 ». Davenant, 166. Daivill (DaTuU, or DauvUl), Eeginald de, 112 », 279 », 281. Dawley, William, Priest of, 112 n. Dene, Alan de la, 16, 38. , , Warner, son of, 16, 38. , Nicholas de, 21, 24, 38. , Thomas de la, 38. Derinton, Nicholas de, 15. Despenser, 163. Despeuser (of Willey), Nicholas, 58, 59. J , Christiana, wife of 58, 0. Stalhere. , WiUiam, 21. Devereux (of IdsaU), John {circa 1272- 1289), 323 n, 325, 330. , John {drca 1309), 324 n, 325 n, 326 n, 330. Devereux, WiUiam, 20, 22, 23. , MatUda, wife of, 20- 23. , WiUiam, son of 23, 233. Deyises, Eobert de, 319, 330. , Walter de, 326 n, 330. , WUUam de {circa 1250), 328 n. , WilUam,3on of Eobert de (1272), 319, 330. , WilUam de (1280-1316), 313 «, 323 », 325 », 330. Digby, Su- Eenelm, 192 n. Distil, 66 n. Diva, Wido de, 276. Dodington, Adam de, 99 n. , Eobert de (1280), 99. -, Isolda wife of, 99. -, Eobert de, 55 », 75 n. Donington, Henry de Belton, Parson of, 184. , Incumbents of, 183-184. , James, Eector of, 183-4. , Simon, Parson of, 183. Doniton, Philip de, 214 «. Donnyger, 137. , WiUiam, 95. Dore (Herefordshire), Abbot and Con- vent of, 159, 160, 161. Dover, Hugh de, 4. , , Matilda wife of, 5, Drayton, Adam de, 319. , Alice de, 98 n. Drayton, WiUiam de, 12, 25, 28-30. . , Margery Bagod, wife of, 12, 25, 28-30, u. Covene and Bagot. Drayton (Shiffnal), Alice de, 325. , Thomas de, 325. , WiUiam de, 325, «. Pater- Noster. Dreiton, Eobert, Dean of, 112. 356 INDEX OF PERSONS. Dublin, Abbot of, Leonard, 280 n. , Archbishop of, 187. , Bishop of, Gregory, 199. Dud, Henry, 310. Duddelegh, Robert de, 311. Dudmaston, Eobert de, 172 n. , Walter de, 115 n. Dunning, 173. Dunstanvill, Family of, 268-304, 309, 335 ». ,Alan de (I), 202 «, 268, 271, 272-3, 274, 279, 297, 313, 335 n. , Alan de (II), 272, 273, 278, 279 «, 280 «, 281, 283-4, 297. -, * * * * wife of. 283, 297, V. Langetot. , , Cecily, daugh- ter of, 283 n, 297, v. Basset. , Reginald de. Earl of Corn- wall, 268, 273 71, 275, 282, 283, 288, 302, 303, 334 n. , , G-uudred, sister of, 269. Count, son of, 288. -, Henry Kfcz -, Ursula, alleged daughter of, 282, 302, 303, 335 «. -, Herbert, bro- ther of, 278 », D. Fitz Herbert. , Reginald de, 268, 269, 271, 297. — , , Adelina, wife of, 268, 269, 270, 271, 297. , Robert de, 271-2, 278, 292, 297, 335 n. , Walter de (I), 91, 112, 273- 284, 285-287, 291, 292, 294 «, 297, 305-6, 809, 313, 314, 317, 320, 325, 335 «. -,Hawise, alias Sibil, wife of, 277, 279, 280, 281, 282, 285, 287-292, 297, v. Pr^aux. -, Alice, sister of. 273, 283-4, 285, 292, 296, c. Basset. , Walter de (II), 282, 284- 294, 297, 310, 315, 326, 333. , , PetronUla, wife of, 288 «, 289 », 293-4, 297, v. Fitz Alan. , — , John, sup- posed son of, 92 », 298 «. Dunstanvill, Walter de (III), 92, 119 n, 130 «, 131 «, 274 », 293-300, 307, 310, 313, 318-9, 320, 327-8, 329. , ,Dionisia,wife of, 297, 299, 300. , , Roese, wife of, , Petronilla, 297, 300. daughter of, 295, 297, 299 «, 300, 301, 330. , Walter de (Rector of Ids- all), 53, 112 n, 115, 279 », 280 », 281, 334-5. , WiUiam de, 273 re, 335 ». , , Walter brother of, 273 «, 335 re. Durham, Hugh, Bishop of, 138 re. Dynan, Hawise de, 4 «, 12. E. Eadmer, 195, 196, 197. Edmer, (T. R. E.) 258. Edric, (T. R. B.) 258 his. Edwin, Earl of Mercia, 173, 174 n, 258. Edwin (Stockton), 142. Elmer, (T. R. E.) 258. Ely, Herrey, Bishop of, 196. Elyas, Clerk, 329 », u. Wyke. Engelard, Chaplain, 55. England, Chancellors of, Waldrio or Wal- ter, 194 ». , Chancellor of, William Fitz Gilbert (under the Empress), 273 re. , , Thomas aBecket, 5 «, 108. 129 «. , Ralph de Nevill, , , Robert Burnell, 97, 11. Burnell. England, Constable of, William do Bohun, 337, V. Northampton, Earl of. England, Kings, Queens, and Princes of, — K. Edward the Confessor, 2, 45, 61, 80, 93, 103, 104 «, 142, 149, 166, 168, 173, 174», 191, 262, 265-305, 308. K. William I, 103, 104, 149, o. Nor- mandy, Duke of. K. William Rufus, 80, 106, 182, 268. K. Henry I, 2, 47, 64, 81, 82, 105, 106, 107, 150, 182, 191, 192, 194-199, 201, 202 re, 267, 269 re, 271, 273, 331. INUEX OF PEESONS. 357 England, Kings, Queens, and Princes o^ — (coiitimied.) K. Henry I, Adeliza, wife of, 199. , Matilda, daughter of, 48«, 106, 269 «, 270, 271, 273. -, William, son of, 195. K. Stephen, 48 », 107, 182, 202, 269, 270, 331. E. Henry II, 5, 64, 102, 108, 109, 110, 112, 182, 137, 138, 182, 202 «, 207, 210, 211, 271, 273,275, 277, 331, 335. , Geoffrey, son of, 211,212. , , Constance, wife of, 211, 212. , , Arthur, son of, 212. , Henry, son of, 275. K. Richard I, 7, 8, 113, 188, 151, 169, 268 », 276, 277, 284, 285, 287, 291-2. , John, Earl of Moretou, brother of, 8, 276, 288 n. K. John, 151, 185, 186, 187, 192, 212-13, 214, 215, 283, 287, 288, 294 «, 835. K. Henry III, 9, 99 «, 129 «, 184, 182, 215, 216, 219, 228, 242-3, 289, 331. , Isabella, sister of, wife of the Emperor Erederick, 14, 117, 152, 220, 293. , Edward, son of, 58, 242, 294. , Edmund, son of, 227. , , Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, son of, 238. K. Edward I, 232, 322. , Eleanor, Queen of, 284, 235. K. Edward II, 160 ». E. Edward III, 198 ». K. Eiohardll, 82». Ercalewe (or Hadley), William (II) de,-*l 112«, 279»ofe51. , , Pagan, brother of, 112 ». , , Wniiara, son of, called " Minor " or "Juvenis," 133 », 282, -0. William (III) de. , Wilham (III) de, 112 », 115 », 133 ». II. Ercalewe (or Hadley), Alan, brother of Wilham (III) de, 282. , Hamo, brother of WiUiam (III) de, 112 n. I Richard, brother of William (III) de, 112 n. , WiUiam (II or III) de, 279 note 52. , WilUam (III or IV) de, 92, 119 ti. , William (IV) de, 22. , John de, 131 «, 298 n. , WiUiam (V), de, 55 n. Erdiuton, Giles de (Justiciar), 22, 228, 242. Espele, Robert de, 124 «. Essex, Earl of, Geoffrey de MandevUle, 109, 110, 271. — , Geoffrey Fitz Piers, 294, V. Fitz Piers. William de Mandeville, 278 ». Essington, Robert de, 10. Esthop, John de, 74 «. Estwik, John de, 183. EsweU, V. Astall. Eton (Jiiata Pitchford), Richard de, 155. Ettingestal, William de Parco de, 155. Evehth, Gerard de, 125 a, 218 «, 806, 827 n, 11. Toret. ■ , John, 807. Evreux, Earl o^ 215. , , Milisent, widow of, 215. Ewdness, Nicholas de, 147. , Ralph de, 147. , Walter de, 71, 147. Ewias, Roger de, 205. Exeter, Bishop of, 72, 195. , , William deWerel wast, 194 m. Extraneus, v. Strange. Eyton (of Water Eyton, Staffordshire) — , John de (I), 12, 21. , , Alice, wife of, 12, 22, v. Burwardsley. , , Amicia, daughter of, 12, 22. , Jolm de (II), 12, 24. , John de (III), 13, 24. , John de (IV), 11 «, 18, 24. , Roger de, 12, 22-24, 33, 38. 46 358 INDEX OF PERSONS. Eyton, Petronilla, daughter of Roger de, 13, 23, 24. , Thomaa de, 13, 25. Eyton (on the Wildmoors) — , Eulk, 254. , Peter (I) de, 112, 279 », 280», ter. , Peter (II) de, 103 n. ^ Peter (III) de, 87, 122 n, 317, 323 », 326 ». , Peter, son of, 317. , "William de, 315. , , Matilda, wife of, 315, P. Faber, o. Smith. Faleyse, Hugh de, 194, 202 ». Farlow, Matilda de, 99. Earlow, Philip de, 41, 98, 99, 100, 127. , Wido (or Guy) de, 15, 40, 98. , , Iseud, wife of, 40, 98, v. Linley. Ferrers, Earls, 152. , Wniiam, Earl, 279 «, 294. Eitz Adam, Eobert (of Stanton), 326, 333. Eitz Aer, Hugh le, 31. , John le, 298 n. Eitz Alan, Family of, 95 n, 168, 257, 300. , William (I), 82, 273 », 280. , , Walter, brother of. 278 J , Wilham (II), 9, 40, 53, 54, 143, 288, 294. , • — , Petronilla, daughter of, 288«, 289», 297. -— •, John (I), 55, 289 «, 334 ». , John (II), 57, 85. -, Eichard, (Earl of Arundel), 807. Fitz Alvio (of Brug), Alan, 17. Eitz Avice (of Brug), Henry, 117 ». Fitz Bernard, Thomas, 6 n. Eitz Count, Henry, 288, u. Dunstanvill. Eitz Deremot, John, 153. Eitz Eylward, Adam, 32. Eitz Flaald, Alan, 196 «. Eitz Geoffrey, Alan, 281, v. Zouche. Eitz Gerold, Maurice, Justiciar, 153. , Warin, 294. Fitz Goderich, William, 16. Eitz Grent, Eoger, 66 ». Fitz Henry, Olfrid, 66 «. Eitz Herbert, Herbert (II), 278 «. Eitz Hugh, John, 286. Fitz Hugh (of Bowlas), John, 31, 131 n, 298 m. Fitz Hugh, Osbem, v. Eiohard's-Oastle. Eitz John, Roger, 122 ». Fitz Leyni, Grent, 66 ». Fitz Lofwin, Lofwin, 67 ». Fitz Marscot, Hamo, 170. Eitz Martin, Nicholas (Justiciar), 229. Eitz Nicholas, Ealph, 152, 153. Eitz Nicholas, Eichard, 39. Eitz Odo, Petronilla, 51, 53, v. Wililey. , Philip, 203, 205. — ■ — , , Eoger, brother of, 205. ■ , Eichard, o. Eyton. , Eoger, 53, 54. , Thomas, 53, 54. Eitz-Osbert, Eobert, 278 ». Eitz-Pagan, John, 178. Eitz Peter, Herbert, 177. Eitz Piers (Earl of Essex), Geoffrey, 69, 70, 186, 214. Fitz-Ealph, William, 181. (of Parva Lee), Richard, 315, 316. ■ (of Whitchurch), Wilham, 333. Eitz-Eegiuald, Eobert, ». Dunstanvill. Eitz-Eicbard, Osbern v. Eiohard's-Castle. Eitz-Eichard, William, 9. , , Emma wife of, 10. Fitz-Eobert (of Bowlas), Hugh, 22, 92 n, 133 m. Eitz Eoger, Emma, 306. — (of Brockton), Richard,"l26. (of Upton), Eichard, 329. Eitz-Seman, WiUiam, 119 n. Eitz-SUvester, John (of Souldern, Oxon), 32, 34. , , Thomas, son of, 32, 33. Eitz-Siward, Siward, 157. Eitz-Tetbald, v. Tetbald. Eitz-Thomas, Nicholas, 290. Eitz-Thorold, Eobert (of Brug), 72. , , PhiHp son of, 72. Fitz-Toret, Peter, 53, 278 n, Us v. Toret. Eitz-Tyrric, Henry, 45. ■ , , SibU daughter of, 45. Fitz- Walter, WiUiam, 66». INDEX OF PERSONS. 359 Fitz Warin, Family of, 3, 1, 11, 12, v. Metz, Warm de. , Fulk (I), 3 «, 4, 5. , Pulk (II), 4 », 6, 12. , , Hawise, wife of, 4 », V. Dynan. , Fulk (III), 10, 12, 14. , Fulk (III or IV), 11, 26. , Eoger, 4, 12. , Walter, 50, 169. . Walter, 169 », 221. , WiUiam, 3, 4, 5, 12, v. Bur- wardsley. Fitz Warin (of Brictelegh, Devonshire), William, 218, 214. Fitz- Warin, Hugh, 278 «. Fitz-William, Peter, 206 ». , Philip, 206 «. , Robert, 206 «. (of Brug), Roger, 72 n. FlamTill, Roger de, 212 «. Flemeng, Henry le, 300 n. Folevnie, Greoffrey de, 306 «, v. Frette- viUe. Forcer, Henry le, 33 lis, 40, 41, 74 n, 99, 100, 101. , , Burga, wife of, 41. , ■, Roger, brother of, 100. , Thomas le, 42. , , Maud, wife of, 42. .WilHam le (I), 15, 40, 99, 101. 11. I/inley. , * * de Linley, wife of, 40, , Nicholas, brother of,101. , Wilham le (II), 31, 41, 42, 179 », 238 n. Forde, Robert de, 316. , WilUam de, 316. , , Joanna, mother of, 316. Forester, Alexander le, 66 n. (of Donington), Ranulph le, 178, 183-4. (of Ashby), WilHam, 211. Fraunoeys, William le, 242. , , WiUiam, son of, 242. , , , Agnes, wife of, 242. FredeviU, v. FretteriUe. Freford, William de, 237 ». Fremon (Albrighton), Robert le, 86. French (Brockton), Roger, 125. FretteviUe, Frolavill, or FraleviUe, 280 », 306 ». , Baldwin de, 278 n, 281, 306 n. , Roger de, 279 «, 280 n, his, 306 ». Fretewell, Philip de, 33. Fretheric, Chaplain, 67 «. Frevill, Alexander de, 237. Freville, Baldwin de, 19. , William de, 19. Fulco, Clerk (Sutton), 112, 115. , Sibil and Emma, daughters of, 115. FurneUis, AJan de, 6 n. G. Gamages, Godfrey de, 226, 227. , , Eufemia, daughter of, 226, 227. Elizabeth, daughter , , Lucia, daughter of, 226, 227. , Matthew de, 228, 229, 230. Gaveston, Piers, 160 », 238. Geoffrey, Clerk, 67 ». Germany, Emperor of, Frederick II, 14, 72. Gemyn, John, son of John, 184. Gervaae Goch, 107-113, v. Sutton. — — •, Griffin, son of, 8, ». Sutton. Gethne, (T.B.E.), 2. Giffard (of ChiUington), 165. , Joan, a Nun of Brewood, 189. , John {eirca 1280), 86 bis, 87. , John (1314), 237 ». , Peter, 178. , Thomas, 190. of, 226. Giffard, SibU, 19, 20. Giffard (of Brimmesfield), John, 122, 297. , , Alianore, daughter of, 122, V. Strange, of Blackmere. , , Maud, wife of, 297, ■0. Chfford. Gilbert {testis), 278 n. Girardville, WiUiam Mallet de, 58 ». Giros, Robert de (ci/rca 1139), 203. , Robert de {circa 1185), 53. , Robert de (1219), 334. GlanviU, Ranulph de, 138 ». Glazeley, Alan de, 75 n. 360 INDEX OF PERSONS. Gloucester, Walter, Constable of, 193. , , Milo, son of, c. Here- ford, Earls of. Godebald the Priest, 201. •, Robert, son of, 201. Godhit, 149. Godrich (Broseley), 16. , Quepith, daughter of, 17. Godwin, 258. Golding, Thomas, 299. Got, John le, 16. Grandison, Sir WilUam, 156, 159. , , SibU, wife of, 156, 159, V. Tregoz. Grane, Lucas de, 32. Grendon, Eobert de, 127. Greue (Brockton), Eichard de, 126. Grenhul, John de, 28, 86 », 92, 120 «, 130 », 131 M, 312 «, 321, 328 «. , Kanulf de, 86, 87, 92, 329 «. , Eichard de, 86, 91, 92, 94 », 130«, 172«, 298. — , Eobert de, 91, 279 ». Gresley, Albert de, 284, 297. , , * * * * Basset, wife of, 284, 297. , , Eobert, son of, 297. , , daughters of, 297. Gret, Phihp de, 70. Griffin, Geoffrey, 115 «. Griffith, Johanna, 226. Grip, John, son of, 48. Guest, Eoger (of Priors Lee), 313. , , Thomas, son of, 313. Gust, Master Adam le, Kector of Idsall, 122 », 336. H. Hadeleg, Eoger de, 313 w. Hadiuton, Hugh de, 130 n, 135. Hadley, Family of, 165 «. , Alan de, 282. , William de, tj. Ercalewe. Hales, Peter de, 170. , Eoger dc, 135. Hammes, Hamo de, 290. Haloton, V. Haughton. Harcourt, Family of, 41 », 192, 222. , Henry de, 74. , Henry de (1314), 237 m. , John de, 237 ». Harcourt, Eichard de, 101, 222. , Wniiam de, 101, 209, 222-224, 226, 233, 237, 244. -, Alice, wife of, 209, 222, 223, 224, 237. Margery, daughter of. 101, 209, 223, 224, 225, 233, v. Can- tilupe. Orabel, daughter of. 209, 223, 224, 225, 226, ». Pembruge. , , HiUaria 2d wife of, 223, 224, 244. , , Eichard, son of, 223, 233, 236. Harley, Alice de, Prioress of Brewood,189. Harley, Henry de, 51. , Malcolumb de, 51, 75, 300 «. , Philip de (Rector of Willey), 51, 60. , Richard de, 31, 51, 58, 60. , , Burgia, wife ol, 31, 51, 60. -, Richard de. Clerk, 17. , Robert de, 51, 57 », 60. , , Margaret, wife of, 51. , WilKam de, 55. Harpcote, Walter de, 134. Hartishorn, Henry, Parson of, 212 o. , , Ralph, brother of, 212 ». Hastings, Henry de (1258), 74. , Henry de, his son, 223, 224. , , HUlaria, sister of, 223, 224. , John de, 76. , William de, 278 «. Haughmond, Abbot and Conyent of, 278 », 293. , Eichard, Abbot of, 280 «. Haughton (Staffordshire), Family of, 63. , Eobert de, 10, 73, 298 «. Haughton (Shiffnal), Alan de, 313 », 319«, 321». , Hugh de (I), 320, 327. , Hugh de (II), 320, 328 n. -, Hugh de (III), 86, 87, 318, 321-324. 324, i;. Kenley. -, Alice, wife of, 323 bis. son of, 322, 324. -, Eoger (de Kenley), -, Henry, son of, 322. INDEX 01' PERSONS. 361 Haughton, Hugh, son of, Hugh de (III), 325. , Roger de (I), 281, 320. , Sibil de, supposed wife of Eoger (I), 281, 318, 320. , Eoger de (II), 183, 318-19, 320-21, 328 «. , , Emma, daughter of, 318. Haya, Adam de la, 15. , Jurdan de, 33. , Niehola de, wife of Grerard de CamTiUe, 32 re. , Eobert de, 16, 17, 31, 32, v. Sheriffs. , Eobert de, Eeotor of Souldern (Oxon), 32 «. -, Eobert de, Sheriff of Oxfordshire, &e., 32 ». , William de, Eector of Broseley, 32, 84. Heches, Pagan de, 67 «. Hedleg v. Hadley, and Ercalewe. Helgot, 2, 196 n, 258 bis. , Herbert, son of, 196», v. Oastello. Hemes, John de, 170, 279 », 309. , .Walter son of, 170, 264, 309. Hempton, William de, 37, 74. Hengham, Ealph de. Justiciar, 232, 322, 323. Herbert, Seneschal of Ideshal, 92 », v. Wyke. Hereford, Adam de, 170. Hereford, Bishop of, 22, 35, 42, 72, 77-79, 154. , , Eichard (de Capella), 199. 204, 331. blanca), 22. 33 », 77. — , Eobert (de Betun), — , Peter (de Aqua- — , Thomas Charlton, -, John (Trilled), 79. -, Charles Booth, 77. , Earls of, 177 », 180. , Earl of, MUo, 193, 271. , , , Eoger, son of, 270. Herez, William de, 279 n. Herleton, Ealph de, 67, 68. Hermann, Chaplain, 273 n. Hethene, Henry le (of Larden), 37. Hetune, Adam de, 169, ii. Traynel. Hiberneusis, u. Irish. Higford, or Hugford, Henry de (1203), 85, 326. , Henry de, 16, 22, 32, 218, 220, 256, 326-7, 328. , John de, 137. , Nicholas de, 136, 137. , Walter de (I), 326. , Walter de (II), 15, 70, 71, 103 re, 115«, 119», 124», 125»ies, 126re, 134, 218 », 220 ». , Walter de (II or III), 16, 17, 32. , Walter de (III), 22, 51, 56, 57, 92, 119 », 130«, 298». , , * * * * daughter of, 51, 56, 57, V. Wihley. , Walter da (lY), 31, 179», 238», 329 ». , Walter de (1369), 148. , Walter de, Eector of Stockton, 148. , William de, 55, 75, 102re, 122 «, 136, 223 «, 298 n, Us. , Wilham de (1379), 148. , William de, Eector of Stockton, 148. — , Wilham de (of Fpton),2l7,326. Hinnington, Baldwin de, 170, 309. , , Johnsonof,170,309. , John de, 327 «. Hod (of Drayton), Eoger, 87, 319», 321, 322 «, 323. , Wilham, 313 », 324 », 325, 326. Hodenet, Baldwin de, 102 n, 133 n. , Odo de, 16, 17, 92 «, 117 », 119«, 127, 128, 130». Hog, Thomas le (of Stanton), 326, 333. Holegode, Eichard (of Shiffnal), 319. Holland, Eobert de, 209. , , Maud la Zouohe, wife of, 209. Homme, John de la, 310. Hop, Benett de, 67 n. , Eobert de, 67 n. Hope-Bowdler, Nicholas, Parson of, 172. Hope, Eichard le, 321. Hopton, Walter de, 55. Horde, Eichard, 122 ». Horseley, Eobert de, 212 re. Howele, Eoger de, 319. 362 INDEX OF PERSONS. Howie, Richard, 329 ». Hubert (Preacher of the Crusades), 72. Hubert, AJan and Adam, 316. HuU, Stephen de, 23. Humfrey, John, 180 », v. Humphreston. Humphreston, Humphrey de, 172 n, 181, 220 n, 223 «. , John de, 180 «, 181. , WiUiam de, 181. , , Leticia wife of, 166, 181. , "William de, 28, 181. Hunnit, 45, 48-49, 304-5, 308-9. I. Idsall, Incumbents of, 335-337. Idsall, Lords of, 172, 217 «, et passim. ■ , Master Eiohard de, 112 n, 133 «, 218 m, 279 n, 335 n. 218 », 335 ». -, Nicholas, son of, -, Peter, Clerk, son of, 3S7-8, 335 m. , PhiUp de, 115 n. , Philip, Parson of, 335. , Eoger de, 290. -, Simon de, 319. , Vicar of, 173. , , WiUiam Moreton, 334. Infans, Alan (Brockton), 125, 126. , , "William, son of, 126. Insula, D', v. lisle. Ipstones, John de, 13, 26, 27. , "WiUiam de (I), 12, 25, 26. ■ , , * * Bagot, wife of, 12, 25. -, "WilHam de (II), 13. Irish (Ybernensis), PhjUp, 328 n. Irish, Richard, 58, 328. , , John son of, 328. , , PetroniUa daughter of, 328, V. Upton. — — , , , Eiohard son of, 329. Ithel, or Ktz Ithel, Adam, 125. , John, 129, 130. IveUth, V. EveUth. Iweyn, i). Owen. J. James, Chaplain of Broseley, 32, 34 n. John, Chaplain (testis), 115 ». , Clerk of Queen Adeliza, 200. Jordan, Master, 278 ». Joye, Master John, Hector of Idsall, 335-6. Jumieges, "William of, 269 n. K. Kallerhale, AHce de, 189. Karleton, Wyman de, 116. Eeede, o. Cude. Kemberton, Alan de, 322 n. Kemberton, Gilbert, Chaplain of, 126 ». , Nicholas de, 129 «. Kemberton, "Walter de, Eector of Idsall, 92«, 119«, 130 n, 143, 298», 313 », 335. Kenley, Alice de, 323-4. Kenley, Juliana de, 51, u, WUiley. , Master John de, Clerk, 311, 312, 323 bis. , Ealph de, 312. , , Burga daughter of, 312, V. Skybrass. Eoger de (son of Hugh de Haughton), 324, u. Haughton. Kilby, Hugh de, 246. Kmlet, Henry Clerk of, 18. Kiuslow, Geoffrey de (II), 31. Knioht, John le, 310. Kuightley, Eichard de, 31. , Eobert de, 86. Knycheleye, v. Neachley. KnoUe, Achi de, 281, 317, 325 n. , OhTCr de (Harper of "Walter de DuustanviU), 279 », 281, 317-8, 320. , ■ ■, SibU de Halcton, supposed wife of, 318. - OUver de (I, U, or III), 92 j 130 «, 131 », 298 », 299 «, 300re, 313, 318, 319», 328». , Pagan de la, 318. , Eichard de la, 318. , Swein de, 281, 317. -, Thomas de la, 318, 322 n, 325 n. ,326 ». Kynaston, Family of, 113 n. Lacheia, Ealph de, 66 n. Laoi, Family of, 147. , Gilbert de, 40. INDEX OE PERSONS. 363 Laci, Catherine de, 38. , Margery de, 57, 227. , Eoger de, 258, 261. Lam, Geoffrey de, 67 n. Langetot, Emma de, 283, 297. , , * * * *, coheir of, 283, 297, V. Dunstanvill. Langford, * * * * de, 208. , , * * *, wife of, 208, v. Belmeis. , Master Ralph de. Dean of St. Paul's, 208. langley, Geoffrey de. Justiciar, 26, 73, 117. Larden, Boger de, 66 n. Latimer, 109 n. Latymer, Thomas de, 13. , , Anna, wife of, 13, u. Lavirence, Master, 823 n. Lawe, John de la, 117. Lawley, Adam de, 327 n. Lee, Eeyner de, 143, 218 n. , , Thomas, son of, 218 ». Lee (Parva or Leonard's), Thomas de, 279 », 280, 313, 314-5. , Walter, son of Thomas de, 279 ». Us, 314. , Leonard, son of Thomas de, 279 «. J Js, 314-316, 333. , , Walter, son of, 315, 327 n. , , Henry, son of, 315-6, 317. , , , Sibil, wife of, 316. , , , Walter, son of, 317. , , Matilda, supposed daughter of, 315, V. Eyton. , , Joanna, daughter of, 315-6. , , Nichola, daughter of, 315-6. Lee (Aynulf's or Prior's), EUrio de, 273, 278, 279, 313. Lega (Hugh Ley), Hugh de, 71. , Hugh de, 18, 37, 172 ». Legh, Phihp de, 27. Leicester, Earl of (Robert de Bossu), 108. , , SimondeMontfort,227. Leigh, Reginald de, 15. Leighton, Richard de {cirea 1200), 9. ,Bichard de \circa 1230), 15. , Richard de {circa 1245-6), 18, 22. Leuric, Earl of Mercia, 258. Levereshet, WiUiam de, 329 n. Lewes, Prior and Convent of, 270, u. Lewes Priory {Swpra, p. 343). Lexinton, Robert de. Justiciar, 32. Leyboume, Simon de, 122 ». Lichfield, Bishop of, 90, 139, 182, 185-6, 188-190, 252, 334 n, 336. , , Robert (de Limesey) 194 n. , , Roger de Clinton, 182, 201, 202 n, 204, 247, 248 n, 331-2. , , Walter Durdent, 182, 206, 332. -, Richard Peehe, 182, -, Hugh de Novant, 138, 332. 248, 249, 250, 335. , , GeoifreydcMuschamp, 138. 248-9. venby, 138. -, WUliam de Comhull, -, Alexander de Sta- -, Roger de Molend, 138- , , WalterdeLangton,140, 159, 160-1, 164 «, 237. -, Roger de Northburgh, 139. 161, 189. 140. , Robert de Stretton, I John Bourghill, 140. Lichfield, Dean of, Ralph, 139. , Ernulf, Canon of 24-8. LilleshaU, Abbot and ConVent of, 204-6, 221-2, 250, 320. , Abbot of, William, 212 n. , , , Simon, Ne- phew of, 212 n. , Abbot of, Walter, 280 ». Us. , , Alan, 103. , Ralph (1284), 323 n. Limberg-Magna, Robert Eitz Peter of, 209, 246. , , Tecia, daughter of, 209, 246, i>. Bekneis. Lincoln, Alexander, Bishop of, 273 n. Lingen, 256, 257. , Isabel alias Elizabeth, 226, 240, J). Pembruge. Linley, Baldwin de, 40. ,PhiUp de, 40, 98, 115 n. , , Iseud, daughter of, 40, 98, V. Earlow. 364 INDEX OF PERSONS. Linley, * * *, daughter of Philip de, 40, 98, V. Parlow. , Ralph de, 40. , Richard de, 39, 40. , Richard de, 40, 97, 100, 102. ■ •, Sibil de, 40, 97, 98, 100, 102. , Walter de, 40. Lintot, Robert de, 279 «. fer, 282. , , Alan, nephew of, 282. Lisle, Humphrey de, 268-9, 275, 296. , , Adelina, daughter of, 268-9, 297, V. Dunstanvill. , Roger and Reinald de, v. Cumbre- vUl. Littlebury, Martin de (Justiciar), 232. Leges, William de, 67 n. London, Archdeacon of, Hugh or Richard? (inter 1152-9), 206 «. London, Bishop of, Maurice, 199. , , Richard de Belmeis (I), ■V. Belmeis. -, Robert de Sigillo, 273 n. -, RicharddeBebneis (II), ■a. Belmeis. , Hugh h, 206 n. , Richard de, 212 n. -, Simon de. Clerk, 119, 119 n. Longeb", Robert de, 124 n. Longespee, William, 291, 292, 296. , , Idonea, wife of, 291, 292, 296, u. CamTill. , , William, son of, 296. , , , Maud, wife of, 296, V. Clifford. Lotwych, Robert de, 319, 328 «. Louther, Hugh de, 96, 308. Lucas, Syman, 180. , , Richard, son of, 180. Luci, Richard de, 64 «, 109, 110. Ludlow, 226, 257. , Benedicta de, 226. , John, 240. , WilUam de, 226. , , Isabel de Vernon, wife of, 226. LucteshuU, Richard de, 290. Lymer, Adam le, 319. M. Maine, Joel de, 216. Mainnio, Thurold de, 50 i ,203. Malbauo, William, 284 n, 296. , , Philippa, daughter of, 284 n, 296, v. Basset. Male, Robert de la, 23. Malet, Wilham (Dapifer of Henry II), 278 «. Malet, Wilham, 296. , , Alice, wife o^ 296, v. Basset. , Wniiam (of GirardviUe), 58 n. Malmsbury, Thomas, Clerk of, 218 n. , William of (Chronicler), 199, Maminoht, WaloheUne, 4, 106 «, 107. Manchester, Walter de, 31. , , Hugh, son of, 31. Mandeville, Geoffrey de, 215. , William de (Earl of Essex), 216. Marcandus, 282. Mare, John de la, 297, 300, 301, 309, 322, 336. , , PetroniUa, wife of, 297, 300, V. Dunstanvill. Marescall (of Willey), William, 58. , , Alice, wife of, 58, V. Stalhere. Marescall (of Wyke), Walter, 310, 327 n. , Walter (II), 300 n, 310, 311, 321 w, 322 n. -, Edith, wife of, 310. Marsoot, Hamo, son of, 170. Masun, William le, 37 bis. Maulay, Peter de, 215. MauTeysin, Henry, 65. , Philip, 65. , William, 9. Meleford, Gilbert de, 290. Mercia, Earls of, 103, 191, 192. , Earl of, Edwin, 103. , , Morcar, 103, 191. Mere (Staffordshire), * * * de, 209. , , Isolda, widow of, 209, 244. , John de, 244. , Wilham de, 244.. Meschin, William, 205, 208. , , Matilda, daughter of, 205, 208, 1). Belmeis. Meschines, WUliam de (of Coupland), 225 n. Messager, Nicholas le, 96. INDEX OP PERSONS. 365 Mestling, Adam, 95. Metz, Warm de, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, v. Warin. Middelhope, Richard de, 15. ■ , Thomas de, 38. Midelton, Stephen de, 67 n. Mildenhale, Alan de, 33. Miller, Richard (West-Bradley), 37. Molis, Nicholas de, 218. Montfort, 165, 166, 257 n. , Robert de, 295, 297, 300-303, 318, 321-2, 325, 330. , , Petronilla, wife of, 295, 297, 299, 300-302, 330, u. Dun- stanvill. , , Wilham, eon of, 297, 300-302. , Simon de, v. Leicester, Earl of. Montgumeri, Hugh de, 258, v. Shrews- bury, Earls of. Morcar, Earl of Meroia, 191, 258, 265. Moretou (Toret, or Corbet), Peter de, v. Toret. Morf, Henry de, 111, 118. Morinus (Donington), 157 «. Mortimer (of Chelmarsh) — , Hugh de, 13. , , Margaret, daughter of, 13, V. Beysin. , Hugh de (1322), 157. Mortimer (of Richards- Castle) — , Robert de, 75. , Hugh de, 228-230 (Qy. if of Chelmarsh). Mortimer (of Wigmore) — , Ralph de (I), 258 pluries, 261- 263. ; Ralph de (II), 17. , Roger de (I), 212 n. , Roger de (II), 227-232. , , Matilda, wife of, 230. , , Ralph, son of, 230. Mortimer, WilUam do (alias Wilham la Zouche de), 180. Morton, Michael de, 86, 178, 298 n. , William de. Rector of Holm, 324. , William de. Vicar of Idsall, v. IdsaU. Morwic, Hugh de, Dapifer, 138 n. Morys, Richard, Chaplain, 189. Mugleston, alias Mukeleeton, John, 299, 313, 319. II. s: Mugleston, Richard de, 122 », 320 n. — , Robert de, 103 n. Mulestou, William de, 67 ». Mussun, Roger, 110, 132, 134, 137. , Alice, daughter of, 133, u, Cherleton. V. Beckbury. -, Alina, daughter of, 133, 134. -, Gahena, wife of, 132, 133, ■ ■ — , . G-ilbert, brother of, 133 ». , , Juhana, daughter of, 133, V, Corbrond. , , SibU, daughter of, 133, V. Bruges. Muttun, Nicholas de, 264 «. N. Neaehley, Richard de, 179 n. Weuham, Hugh, Prior of, 273 n. Neuton, Peter de, 119 «. NeviU, Alan de, Justiciar, 150, 207, 274. , Hugh de. Justiciar, 151, 186. , William de, 290. Newburgh, v. Warwick. Newport, Dean of, 141. Noel, Ralph, 74, 75. 5 Thomas, 285. Norman (testis), 278 n. Normandy, William, Duke of, 104, 210 », ■u. England, Kings of. Northampton, Earl of, William de Bohun, 337. , , Elizabeth de Badles- mere, wife of, 337 ». Novo Burgo (Newport), Alexander de 133 ». O. Ocovre, Roger de, 237 n. Oliver, Harper of Walter de Dunstanvill, 281, 320, V. KnoUe. Oluuin (T.R.E.), 258. Ordericus (Historian), 193 n, 261. Ordui (Stockton), 142. Orleton, Ralph de, 112 «, 133 n. , Roger de, 311. , , Rohese, wife of, 311. Outi (T.R.E.), 258. Overton, Geoffrey de. Knight, 37. 47 366 INDEX OF PERSONS. Overton (Oxfordshire), Adam do, 33 «. — , William de, 32. Owen, or Iweyn (of Broctton), 94, 97. , Henry, sou of, 94, 97, 125 n, 126 ii. , Henry, 97. . Eichard (I), 97, 127 n. , Eichard (II), 97. , -, Sibil, wife of, 97. , Eobert, 97. Oyselur, Eichard le, 95. P. Paganel (of Dudley), Gbrvase, 52. Palmer, Hamo le, 72 ». , Eoger le, 31. Pantulf, V. Paunton. Pantulf, Brice, 284 n. Pantulf (of Dawley) — , Ealph, 279 », 280 ». , , William, son of, 280 «. Parco, Henry de, 30. , , Margery, wife of, 30. Paris, Matthew, 72, 73. Parker, Stephen, 178. Parvus, William, 128. Passelewe, Eobert, 144. Pater-noster (of Dray ton), Eichard (1270), 300 n, 322 », 325. , Eichard (1316), 325, 326 «, 329 bis. , , John, son of, 325. , WilUam, 279 », 282, 325, v. -, William, 313 n, 324 n, 325, 326 ». Patinton, Hugh de, 37. Patshull, Mancell de, 126 n. , Martin de, 171. Pauuton, Alan de, 23. , Ivo de, 23. Pechie, Eichard, 143. Pedwardine, Walter de, 298 », 300 «. Pembroke, Earl of, WUHam Marshall, 294. Pembroke, Gerald Steward of, 196. Pembruge, Family of, 41 n, 164, 165, 192, 209, 252, 255, 256, 257. . , Fulk (I) de, 179, 209, 225, 226, 232-237, 256. -, , Isabella, wife of, 209, Drayton. Pembruge, Fulk (II) de, 179 n, 209, 226. 236-239. , , Matilda, wife of, 209, 226, 239. , Fulk (III) de 226, 239, 240. , , Alice, supposed wife of, 226, 239 n. , Fulk (IV) de, 226, 240, 250, 253-255. , , Margaret Trussel, wife of, 226, 240, 255 n. -, Isabel or Elizabeth Lin- gen, wife of, 226, 240, 250, 253-255. , Godfrey de, 226, 228, 231. , Henry (I) de, 225, 226. , Wilham, son of, 226, 227. , , , Bufemia, wife of, 226, 227. , Henry (11) de, 226, 227-232. , , EUzabeth, wife of, 226, 227, 229, 230. , Henry (III) de, 209, 224-22C, 229-236, 300 n. , , Orabel, wife of, 209, 224-226, 229, 233, 234, v. Harcourt. , , Ahce, wife of, 225, 226, 234, 235. , , Henry, son of, 225, 226, 234, 235. -, Eichard de, alias Vernon, v. Vernon. , Eobert de, 226, 240. , JuUana, daughter of. 226. 226, 236, 237. Penford, Eobert de, 13, 28-30, , , Alice, wife of, 18, 28-30, V. Covene and Sany. Perrin, Ealph de, 133 «. Pershore, Abbot of, 232. Persone, Isabel le (of Albrighton), 155. Perton, Wilham de, 28. Peter, Chamberlain, 206 n. , Dapifer of Alan de Dunstauvill, 273 m. PetronUla, Dame (Arlscott), 15. , John, brother of, 15. Petyt, Thomas and Henry, 75 n. Peverel, various Families of, 3, 104-107. , Hamo, 4, 39-40, 48, 104-107, 109, 131, 132, 142, 196 n. , — — ,Seburga, daughter of, 107». INDEX OF PERSONS. 367 Peverel, Sibil, wife of Hamo, 104, 106, 107 «, V. Tornai. , Pagan (of Brun), 105, 106. , Banulf, of Essex, 104, 105. , , Wife of, 104. , ■ , William, son of (of London and Essex), 105. , Eobert, 105 », 106 n. William (I), of Dover, 105, 106, 107 u. , , Wife of, 107 n, v. Tornai. , William (II), of Dover and Brun, 105 n, 106 n, 270. , , Sisters of, 107. , William (I), of Nottingham, 104, 105. Peytevine, Sir Thomas, 240. Philip, Chaplain (Harrington), 133. Pichford (of Blymhill, Broseley, &c.) — , Geoflfrey de, 23, 27-31, 35. . , Mary, wife of, 29, 30. , , Eichard, son of, 31, 35. , Eichard de, 26. , Eoger de, 28 ». Pichford, Engelard de, 82, 83, v. Stretton. Pichford (of Alhrighton, Pichford, &o.), 82, 89, 150, 163, 164, 165, 166, 263. , Hugh de, 151, 152 «, 170. , , Burga, wife of, 152, ■V. BaskerviUe. , John de, 89, 153, 154, 155. -, , Margaret, wife of, 155. , Nicholas de, 83. , Ealph (I) de, 82, 84, 150, 169. , Ealph (II) de, 51, 55, 85 », 152, 153, 156, 167, 169 «, 172. I Burga, presumed daughter of, 51, 55 n, v. WilUey. , Margery, wife of. V. Strange. -, Ealph (III) de, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159. , Eichard (I) de, 82, 150. , Eichard (II) de, 83, 150, 151, 263. Pichford, Adam de, 152. , Geoffrey, Provost of, 152. , William de,Eector of Albrigliton, 160. Picstoc, Eobert de, 178. Pierpoint, WilUam de, 66 «. Pilarditon, WiUiam de, 75 n. Pinoerna, Maurice, 206. Pinkney, * * de, supposed husband of Adelina de Lisle, 297. , Walter de, their son, 269-271, 296. Pistor, Thomas (Sutton), 115. Pivelesdon, Eoger de, 16, 119 n, 177, 298, 328 ». , Eoger de, 179 », 180 «, 237 k. Plaunce-folie, Xsangrue, 220 n. Plessetis, Hugh de, 227. Podemore, Eichard de, 15. , Eichard le Eekene de, 15. Poejp (of Eomesley), John le, 75 ». Pollard, Adam, 92 n, 330. , (of Lee), 131 », 183, 312 n, 311 n, 328 », 330. , , Eobert, son of, 312 », 313, 328 «, 330. Pontefract, William de, 206 ». Pope Lucius III, 52 «. Urban III, 138, 273. Innocent III, 335. Gregory IX, 72. Port, Adam de, 274. Powis-Land, Princes of, 107-108, 111. Blethyn ap Convyn, 107, 111, 193. , Jorwerth, son of, 193. , Cadugan, son of, 196, 197. , , Owen, son of,196, 197 196 107: Powis 111 109, 111 -, Eiryd, son of, 196. -. , Ithel, son of, 196. -, , Madoc, son of, Meredith ap Blethyn, 107, 111. , Jorweth Goch, son of. 108-113. (Vadoc), Princes of, 108, 111. Madoc ap Meredyth, 108, 109, , Owen Vachau, son of. of. 111. 110, 111. , OwenBrogynton, son of. Gruffyth Maylor, 111. Madoc ap Gruffyth, 111. Gruffyth ap Madoc, 111. -, Emma d'Audley, wife 368 INDEX OF PERSONS. Powi8j(Higher), Princes of, 108, 111. , , Grufiyth ap Meredyth, Prince of, 108, 109, 111. , , Gweyryl, wife of, 111. , OvFen Cyvelioc, Prince of, 109, 110, 111. -, , Wenlhian ap Owen G-wy- neth, wife of. 111. , Gwenwynwyn, Prince of. 111. — , Margaret ap Eees, wife of, 111. , Grnffyth, ap G-wenwynwyn, Prince of, 111. Powis, Eoger de, 110 n, 280. Preaux, Engeram des, 276 n, 280 », 287- 291, 297. , , Hawise, alias Sibil, wife of, 287-292, 297, v. Dunstanvill. Prees, John de, 86, 178, 223, 242, 298 n, 322 ». , Philip de, 119% 120 k. , Philip de. Clerk, 125 », 317 ». , William de, 238. Presthope, John de, 33, 37. , Margery de, 44, e. CaugUey. Presthope, Eoger de, 15. Preston, Grilbert de (Justiciar), 224. Preston (on the Wildmoors), Adam de, 317 n, 329 ». , Pagan de, 122 «, 317 ». , Ealph de, 317 ». , Eoger de, 279. Prudhome, Eobert, 128. Puclesdon, Alexander de, 67 ». Pulesdon, v, Pivelesdon. Pym, Hugh, 95. , Eichard, 99 n. Pypard, Ealph, Baron, 165 n. Pype, 257. Q- Quinci, 165 », 218 », 222, v. Winchester, Earls of E. Eabaz, Thomas, 316, 317 ». Eadmore (Staffordshire), Convent of, 271. Ealph, Clerk, Sector of Broseley, 17. , Gilbert, brother of, 17. Eanulph, Priest, 212 ». Eeginald (Beckbury), 71. , Priest, 67 ». Eekene, Eichard le, 15. Eestune, Eoger de, 14. Eichard (Servant of Isabella Beysin), 21. Eiohai-d's-Castle, Barons of, 62, 63, 70, 74, 75 », 130. , , Osbern Eitz Eichard, 61, 62, 80, 81, 93. , , Osbern Eitz Hugh, 62, 63, 66, 67 B. , , Eobert de Mortimer, 75. -, John Talbot, 63 n. Eicher, Priest of Torring, 278 n. Eikeward, Eobert, 33. Eobert (of Badger, 1085), 61-68. , Chamberlain of the Bishop of London, 206 ». , Chaplam, 203. , Chaplain, 212 ». , Clerk, 205. -, Provost (Wyke), 299. Rochester, Ranulf, Bishop of, 196. Eoger, Chaplain, 273 n. , Clerk, 206 ». , Clerk, 212 «. bis. Eoger, Knight of Walter de Dunstanvill, 288. Eoger {Domesday Tenant of Neenton) 258. Eohan (Brittany), Vicomtes of, 215, 218, 219. , Geoffrey, Vicomte of, 208, 210, 211. , , AJan, son of, v. Zouche. , Alan, Vicomte of, 215-219. Eomely, Eobert de, 205 ». , , Cicely, wife of, 205 n. Eos, William de (Clerk), 72. Eossall, Thomas de, 102 n. , Tivian de, 334 ». Eouen, Eotrode, Archbishop of, 278 n. Euckley, Seher de, 218, 247. Eudge, Eudo de, 71. Euffus, Henry (de Wroowaryni), 112 n. ■ — , WilUam, 125 ». Eushbury, Herbert de, 53 n. Eussel (of Brockton), Family of, 93-95. , Geoffrey, 94, 112 m, 124 », 126 n. , Eobert, 93, 94, 95, 97. , , Agatha, sister of, 94, 95. , , Iweyn, brother of, 94, 95, ■u. Owen. , Thomas, 95,96,99»,126», 127 «. , William, 15, 94, 95, 102 », 115 «, 124 n, 125 n, 126 », 131 », 157. , , Dionisia, wife of, 95. INDEX OF PERSONS. 369 Eussel (of Donington), Nicholas, 95. , Eanulph, 184. , Eanulph, eon of Eichard, 177. Eussel, Eoger, 117 «. , Wilham, 157. Eusteg, Eoger, Seneschal of Arundel, 278 ». Eyton, Bernard, Priest of, 89, 90, 112 ». , Incumbents of, 89-90. , John de, 85, 119 n, 120 n. , Eeginald, Beadle of, 170. , Eichard de, 15, 84, 85, 115 n, 124 n, 125 », 126 «, 170, 327 n. , Eichard Fitz Odo de, 83, 84. -, WOliam de, 85-88, 310. ~ , William Taylor, Eector of, 90, 161. S. Sage, WiUiam le, 71. Sahebury, John de, 169. Saint, Bernard de, 175 ». Saint Dayid's, Bishop of, Bernard, 200. , , Peter, 138 n. Saint-Mary-Church, WiUiam de, 276, 277, 285. Saint-Martin, Eoger de, 278 «. Saint-Maur, Nicholas de, 209. , Elene la Zouohe, wife of, 209. Saint-Owen, Walter de, 9. Saint-Paul's (London), Dean of, Ealph de Langford, 208. ■ — , , Wilham, 208. Saint Osyth, 199. Saint-Osyths, William CurboU, Prior of, 199, 200. , Fulk, Prior of, 200, 201. Saint Eemigius' (at Eheims), Monks of, 194. Sahsbury, Bishop of, 195. , , Joceline, 278 n. , Earl of, 215. , , William Longespee, 296. Salop, Stephen de, Eector of Oldbury, 35. Salvage, Geoffrey, 264 n. Samford, Thomaa de, 288. Sandford, Ealph de (I),8, 9, 14, 43, 68, 94, 102, 103, 115 n, 118, 123-130, 131 ». Sandford, Ealph de (II), 127-128, 298». , Eichard de (I), 43, 92 », 94 », 122, 126-127, 298 n. , , Alianore, wife of, 127, V. Burnel. , Eichard de (II), 122, 128. Sanford, Gilbert de, 209, 233. , , Lora, wife of, 209, 232, 233, 235, V. Zouohe. Sany, Thomas, 13, 28-30. , , Alice, wife of, 13, 28-30, 11. Covene and Pendeford. Sauvage, Eobert le, 288. Savage, Adam, 53. Savario (de Bohun), 202 «. , Ealph, son of, 202 », 273 n. , , Helias, nephew of, 273 n. Say, Helias de, 203. Say, Hugh de, 203, 205. Say, Isabel de (of Clun), 6, 40. Say, Philip de (Stockton), 145. Say, Eobert de, 124 ». Scheuton, Hugh de (Donington), 183-4. Schirebum, Ealph de, 278 n. Scissor, Germanus, 127. Scotland, David I, King of, 273 n. Selinton, William de, 290. Serland, WiUiam de, 218. Seun, Ivo Brito de, 212 n. Seuuard (T.E.E.), 258. Shakerley, Hemmie de, 175 ». Shakespeare, 253 n. Shavington, Henry de, 333. Shawbury, Wido de, 133 «, 170. Sheriff of Shropshire, 146, ei passim. . Warm, the Bald, 2, 3 ». , Eainald, 168, 193, 194. , Eulcoius, 3 «, 194. , Eichard de Belmeis, 4, 47, 48, 50, 266, V. Behneis. , Pagan Eitz John, 200. , WiUiam Eitz Alan (I), 108. , Guy le Strange, 64, 66. , Geoffrey de Vere, 110 n. , , Wilham, Clerk of, 110 ». , Hugh Pantulf, 53. , William Eitz Alan (II), 54, v. Eitz Alan. , Warner de Wililey (Uuder- Sheriff), 54, v. Wililey. , Peter de Eivallis, 32. , Eobert de Haya, 16, 32. 370 INDEX OF PERSONS. Sheriff (of Shropshire), John le Strange, 56, V. Strange. , Nicholas de Wililey (Under- Sheriff), 56, u. Wililey. , William de CaYersweU, 45. , Bogo de Knovill, 120. Shineton, Hugh de, 22. Shrewsbury, Norman Earls of, 174. Shrewsbury, Earl of, Eoger de Mont- gomery, 9, 39, 45, 61, 62, 80, 81, 93, 103, 147, 149, 166, 173, 174, 181, 182, 191, 192, 193, 247, 249, 258 pltmes, 261,262, 265-267, 333 «. , , Hugh de Mont- gomery, 104, 106, 149, 191, 193, 258, 261, 263, 266. , , Eobert de Belesme, 47, 75, 191-194, 266-7. Shrewsbury, Abbot and Convent of, 182- 184, 207, 216, 217, 248, 251, 266, 331, 334. , Abbot of, aeoffrey, 200. , , Ealph, 281. , , Hugh, 68, 248, 249, 333. , Monk of, Thomas, 333. Shrewsbury, Archdeacon of (ChesterDioc.) 139, 140, 160. , , Eoger, 200. ■ , , Eichard, 112 ». Shrewsbury, Master Eobert, Dean of, 112 », 133 n. , , Eichard, brother of, 133 n. Skybrass, Thomas, 312. , , Burga de Keiiley, wife of, 312. Smith (of Broseley), Nicholas, 16. , ■, Geoffrey, son of, 16, 17. , (of Caughley), Walter, 43. , , Agnes, ^ife of, 43. Smythe, Thomas (of Badger), 80. Soultone, Yto de, 122 ». Spink, Walter (of Kilsall), 178. , , Wilham, son of, 178. Sprenghose, Ealph, 102 n. , Eoger, 16, 103 n. , Eoger, 102 n. Stafford, Barons of, 21 », 25, 27, 164 n, 207. , Robert de (1085), 2B8. Staffordshire, Sheriff of, 18,157, etpassim. , , Nicholas, 194 n. , , Hervey de Strat- tou, 264 «. Stalhere, Walter le, 58. , , Alice, daughter of, 58, o. MareschaU. , , Christiana, daughter of, 58, V. Despenser. Standon, Gervase de, 15. Stanes, Eichard de. Justiciar, 232. Stanley (of Tong), 192, 253 ». , Sh: Edward, 192», 253 ». , , Veuetia, Lady Digby, daughter of, 192 «. Sir Thomas, 253 ». Stanton, (Shiffnal) Ealph de, 92 », 172 », 326. , Eobert de, 298 n, 326. , Walter de, 322 », 326. Stantune, Simon de, 66 n. Stapeham, Ealph de, 800». Stapleton, Robert de, 10, 16. , William de, 51, 57. , , Philip son of, 51, 57. , , ■, Burga wife of, 51, 57, o. Wililey. StapenhuU, Eichard de, 319. Stapleton, Nicholas de. Justiciar, 232. Stapeltun, Hauoi de, 67 n. Stepulton, Eobert de, 237 n. Stevinton, Hugh de, 330. , John de (I), 86 lis, 87, 131 », 298 quater, 300 n, 310, 312 n, 313 », 319, Sai lis, 328 », 329, 330 n. , ,Bailiff of Idsall, 298 n , John de (II), 324 », 325 n. 329, 330. 330. -, Seneschal of Idsall, , Thomas de, 326 «, 330. . WiUiam de, 325, 330. Stirchley, Osbert de, 172 », 315. , Eichard de, 124 «. , Eoger, Parson of, 316. , Walter de, 115 », 125 », 133 », 327 ». Stockton, Adam de, 143. , , Gilbert, brother of, 143. , , Matilda, wife of, 143. , , Eobert, brother of, 70 «, 143. INDEX OP PERSONS. 371 Stockton, Henry de, 144. — -, Herbert de, 143. -, Hugh, Domesday Tenant of. 142. -, Incumbents of, 148. , Nicbolas, Chaplain of, 70 », 148. , Olirer de, Parson of, 120 «, 145, 148. , PhUip de, 143, 144, 145. i/. Say. • , Walter de, 143. , , Richard, sou of, 144, 145. Stok, Richard, 816. Strange, Le, Family of, 3, V, 8, 66 n. Strange (of Brockton), Henry le, 14, 94 n, 102 n, 115 «, 117 », 118, 119 n. 124, 125 », 126 «, 129 n, 131 n. , Ralph le (Father of Henry), 125 ». , Roger le, 125 ». Strange (of Alveley, Weston, &e.), — , Guy le, 3, 63, 64, 66, 67 n, 14,, 84. , Ralph le. 111, 113. , , Matilda, sister of, 113, v. Sutton. -, Coheirs of, 69, 71, 74, 75, 113. Strange (of Blackmere), 121 », 145, 146. ; , John le, 121. , Fulk le, 120, 122, 128, 132, 145, 146, 336. , , Alianore, wife of, 122, u. Giffard. , , John, son of, 123. Strange, (of Ifesse and Cheswardine) — , John le (I), 66 », 280. , John le (II), 8, 68 «., 118, 170, 214. , John le (III), 57, 118, 120. , , Robert, son of, 57, 120, 145, 147, 318, 319, 321. , , Alianore, wife of, 120 «. . — . — , John le (IT), 120 «. Strange, Hamo le (1257), 295 Strange, Hamo le, 66 «. , , Adam son of, 66 ». , Hugo le, 66 ». , , John, brother of, 66 n. Strange, Mabil le, 7, v. Burwardsley. Stretton, Eugelard de, 81-84, 88, 150. , , Alice, sister of, 84, v. Burgo. -, Felicia, daughterof, 84. Stuiorius, Roger, 327 n. Subiri, Roger de, 71. Sudeley, Ralph de, 32. , , Henry and Otwel, bro- thers of, 82. Sudenhall, Robert de, 212 n. Sutor, Haco, 204, 211. Sutton, Gervaae {alias Jorwerth) Goch of, 107-113, 131. , , Madoc, eon of, 111, 112, 119, 137. , Griffin de, 70 », 94, 111-114, 119, 123-124, 126 n, 128, 129, 131, 134, 280. , , Matilda le Strange, wife of, 111, 113-116, V. Strange. -, Madoc, son of Griffin de, 14, 16, 17, 22, 92, 94 n, 111, 114, 116-120, 124, 126 n, 127, 129 «, 130 «, 132, 135, 306, 813 «, 317 ». , , Griffin, brother of. 111, 114, 126 n, 129 «. , , Howel, brother of. 111, 114. , , Duce, alias OecUia, wife of, 111, 116. , , Isabel, daughter of, 111, 118, 0. Morf. Sutton, Henry de Ideshale, Vicar of, 141. , Hugh, Chaplain of, 115 n, 141. , Incumbents of, 137-142. , John, Lord of, 120 », 131 ». , Nicholas, Chaplain of, 126 n, 130 n, 141. -, Priest of, 129 », 141. -, Vicar of, 119 n, 141. -, Philip, Chaplain of, 133, 141. -, Ralph, Clerk, Rector of, 137, 141. -, Richard, Chaplain of, 115 n, 141. -, Robert de, 115 « bis. -, , Nicholas, Chaplain, bro- ther of, 115 a. , William, Chaplain of, 141. I William, Beadle of, 125 n. Suygg (of Swiney), Richard, 39. , , Richard, son of, 39. Swiney, Memun de, 14, 38. ^ Peter de, 38. , Philip de, 21, 88 bis, 38. 372 INDEX OF PERSONS. Swiiiey, Stephen de, 15, 16 his, 22, 32, 38. , Warner de, 38. — , Wenne de, 21, 38. , "WiUiam de, 16, 23. Swinudus, 66 ». Syehe, John atte, 180. Sydenhale, Walinger de, 134 ». Sypton, Eoger, Dean of, 72. Talbot, John, 63 n, v. Richards Castle. Tateshale, Stephen Fitz Henry, 243. Taylour, Nicholas le (Tong), 238. , John le (Upton), 329 Us. Tece, John, 15, 16, 23, 32. , , John, sou of, 22 ? Tece (of Tasley), John, 100. Templars, The Knights (of Lidley), 14. , , Master of, 178. Tetbald, 46». , Robert son of, 46 n, 258 Us, 261, 265-267, 330-332. Tewkesbury, Abbot of, 290. Thebio, alias Terric, PrOTOst, 117 «. Thomas (tenant in Brockton), 15. ■ — -^, Priest, 212m. Thwst, 16 n. Time, Reginald or Rainald de, 124 k, 133 «, 170. Tong, HenJg'Jins de, 15. , ■ , William son of, 15. , Incumbents of, 251-2. , Incumbent of, Ernulf, 248-251. , , Robert de Shire- ford, 248, 251. -, Robert de Atterley. , William de, 16, 22. , William Parson of, 251. Tong-CoUege, Master of, 251. Toresmer, Adam de, 33. , Alan de, 33 n. Toret, 46-49, 305, 308. , Peter Fitz, 53, 112 «, 278 « Us, 279 n, 280 n, 281, 282 «, 305, 309. , Bartholomew, son of Peter, 112 n, 115 B, 279 », 280 «, 282, 306. . , , (Joan) daughter of, 307, 11. Corbet. , Gerald (or Gerard) Fitz, 14, 306. ■ , PhUip, son of Peter, 112 n, 279 «, 306. Toret, Walter, son of Peter, 115 n. Tornai, Gerard de, 103, 104, 106-109, 132, 142, 167-8. •, , Sibil, daughter of, wife of Hamo Peveral, 104, 106, 107 n. , -, * * * *, daughter of, al- leged wife of Wm. Pererel, v. Peverel. Torpel, Lucas de, 117 «. Torvill, Robert de, 278 ». Traoi, Pharamus de, 112 n, 279 n Us. , , John, brother of, 279 n. Traynel (of Hatton), Adam, 169, 170, 172, 304, 308. , , Ito, nephew of, 169, 304, 308. Reginald, son of. 169, 170. , Robert, 170, 171. , Robert (II), 171, 172, 264. , William, 171. Traynel (of WiUey), Adam, 58. Tregoz, John, Baron, 156, 159. — , , Clarice, daughter of, 156, II. Warre, De la. , , Sibil, daughter of, 156, -u. Grandison. Tresgoz, Geoffrey de, 273 n. Trilwardyne, Robert de, 94 n, 102 n, 119 «, 125 », 127 n, 311-312, 327 n. , , Petronilla, wife of, 312. , Robert de (II), 312, 328 n. , , Edith, daughter of, 312. Trullemag, Hugh, 212 ». Trussell, 255 n, 257. Trussell, William (of Cublesdon), 240. , ,IdaleBotyler,wifeof,240. , , Margaret daughter of, 226, 240, V Pembruge. Turburville, Robert de, 13, 21. , , Isabel, wife of, 13, 21, V. Beysin. . , Robert de. Rector of Brose- ley, 35. Turgod, or Turgot, 168, 258, 262, 264. Turnham, Stephen de, 286. Turold, 45-50, 55 k, 57, 304, 305. , Robert son of, 46 », 47, 48, 49, 50. Turold (1120), 50. Tusohet, Thomas, 298, 329. INDEX OB PERSONS. 373 u. Uluiet (T.R.E.), 48, 49, 304-5. Uluuard (1085), 258. Uluuin (T.B..E.), 258. TJmfraTill, 163 n. , Dame Margaret d', 336. TJmfrey, John, 155, o. Humphrey. Uppedun, v. Upton (Cressett). Uppinton, Emald, Chaplain of, 133 n. Upton (Cressett), Alan de, 176. , Hugh de, 18. , Thomas de, 18. Upton (Shiffnal), Petronilla de, 328-9, i Irish. , , Eichard, son of, 329. , Reginald de, Clerk, 217 », 328. , Robert de, 217 ». Val, Hugh de la, 209, 243, 244. , , Matilda, wife of, 209, 243-4, v. Belmeis. Valletort, Reginald de, 292, 297. , , Johanna, wife of, 292, 297, V. Basset. Vangi, Alan, 108. Venator, Ralph, 175 n. Venator, Norman, 82, 149, 150, 166. , Roger, 149, 258. Verdon, Thomas de, 296. , , Eustachia, wife of, 296, 11. Basset. Verleio, Turold de, 47, e. Turold. Vernon, Roger le, 223. Vernon, Family of, 192, 226, 255-6, 257. , Richard de, of Harlaston, 226, 240. , , Juliana Pembruge, wife of, 226, 240. , Richard de (II) of Harlaston, 226, 240. of, 226. , Johanna Grriffith, wife , Isabel, daughter of, 226. , , Joan, daughter of, 226. , Richard de (III) alias Pembruge, 226, 240, 255. , ,Benediota,wifeof,226, 255. , William de, 226. Vilers, Robert de, 278 n. ViTon, Hugh de, 215. Vylile, 165 ». It. W. Walensis, v. Walsh. Wales (North), Princes of — , Owen Gwyued, 4 », 108 n. , , Wenlhian, daughter of. 111. , David ap Owen, 112. , Lewellyn, 116. Wales (South), Prince of— , Rese, 110. Waleys, Nicholas le, 95. Walsh, Adam, 92 «. , Ralph, 123, 124. , Richard, 119 n. Walter (Romesley), 258. Walterville, Ascelina de, 5. Waltham, Henry de, 333 Us. Waneting, Henry de, 10. Wanton, Simon de. Justiciar, 127. War, John de la, 90, 156, 159, 160, 161, 246. , , Clarice, wife of, 156, v, Tregoz. , Roger de la, 156. Warin (de Metz), 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12. , the Bald, 2. Waruerius (supposed ancestorof Wililey), 50. Warren, Earl, WilUam (Plantagenet), 294. Warren, William de, 14. , , Rauulf, brother of, 14. Warwick, Earl of, Henry de Newburgh (1), 194. , , Henry de Newburgh (II), 296. -, Philippa Basset, wife of, 296. Was, Richard, 290. WatevUe, Robert de, 272, 292. , Walter de, 279 ». Welinton, Philip de, 133 n. Wenlock, Hugh de, 124 n. Wenlock, Prior and Convent of, 78, 79, 264. , Prior of, 19 «, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 54, 56, 59, 60, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80. , , Rainald, 40. , , Peter, 5. ^ , , Robert, 52 «, 280 ». , , Imbert or Humbert, 71, 116. 48 374 INDEX OF PERSONS. Wenloot, Prior of, G-uychard, 57 «. , , Eoland, 77. , Sacristan of, 33 «, 78. , Tiear of, 59, 60, 79. Weston, Agnes de, Sub-Prioress of Bre- wood, 189. , Hamo de, 186. , Hugh de, 86 Jw, 300 n. Weston (near Monk Hopton), Roger de, 37. Wiart, Robert, 67 n. Wioetre, William de, 67 n. Wifare (T.E.E.), 258. Wiga (T.K.E.), 258. Wilbricton, Hervey de, 207. — , William de, 10. Wilikin alias William (Sutton), 123. Wililey, Andrew Fitz Nicholas de, 51, 56, 57, 100, 242 n. , , * * * *, wife of (daughter of Walter de Hugford), 51, 56, 57. , , Burga, daughter of, 51, 57, 58, V. Stapleton and Harley. , Hugh de, 50, 51, 52. , Nicholas de, 10, 11, 15, 16, 32, 51, 55 «, 56, 57, 59, 242». I Burga, wife of, 51, 55, 56, V. Piehford. , Ralph, son of? 242. , Warner de, 2, 9, 15 n, 40, 51-56, 59, 126 n. Petronilla, wife of, 2 «, 15 », 51, 53-56, V. Fitz Odo. , , Juliana de Kenley, daughter of, 51. , Warner (presumed ancestor of). 51. Willesburgh, Master Robert de, 212 n. Willey, Incumbents of, 59, 60, 61. William (Domesday Tenant of Etone), 167. , Clerk (testis), Z7Qn, 281-2. Winchester, Bishop of, 72, 195. , , William Gifford, 199. . Earl of, 233. , , Roger de Quinoi, 209. -, Helen, daughter of, 209, V. Zouche. Wingebam, Henry de, 144. Wiscard, Baldwin, 124 n. Witefeld, Robert de, 6 n. Wiuar (T.R.E.), 80. Wodeoote, Richard, 169. , Robert de, 176. , , Robert, uncle of, 176. Wodeford, Nicholas de. Knight, 21. Wodetun (or Wudeton), Robert de, 71. , William de, 53. Wolaston, Ralph, 123. Wombridge, Prior and Canons of, 91, 92, 115 n, 122, 126 «, 131 », 134, 137-142, 279-280, 282, 298, 299, 313-4, 322-3, 325 », 335-6. , Henry, Prior of, 133 ». , Philip, Prior of, 322, 329. Woodhouse, (Shiffnal) Hamond de, 319. , , Henry sou of, 319, 320. , Roger de, 320. Worcester, Bishop of, 251. — , . —, Wulstau, 80. , , Godfrey Giffard, 233-5. Wrocworthin, Adam de, 133 n,. Wrottesley, Adam de, 364 ». , Sir WOUam de, 329 ». Wroxeter, Gregory Chaplain of, 133 ». Wurgena, 112 ». Wyke, Elyas de. Clerk, 311, 329 a. , Herbert de (Seneschal of Idsall), 92 «, 119 », 130 n, 299, 310, 328 «. , Herbert de (II), 131 ». 298 n Us, 300 », 310-1, 319 », 321», 322 «, 328«. , , John son of, 311, 313 ». 324 «, 325 ». , Robert de, 310, 327 «. , Robert Provost (of), 299. , Thomas de, 128, 311. Wystereston, Sir WiUiam de, 300 ». T. York, Archbishop of, 99 n. , , Thomas (II), 196, 197. , , Walter Giffard, 228- 230, 232-3. York, H. Dean of, 138 «. Ythel, V. Ithel. Yust, or Thwst, 16 ». Z. Zouche (of Ashby), 165 «, 185, 191, 206 «, 208, 209, 218 n, 326-7. INDEX OF PERSONS. 375 Zouche (of Ashby), Alan la (I), 177 », 208, 210, 212, 281 n, 299. — , , Adelioia, wife of, 208. v. Belmeis. , , Philip, son of, 208, 212. , Alan la (II), 179, 209, 210 ». 220-224, 218 », 220-224, 229, 236,237, 238, 242, 327. -, Alice, sister of, 209, 222. 237, V. Harcourt. — , Helen, wife of, 209, 218», 220, V. Quinci. — ■ , , Lora, sister of, 209. v. Sanford. , , William, alleged brother of, 209, u. Zouche of Mortimer. , , Eudo, or Ito, alleged sou of, 209, V. Zouche of Haryngworth. , Alan la (III) 209, 236, , , Eleiie, daughter of, 209. Zouche (of Ashby), Elizabeth, daughter of Alan la (III), 189, 209. , Maud, daughter of Alan la (III), 209. , Eoger la (I), 25, 177, 178, 308, 210 n, 212-220, 223, 233, 238, 248-9, » 250, 256, 326. , , Margaret, wife of, 208. , Roger la (II), 209. , William la, alias de Belmeis, 208. 210 », 212, 217, 218 n, 248-9, 250. Zouche of Haryngworth, 209. i Zouche (of Mortimer), 209. , William la, ancestor of, 209. , WUUam la (1315), 180, 239. Zotiche, Saris of Sritlany ? 210 «. , Alan la'j 210 n. , , Roger, son of, 210 n. , , William, grandson of, 210 «. ■ ■ ^- LONDON: PEIKTED BY ElIJAH TUOKEE, PEEUY'S PLACE, OXFOaD STEEET. a- ''^^-r^^K^ m^- i&h^i ..a ifiv f-^r- /^^